By C. A. Chandraprema
The ‘Asian Human Rights Commission’ wrote in again last week. What gluttons for punishment! The latest response purports to answer the three main questions that I raised in my articles of the 10th and 19th December. Firstly, in referring to the disappearances that took place in the late eighties, the AHRC held that

"The disappearances were not a campaign by a hostile foreign enemy nor were they part of a bloody civil war or revolution. It was a campaign by a democratically elected government (UNP) to remove an opposition."

Every Sri Lankan knows that that there was in fact a bloody rebellion launched by the JVP. My contention was that the AHRC denied that there was any such civil war or revolution at the time the disappearances took place in order to paint the then government in the blackest terms possible by saying that they made tens of thousands of youth disappear in a perverse attempt to ‘remove an opposition’ and not because there was any civil conflict.

ANARCHY, no less!

They have responded to my charge with an abstract legalism to the effect that "No circumstance, whether internal political instability or threat of war has any significance to the legal accountability for the disappearances". We were not discussing anybody’s accountability for the disappearances.

We were discussing the accountability of AHRC for false and misleading statements deliberately made in a public document.

Any public document is directly aimed at PUBLIC OPINION. The AHRC deliberately lied in a public document in order to create an unwarranted prejudice against Janaka Perera and also the government of the time.

In their latest response, the AHRC now claims that there was "a situation of anarchy in the country" at the time the disappearances took place. After I kicked their backsides, they now admit that there was in fact an unprecedented situation of civil disturbance in the country at the time. But in their original report on Janaka Perera published in the September issue of Christian Worker, they never mentioned any such situation of anarchy. Quite on the contrary, they went out of their way to say that there was absolutely no civil war or revolution or anything of the sort at the time the disappearances took place.

The AHRC is adamant that what existed at the time the disappearances took place was "anarchy" and not "civil war" or a "revolution". They even go to the extent of formally informing me that "Conditions of anarchy and a situation of civil war are different..." By whatever term it is called, whether civil war, revolution or anarchy, there was a situation of unprecedented civil disturbance at the time the disappearances took place. I am quite amused by the term "anarchy" that the AHRC insists on to describe the situation that prevailed at the time. According to the Oxford dictionary, "anarchy" means "The absence of government or control in society". According to the Chambers dictionary, it means "the complete lack of law or government".

Now folks, if there was a situation of "anarchy" in the country as the AHRC so assiduously insists, then there was no law or "government" as such during the period in question. Then may I in all innocence inquire why the AHRC is expressly blaming the then ‘government’ of having been responsible for the disappearances? - This is the problem that emerges when the AHRC tries to cover up its lies and deception by engaging in verbal contortions.

JVPers in SLFP garb?

The AHRC quotes the "Commissions of Inquiry" report on Disappearances to the effect that – "In some cases, lists of persons appear to have been given by politicians who belong to the United National Party. In most other cases, the evidence reveals that the persons involuntarily removed were either SLFP organisers or active supporters of the SLFP. It seems clear that political opponents of the then regime were eliminated under the guise of crushing the JVP."

It is probably on the strength of this assertion that the AHRC stated in their ‘report’ on Janaka Perera that "Many of the victims were outside the insurgency movement some victims were simply members of legally recognised political parties..." Readers will note that even the commissions of inquiry do not explain how many is meant by the term ‘most’. The commissions of inquiry had every opportunity to take a count of the number of victims who claimed to be SLFP. They have come up with a figure of 15% of the total being under the age of 19. But they have not come up with a similar percentage for those who claimed to be SLFP. So we again have to depend on ambiguous terms like ‘most’ or ‘many’.

If ‘most’ of the victims identified by the commissions of inquiry were SLFP organisers and activists, then in numerical terms what that means is that at least 14,000 of the 26,877 victims were SLFP. And as the commissions of inquiry have said, they were not just ‘members’ but ‘organisers and ‘active supporters’ of the SLFP and therefore prominent enough to be easily identifiable. Everyone for miles around will know that such and such SLFP stalwart had been killed or abducted. The UNP has details of its activists killed by the JVP. The LSSP, CPSL SLMP and NSSP which were the constituent parties of the United Socialist Alliance have details of their members killed by the JVP. In fact some months ago, a former member of the SLMP (now of the SLFP) Chandana Kathriarchchi organised an exhibition of JVP atrocities exclusively featuring left wing victims of the JVP’s death squads. Now folks my question is, if as the commissions of inquiry claim ‘most’ of the people who disappeared were SLFP why is it that the SLFP in all their seven years in power did not organise an exhibition of their ‘organisers’ and ‘active supporters’ killed by the UNP government? Much less than having an exhibition of SLFP activists killed by the UNP government, there isn’t even a list of such names. The SLFP has traditionally needed ‘dead bodies’ to fuel their political campaign. If they had more than 14,000 dead bodies of their very own, they would have gone to town on it. It is because they did not have dead bodies of their own that they ‘borrowed’ or ‘hijacked’ the JVP’s dead bodies at the 1994 elections.

The actual fact is that there were no SLFP victims. There was only one prominent SLFP death during this time that of Indrapala Abeyweera and this was included in Chandana Kathriarachchi’s exhibition. Other than this, the JVP had attacked and killed a few SLFP supporters in the provinces. But by and large, the SLFP escaped with minimal damage from the terror of the late eighties. To claim that ‘most’ of the disappeared were SLFP members is nothing but a damn LIE! If we accept the story trotted out by these so called commissions of inquiry, we are faced with the paradox of the JVP ceasing to exist as a result of SLFPers getting killed. If the JVP ceased to exist when members of the SLFP were killed, then the natural inference is that those killed were members of the JVP masquerading as SLFP members! Is that the conclusion that the commissions of inquiry want us to arrive at?

The PA’s kangaroo courts

In addition to the lie that most of the disappeared were prominent members of the SLFP, the commissions of inquiry report has also uttered another falsehood which has been quoted as the Gospel truth by AHRC. Speaking of a graph that the commissions of inquiry had drawn up, they say:

"The graph establishes that the removals and killings showed a marked increase from the nominations for the Presidential election in 1988 and continued in that manner until the general elections and thereafter. The security personnel who until then had dealt with the JVP problem in a fair manner were goaded into indiscriminate removals and killings, after an alleged ultimatum purported to have been issued by the JVP, that unless the service personnel deserted their posts, members of their family would be killed. It is probable that this was a ploy adopted by the then government to use the security forces to crush their political opponents."

This is another damned lie! The JVP issued an ultimatum to the armed forces only after the middle of 1989 around August. From around April 1989, the JVP had been trying to persuade armed forces personnel to side with them using a combination of emotional appeals and veiled threats. But it was only in August that the JVP issued their ‘ultimatum’ to the military and began to carry out their threats. There was no ‘ultimatum’ issued by the JVP to the armed forces between November 1988 and February 1989 when the Presidential and Parliamentary elections took place. It was only towards the latter half of 1989 that they issued the ultimatum on the armed forces and that proved to be their waterloo. They did not last for three months after that ultimatum was issued. I have given an exhaustive description of these events in my 1990 series on the JVP’s second insurrection.

Given those facts why has the commissions of inquiry brought forward the date of the ultimatum to the elections period in 1988 and 1989? And why do they hint that this ultimatum might not have been by the JVP at all but a ‘ploy’ of the government to get the armed forces to really go after the JVP? Even the UN working group report of December 1999 concedes that the JVP targeted the families of armed forces personnel. All these so called "Commissions of Inquiry" were kangaroo courts appointed by the People’s Alliance government to sling mud and heap calumny on the UNP.

But the AHRC uses the political mud slung at the UNP by these so called commissions of Inquiry as the gospel truth and bases their statements on the rubbish put out by these kangaroo courts. After these ‘commissioners’ had finished their job of slinging mud at the UNP, they were given top jobs by the PA government. This is why the ‘commissioners’ went out of their way to make false ‘political’ statements about the UNP in their reports. Because the case of the disappearances were also brought within the purview of such kangaroo courts established by the PA, this whole issue is now shot through with politicisation.

Hong Kong ‘stir-fried’ figures

Then we come to the question of numbers. I asked the AHRC from where they got the figure of 30,000 disappearances that appears in their advertisement in Christian Worker. My accusation was that the AHRC had arrived at the figure of 30,000 by arbitrarily ‘rounding upwards’ the figure of 26,877 given by the commissions of inquiry. I quoted this as an example of the kind of manipulation engaged in by AHRC in order to blow up the issue and to enhance the prejudice created. Now the AHRC replies that the number 30,000 is made up of the amount of 26,877 given by the commissions of inquiry PLUS the disappearances in the north and east!

That is a lie! That figure of 30,000 does NOT include disappearances in the north and east. If one looks at the back cover AHRC advertisement in Christian Worker, one will see the sentence "Disappearances from 1989-1992" written below the figure of 30,000. If as the AHRC claims the disappearances in the north and east is included in the figure of 30,000 it means that over 3100 disappearances took place in the north and east in between 1989 and 1992. As everybody knows, the LTTE was having its peace talks with Premadasa from May 1989 till June 1990 and no disappearances could have taken place during the peace talks. Now, what ‘OFFICIAL SOURCE’ says that there were over 3100 disappearances in the North and east between June 1990 and the end of 1992? (The advertisement explicitly claims that the figure of 30,000 is according to ‘official’ estimates.) Furthermore, in this advertisement, there is the assertion printed below the figure of 30,000 that 15% of that number was below the age of 19. Now, folks, according to the previous reply of the AHRC it was the ‘commissions of inquiry’ who had said that 15% of the 26,877 JVP related victims were below the age of 19. Now according to the AHRC the figure of 30,000 includes over 3100 disappearances in the north and east as well. Is it true that exactly 15% of the disappeared in the north and east were also below the age of 19? What a coincidence!

What does one do with LIARS of this sort? In that original AHRC report reproduced in the September issue of Christian Worker, an AHRC spokesman Tim Gill refers to the "atrocities committed in Sri Lanka between 1988 and 1992" and he expressly says that "These disappearances were not part of the Sinhala Tamil conflict." When AHRC refers to disappearances that took place between 1988 and 1992, they mean only the disappearances in the South. And the advertisement in Christian Worker also refers to disappearances between 1989 and 1992 all of which were in the south. If one looks at that advertisement one will see that even the mass grave sites marked on the map of Sri Lanka are only in the south and none in the north and east. The AHRC now claims that disappearances in the north and east are also included in the figure of 30,000 because under persistent questioning, they cannot account for the arbitrary increase of over 3100 in the figure of 26,877 given by the commissions of inquiry.

The UN in ‘soy sauce’

The AHRC claims to have made up the ‘shortfall’ of 3100 lives from ‘several reports’ and in particular the report of a UN Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances published in December 1999. I have a copy of this report and it most certainly does NOT say that over 3100 disappearances took place in the north and east between 1989 and 1992 or that 15% of that number were below the age of 19. This UN working group had received a total of 12,258 disappearances over a period spanning almost two decades (no less!) from 1980 to 1999. Of these 10,131 were JVP related and were concentrated in the years 1987-1990. The remaining 2,127 pertained to the north and east and was the total figure for the entire two decades from 1980 to 1999. Of this 799 disappearances took place between 1995 and 1999. Therefore the remainder for the entire period from 1980 to 1995 is 1328. Now in the AHRC advertisement under discussion, the figure given is only for the years 1989 to 1992. The AHRC claims to have made up the shortfall of over 3100 lives in the figure of 30,000 given in the advertisement, by consulting ‘in particular’ this UN Working Group report. That is a blatant lie. Even the total number of disappearances in the north and east for the entire nineteen year period does not warrant the figure of 30,000 disappearances given by the AHRC in their advertisement. I am going into all this detail to show the reader that the AHRC lied and is spewing fresh lies to cover up the old ones.

By mentioning ‘only’ a figure of 30,000 in their advertisement in the Christian Worker, the AHRC claims to have been ‘conservative’ on the grounds that 30,000 is ‘less than 60,000’! They will now claim to have been ‘conservative’ in their estimates after having been kicked in the backside by me. But in their report on Janaka Perera in the September issue of Christian Worker, A certain Tim Gill said to be a spokesman for AHRC says the following in reference to Janaka Perera.

"The fact that a man associated with such heinous crimes has risen to such a high level is not an anomaly - it is characteristic of the systematic nature of the disappearance of up to 60,000 people carried out by those at the highest echelons of power in Sri Lanka..."

Where is the ‘conservatism’ or ‘restraint’ that the AHRC speaks of? Why did they use terms like "a man associated with such heinous crimes" to describe Janaka Perera and then mention the figure of 60,000 as the number of disappearances? They manipulate phraseology and figures in order to create the ‘maximum effect’ in the minds of the public.

One of the most incredible things about AHRC’s latest reply is that they accuse me of making a ‘fuss’ about the numbers of the disappeared. They dare to use the word ‘fuss’ to describe my attitude towards numbers! This is why I say these people are not professionals. The AHRC full page advertisement on the back cover of Christian Worker screams "DEFECTIVE Police Investigations and Prosecution System". What that means is that proper investigations and prosecution of cases has not taken place. For proper investigations and prosecution to take place the first thing that has to be established is the exact number of people who disappeared. Then their identities have to be established, then the date and circumstances of the disappearance. And finally evidence about who caused the disappearance is needed. It is only then that a successful prosecution can take place. The most important factor is the number of persons. Right now, the AHRC mentions all sorts of figures, they say, 26,877 using the commissions of inquiry figure. then they round this upwards to 30,000 and then to 60,000. What is the actual number of people who disappeared?

These international NGO’s tend to incestuously use each other’s estimates. One organisation will casually mention that ‘NGOs say’ that 60,000 disappeared. Some other organisation will get hold of that and say that ‘such and such’ organisation mentioned a figure of 60,000 disappearances. Then another organisation will quote the second organisation and so on in an incestuous round of self deception. This is why I insist on questioning exactly HOW any particular organisation arrived at the figures they cite. I am not willing to ride on an international merry-go-round of self-deception or deliberate misinformation. I want facts and proper figures!

So long as the actual number of those who disappeared continues to remain in the realm of speculation and conjecture, this problem will never be resolved. Let us for example imagine that the figure of 26,877 was the actual number of those who disappeared. Even if the police and the Attorney General’s Department successfully prosecutes the culprits for all 26,877 disappearances, still AHRC will continue to shout from the rooftops that the Police investigations and Prosecution system was defective because the remaining 33,123 (60,000 - 26,877) cases have not been prosecuted!

THERE IS NO POLICE FORCE OR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE IN THE WORLD THAT CAN INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE ‘DISAPPEARANCE’ OF INDIVIDUALS WHO NEVER EXISTED!

This is why I tell these human rights activists, go district by district, village by village, do a headcount of all those killed or disappeared. Classify them by political affiliation claimed, have one file for each individual with rudimentary evidence that such a person actually existed - then they can demand prosecution of those who caused those deaths or disappearances.

Reforming the reformers

And finally a word about the ‘eyewitness account’ about Janaka Perera’s alleged detention centre. The AHRC says again that they have ‘carefully investigated’ and ‘checked the facts’ mentioned by the former detainee. (Again they do not tell us exactly HOW they have ‘investigated and checked the authenticity of this story.) They also say that they are ‘satisfied’ that the account given by the detainee is ‘consistent’ with the details of detention centres given in the reports of the commissions of inquiry. Those ‘commissions of inquiry’ were Kangaroo courts established by the then government for the sole purpose of heaping calumny on the previous regime and they cannot be taken as a benchmark for anything.

The PA ruled this country between 1994 and 2001 - until just one month ago. If the AHRC has such immense faith in the commissions appointed by the PA, then what it means is that there was an ideal environment during the rule of the PA for them to have presented their ‘eyewitness account’ to the courts and to have initiated action against Janaka Perera. The fact that they did not make any attempt to present this eyewitness account to the courts while the PA was in power is the clearest indication that this is not an eyewitness account that can stand up to the scrutiny of the law - and they know it. There is a strong possibility that this so called eye witness account is a total fabrication. Sri Lanka is a country where the village yokels love litigation for its own sake. Even that oft quoted UN working group report observed that between 1994 and 1997, the "commissions of inquiry" had received a total of 27,526 complaints and only in the case of 16,742 ( 60% of the total) had they been able to find actual evidence of disappearance!

The rest were probably all fabrications which even the legally inept kangaroo courts of the PA could not countenance. This is Sri Lanka! Disappearence is one of the easiest things to establish. All that is needed is evidence that the person named actually existed. Next, one has to establish that his wereabouts are now not known. - That is all that one needs to establish that a disappearence has taken place. Whether the disappearence was involuntary or whether the person concerned has merely run away from home or whether he was abducted and killed by death squads and other details are matters to be dealt with later. If the commissions could not establish that the person named had actually disappeared in 40% of the cases that came before them, one can see the extent to which politicisation has affected this issue.

One has to be very careful when talking to Sinhalese peasants. On the one hand this issue of the disappeared is highly politicised. Then there is the anthropological factor of yokels engaging in litigation and complaints simply because they are addicted to such things. I can distinctly remeber a colonial era observer speaking of the ‘natives’ love of litigation. The truth suffers as a result of both factors. This is why I say that we should disregard even the figures put out by the PA’s "commissions of inquiry" and have an exhaustive and professional, independent headcount taken with details of victims being filed INDIVIDUALLY.

The AHRC has the temerity to sanctimoniously claim that they will be withholding this eyewitness account until "such time that ‘genuine’ judicial investigations into these matters are begun." To claim that they are ‘withholding’ the eyewitness account until such time that they are satisfied with the legal procedures in Sri Lanka is pure chicanery. When will they be ‘satisfied’ with the Sri Lankan legal system? It might be never! In the meantime, they can continue to use this so called eyewitness account in their campaign of calumny against Janaka Perera! It is people like this who have the grandiose plan of ‘reforming’ the Attorney General’s Department in Sri Lanka. God Forbid! If at all the Attorney General’s Department is reformed it should be on the advice of a comparable institution from overseas not by a bunch of Liars and charlatans like the AHRC. I have a better idea. The Sri Lanka Attorney General’s Department should instead send a few newly recruited junior officers to Hong Kong to reform the AHRC!
Editor’s Note: This correspondence is now closed.