#dnaEdit: Elusive probe

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s denouncement of the United Nations Human Rights Council investigation of human rights violations during the last stages of the country’s civil war, as politically motivated and disproportionate, is a clear indication that he does not intend to cooperate with the international probe. Ever since the 47-member UNHRC vote in March, Rajapaksa has been under tremendous international pressure to grant visas to investigators. In his UN General Assembly speech, Rajapaksa alleged an “obvious lack of balance and proportion” in Sri Lanka being targeted despite “significant achievements” in sharp contrast to humanitarian emergencies elsewhere. What is not disputed or sought to be probed is Rajapaksa’s claims that “large-scale post-conflict reconstruction, rehabilitation and resettlement initiatives” have been implemented in a relatively short period, or that elections were held to the Northern Provincial Council in September last. Sri Lanka has not convincingly dispelled reports that extra-judicial arrests and murder, custodial torture, sexual assault and disappearances did not end with the war in May 2009. Documented instances of ongoing violations have been uncovered which points to organised modes of racial discrimination and marginalisation of Sri Lankan Tamils. However, Sri Lanka has denounced these exposes as pro-LTTE propaganda.

Rajapaksa’s contentions on the legitimacy of local investigations are, however, not borne out by his government’s human rights record. Though the Lessons Learnt and Rehabilitation Commission report submitted in December 2011 was castigated by Tamil and international groups as biased for concluding that the Sri Lankan Army did not target civilians deliberately during the war, it offered some important recommendations that went unheeded. The LLRC said the root cause of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka lay in the failure of successive governments to address the “genuine grievances of the Tamil people” and that the process  of reconciliation requires a “full acknowledgement of the tragedy of the conflict and a  collective act of contrition” by the political leaders and civil society of both Sinhala and  Tamil communities. The LLRC also sought investigations into forced disappearances. It regretted the absence of independent institutions which were undermined by the Eighteenth Amendment of 2010 that empowered the President to appoint members to commissions and judicial posts. The fallout of this legislation was evident when the Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake was impeached after presiding over two Benches that gave rulings against the government.

A February 2013 report of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights and a June 2014 report of the Special Rapporteur on Internally Displaced Persons(IDP) made several recommendations to the Sri Lankan government to reassess the role of the defence ministry and the army in policing functions, safeguarding the  fundamental rights of Sri Lankan Tamils, and granting IDPs rights to land. The key to this would be to implement the Thirteenth Amendment provisions devolving powers to the Northern Provincial Council on police and land administration. India, which abstained from the UNHRC vote in March terming the inquiry as “inconsistent and impractical”, has reposed faith in Sri Lanka pursuing its own investigations and implementing the LLRC recommendations. Taking a dig at India’s internal compunctions, Rajapaksa in a recent interview to The Hindu equated the Tamil issue to Kashmir saying neither India nor Sri Lanka would allow an external inquiry. Rajapaksa, whose term ends next year, narrowly survived a provincial council election last week with a greatly diminished vote share. Rajapaksa’s defiance of the international community is hardly surprising; but he will worry about the welling local discontent.