|
State officials and their minions have moved heaven and earth to shield the
government from the adverse repercussions of the Bindunuwewa massacre. Their
persistence has been answered with equal determination on the part of those who
are striving steadfastly to see that the criminals are brought to book and
justice prevails. And in this battle of wits, a week does not pass without
information surfacing that sheds new light on the sordid affair.
The identification parade that began this week before the Bandarawela magistrate
revealed that three teacher trainees from the Bindunuwewa teacher training
college had been allegedly involved in the massacre. They were identified by the
survivors. While the identification points to 'organised' civilian involvement
in the killings (as opposed to the 'mob' theory totted out by the human rights
commission), it also shows the moral turpitude of Sri Lankan society, where
those who should set a good example are very persons who seem to be in the
forefront of evil.
Be that as it may, the statement in parliament by Prime Minister Ratnasiri
Wickremenayake was a tacit acknowledgment by the government that despite its
best efforts and those by the human rights commission (HRC) - which has evolved
into the regime's chief trouble shooter in the sphere of human rights - the
horror and villainy of Bindunuwewa has become an indelible part of history and
of both local and international public discourse.
Wickremenayake's statement in parliament agreeing to appoint a commission was
greeted with sighs of relief. However, this does not mean that the public can
relax its vigilance, because as the proverb puts it, there is many a slip
between the cup and the lip. And the slips that loom ahead are subtle and unless
the process is handled with circumspection, could still very well turn against
those who would wish to see justice done.
Public pressure and relentless demands of the parliamentary opposition has
pressurised the government into consenting to debate Bindunuwewa in the House. A
copy of the HRC's report has been received in parliament which will be the
nucleus around which the debate will revolve.
While parliament will debate the issue and hopefully apply even greater pressure
for the expeditious appointment of a commission, the question is: what will be
this commission be and how effective?
The commission, if it sees the light of day, will, very probably, be appointed
by President Chandrika Kumaratunga. It will be interesting to see who it will
comprise. After all, the efficacy of any commission depends on the people who
compose it. If the past is any indication, the record of the Kumaratunga
government in appointing people entrusted with the task of adjudication, in
whatever body it might be, has been fraught with controversy.
For instance, the opposition parties are to move parliament for the appointment
of a parliamentary select committee (PSC) to probe the conduct of the chief
justice. Among the allegations against him is of his reluctance to grant leave
to proceed in fundamental rights cases. Earlier, the appointment of Shiranee
Bandaranayake to the supreme court bench stirred a flurry of protest, which
however abated.
In the same way, the first batch of commissioners of the HRC appointed in 1997
by Kumaratunga invited stinging criticism. Whether it was because of
inefficiency or in a deliberate attempt at saving the government of the day from
embarrassment, the HRC under Retired Judge O. S. M. Seneviratne was a joke. Even
eliciting a simple piece of information such as the number of PTA detainees
island-wide, remained almost impossible during its tenure of office.
On the other hand, when commissioners such as those who formed the Bribery
Commission tried to function independently, their work was constantly mired by
problems, which, effectively had the commission hamstrung and thereby
ineffectual. Therefore, the composition of the commission is vital.
Secondly, but no less important, are the terms of reference (TOR) or the mandate
that will be given to the commission. It is this which will define the scope of
the commission's activity and thereby its efficacy. Once again the past is
instructive.
Soon after the Kokka- dicholai massacre where military personnel went on a
rampage killing innocent civilians, President R. Premadasa lost no time in
appointing a commission. There was however a fatal flaw in the commission's TOR.
The commission was only empowered to inquire into the incident and recommend
compensation wherever suitable. The commission did just that.
The three commissions appointed to probe disappearances during the JVP rebellion
in the late 1980s had similar restrictions. It inquired and it reported. It did
nothing else. Some families have received compensation on the basis of those
reports. But the perpetrators are still going free.
Such restrictive TOR is insufficient. A commission that cannot recommend
suitable punishment to those the inquiry finds guilty, would have succeeded in
accomplishing only half the job. Only if the commission can recommend proper
punishment, which when effected acts as a deterrent to future perpetrators, will
the commission's sittings have been worth its while.
This is the reason for concern among human rights activists about the TOR that
will define the scope of the commission to probe Bindunuwewa. It is vital that
it has powers of prosecution where it will act like a court and ensure that the
perpetrators are prosecuted under Sri Lankan law.
In the past, criticism was leveled at the government when it appointed
commissions such as those probing the Batalanda torture chamber and the
assassinations of Lalith Athulathmudali and Vijaya Kumaratunga. It was stated
that the appointments were motivated by hunger for vengeance and political
advantage. And among the defects of a presidential commission, it was pointed
out, was that it was appointed by the executive.
As prejudiced presidents bent on seeking political advantage have appointed
pliant commissioners in the past, the same could be repeated this time too.
Appointing those who turn a blind eye to evidence before them, or those who
manipulate matters to suit the ends they are working towards, will be
detrimental to the outcome of the inquiry.
We have to understand that the atmosphere in the past 20 years has not been
conducive to disciplining the military. This column has referred to instances in
the past where justice was denied to victims of armed forces' brutality citing
various bureaucratic and procedural snags. Today, prosecuting the police and
armed services is more difficult than ever.
The so-called peace moves have left the security forces (including the police)
out in the cold - especially the latest initiatives where it has been openly
acknowledged that Sri Lankan security forces cannot win the armed confrontation.
When morale is not at its highest, in a situation where the government is yet to
officially refute the words that Sri Lanka cannot win the war militarily, to go
behind policemen with the intention of punishing them for wrongdoing will be a
formidable task for any government. And the government will do anything to ward
off the pressure that is compelling it to take action against the errant the
policemen
This is where foreign monitoring through an observer mission on how proceedings
are conducted during the commission's sitting and direct pressure on the
president and the government by perhaps the donor community, could help.
While human rights organisations, foreign donors and public bodies can maintain
pressure and suggest ways whereby an effective commission may be appointed, it
is finally the public that will have to compel the authorities to act to clean
up the mess of Bindunuwewa. And it is here that certain unfortunate trends in
the mass media seem to have served to obfuscate and play down issues.
At a recent seminar organised by the European Union to discuss matters
pertaining to conflict and the role of the media, journalists from two privately
run English dailies had stated that there was a decision by newspaper editors to
play down the Bindunuwewa incident in the interest of communal harmony and
public order.
As far as The Sunday Leader is concerned, no such decision was taken by the
editors. On the contrary, the entire matter, if what the journalists say is
true, smacks of an unfortunate attempt at self-censorship either by some of the
editors themselves or by their proprietors.
At the same time, there were meetings in the state owned newspapers, where the
journalistic staff was specifically cautioned against playing up headlines and
stories about Bindunuwewa. It was mentioned at these meetings that the state run
newspapers had been given the task of keeping the publicity of the matter under
wraps as much as possible.
Bindunuwewa, coming at this point of time has proved to be a great embarrassment
to the government. And this discomfiture has set in motion forces, which are
working over-time, to stave off the negative consequences from this act of
stark, inhuman, brutality. These moves will try to bring about a climate where
public pressure urging an impartial probe of the Bindunuwewa incident that
hinges on the appointment of an independent commission with prosecuting powers,
is quietly pushed into oblivion. It is this trend that has to be arrested.
|
