|
 
Black July 1983: the Charge is Genocide
But the Sri Lankan government said the attacks
were a left inspired plot against the government!...
But, having admitted that the attack was a planned attack and the
result of a contingent plan, who did the Sri Lankan government say
were the planners of this planned attack on the Tamil people? On the
22nd of August 1983, President Jayawardene stated in an address to
the nation (see also Full
Text of Address):
"Three weeks ago, the people of Sri Lanka passed through
experiences which they have rarely had in this country since
Independence. Hundreds of people lost their lives, thousands
lost their jobs, houses were burned, factories destroyed.
These events applied equally to all citizens of Sri Lanka
- Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims....
I had been advised that I should say this or something
else, but I thought that I should speak from the depth of my
conscience..."
President Jayawardene, plumbed the depths of his conscience and
his conscience told him that 'these events applied equally
to all citizens of Sri Lanka'. President Jayawardene would
have had his listeners believe that the murder and arson of July
1983 was not an attack on the Tamil people - on the contrary, it was
a left inspired attack on the government, which 'applied equally to
all citizens of Sri Lanka, Sinhala, Tamils and Muslims'. He
continued:
"..these (left wing) parties do not believe in democracy,
these parties feel that, under the democratic system, the
economic advance that we have undertaken, the economic steps we
have taken to give jobs to our people, to raise the standard of
living of our people, would attain such a height in the next few
years that all chances of coming to office will be lost and
finished."
President Jayawardene's Minister of State, Mr.Anandatissa de
Alwis was more specific:
"This was part of an international conspiracy to
destabilise us. We know who are behind it at all. I have
even told the nation this... These people are jealous of the
success of our experiments with a free economy. That is why they
are trying their best to set us in flames. Behind all this is
the foreign hand: the KGB, to be precise. I am not afraid of
saying this openly." (Interviewed
by Pritish Nandy, Illustrated Weekly of India, 18 December 1983)
But, what was the nature of the 'economic advance' which
President Jayawardene's government had undertaken and which these
left wing parties feared would lose them 'all chances of coming into
office' through the democratic process? Sri Lanka's external debt
rose from Rs.13,000 million in 1977 to a massive Rs.42,000 million
in 1982 - an increase of more than 200%. Its terms of trade
deteriorated sharply by 64% during the same period. The purchasing
power of its exports saw a marked decline and it became increasingly
dependent on foreign aid and support. Again, the government was
compelled to introduce harsh expenditure cuts in not only welfare
budgets but also in capital projects. Fixed income employees were
hardest hit by rising inflation and in 1980 a nationwide strike had
resulted in 40,000 employees losing their jobs.
President Jayawardene's own confidence in the response of the
Sinhala electorate to the 'economic advance' that his government had
undertaken was such that in December 1982, he had taken the
unprecedented step of postponing the general elections that were due
in 1983, by holding a referendum under an emergency. A Dutch Working
Group reported in December 1983:
"..the reason given for the referendum was the 'discovery' by
the President of a threat to his life and a plot to overthrow
the government, by a group of 'naxalites' - a group within the
main opposition party, the SLFP. These persons were taken into
custody and a state of emergency was declared. The referendum
was then held, with a state of emergency prevailing; with the
main organisers of the opposition party behind bars; and the
Presidents main opponent, Mrs. Bandaranaike prevented from
taking part (because she had been deprived of her civic rights).
Once the referendum was held, the threat to the government
seems to have disappeared as mysteriously as it had emerged. A
police inquiry into the alleged conspiracy could come up with no
evidence against the accused...The referendum was held in an
atmosphere of violence, corrupt practices and intimidation of
the opposition unprecedented in Sri Lanka's electoral history.
.. The whole shameful charade calls into question the legitimacy
of the UNP's present term of office...It is worth recalling that
Hitler too, used the stratagem of referenda, maintained a
climate of anti semitism and anti communism reinforced by
political thuggery to suspend 'guaranteed civil liberties', to
create an awesome dictatorship."
And Australia's New South Wales M.P.,
Timothy J.Moore reported in June 1983:
"The Civil Rights Movement of Sri Lanka has published a
critique of the referendum questioning whether it was, in fact
'free and fair'. This analysis, released in January 1983, in
summary alleges that there were serious defects both prior to
the poll and on polling day. The Movement also draws attention
to some statistical analysis in selected electoral districts
that would appear, prima facie, to raise grave questions as to
the accuracy of the count returned from those districts... The
author shares the concern expressed by the Secretary General of
the International Commission of Jurists about the desirability
of the use of a referendum to extend the term of the parliament
and also is deeply concerned as to whether the referendum, in
fact, was conducted freely and fairly and could be taken as
representing the expression of opinion of the people of Sri
Lanka..." (Ethnic and Communal Violence: The Independence of
the Judiciary: Protection of Fundamental Rights and the Rule of
Law in Sri Lanka - Fragile Freedoms? -
Report of an ICJ
Mission to Sri Lanka in June 1983 - Timothy J.Moore M.P)
Patricia Hyndman, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of New South
Wales and Secretary, commented in the Lawasia Human Rights Standing
Committee Report, Democracy in Peril, published in June 1985:
''...at this time, government statements indicated that the
violence had arisen from a foreign inspired plot to overthrow,
or at least to seriously undermine, the government's authority.
Hinted at was the involvement of a foreign power which was said
to be using the Soviet affiliated Communist Party to destroy Sri
Lanka's economic developments... By the time of our departure
from Sri Lanka (September 1st) no evidence had been made public
to substantiate these allegations of the involvement of either
the leftist parties or a foreign power in the July violence.''
''Many foreign local observers... regard the claims of
Mr.Jayawardene and his fellow ministers (of a left wing plot and
foreign involvement) as an attempt to cover up the fact that a few
leading members of his own government and his ruling United National
Party may have played a leading role in the plot (to attack the
Tamils)...''
(John Elliott in the Financial Times, 12 August 1983)
Again, though President Jayawardene claimed that the July '83
attack was the result of a left inspired contingent plan, the Sri
Lankan Ambassador,
Mr. Tissa Jayakody told the Sub Commission
on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in Geneva, on
22 August 1983, the same day that President Jayawardene addressed the nation in
Sri Lanka, that the incidents of July and August were a 'spontaneous reaction'.
He said:
" The incidents which had been sparked off ... at Colombo and
in other parts of the country (after the ambush of 13 soldiers
in Jaffna) had been a spontaneous reaction..." (Summary
Record of 10th Meeting of 36th Session of UN Sub Commission on
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 22
August 1983)
The government of Sri Lanka spoke in two voices. Which voice, if
any, represented the truth?
...continued..
Full text
of President J.R.Jayawardene's Address to the Nation on 22
August 1983 and quoted in Lawasia Report 'Democracy in
Peril - Sri Lanka, a Country in Crisis' by Patricia Hyndman, 7
June 1985
"Three weeks ago, the people of
Sri Lanka passed through experiences which they have rarely had
in this country since Independence. Hundreds of people lost
their lives, thousands lost their jobs, houses were burned,
factories destroyed. These events applied equally to all
citizens of Sri Lanka - Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims.
Fortunately it was confined only to certain area of Sri Lanka,
including Colombo. I express my deepest sympathy to those who
have suffered and we shall try our best to see what help we can
afford to them.
I am speaking to you today as the
Head of the State and Head of the Government elected by the
people.
I am not here, put
in this position by arms or violence but by the free vote of the
people. My Government too was elected by the people, where a
democratic
Government functions in a democratic environment.
I had been advised that I should
say this or something else, but I thought I should speak from
the depths of my own conscience, not to hurt anyone, not to
please anyone, but to place before you certain facts and
opinions which I hold.
There has been a
growing tension between
the Sinhalese and Tamil people in the last thirty five to forty
years. I need not go into the history of these conflicts.
But when we came forward for election in 1977, the United
National Party, in its manifesto, outlined how it intended to
solve some of these problems. Since then, we have introduced
legislation imposing certain conditions which we promised we
would do. We have implemented them, may be not as fully as we
wished to, but we are in the process of doing so.
We have, therefore, taken
whatever steps we could legitimately, to implement the
provisions of our manifesto.
We intended at the Round Table
Conference, which we summoned just before these violent
activities took place, to place before those who attended the
Conference, our solutions and what we intended to do, and also
to obtain the consensus for the banning and making illegal of
the desire for a separate State. Unfortunately, we were unable
to do so because, on the first occasion, many of the Parties
invited did not come, and, on the second occasion, violence had
broken out.
Instead we were able to
introduce in Parliament a resolution and a law to make the
desire and the movement for a separate State, illegal. For
the first time in our history, since a group of politicians
decided to divide this country into two, we brought that legal
action to make such a step illegal and punishable. I need not go
into the details of that law.
We also had a
dialogue with the Prime Minister of India and, for the first
time, the central Government of India has specifically stated
that they do not support the separation of our country, will not
help in such a movement and further that they stand for the
unity, the integrity and the independence of Sri Lanka. It was
when we had come to this stage of our dialogue with those who
wanted a separate State, that the violence broke out.
We have also decided that in
future we will not have any talks with any Party that wants to
advocate the separation of Sri Lanka. Therefore, who would
benefit of this violence created or these violent actions taken.
I cannot think of any solution to the problem we face by
violence. Some say the violence was communal, some say it was
political. It is true there was a growing feeling, as I said, of
tension and animosity between the Sinhalese and the Tamil
people. That animosity was re created and flamed up for the
purpose of the political activities and desires of those who, we
think, led, spearheaded and outlined this movement.
You are aware that this
Government came into office on July 23, 1977. The elections were
on July 21st. The results were on July 22nd, and myself and the
members of my cabinet took their oaths on July 23, 1977. We had
the Presidential election last year and the people decided at a
Referendum that General Elections which were due in August 1983,
will not be held but be postponed for six years. Since the
results of the Referendum there have been various speeches and
actions by members of certain political parties that they would
not let this Government function after August 1983.
I draw your attention
particularly to a statement made by Mr. Vasudeva Nanayakkara who
was a candidate for one of the bye elections in May 1983 to the
Eheliyagoda seat. He had said quite specifically there that if
he is elected he would use his powers as a member of Parliament
for extra Parliamentary activity, joining hands with the
terrorists in the North for this purpose of achieving their
objects. He has further stated that he does not stand for
democratic elections, but is prepared to join in what he calls
“Aragalaya.’, that is riot or a disturbance or a violent
movement for the purpose of seeing that elections are held in
August 1983, and this Government does not function after that.
It is obvious, therefore, on the statements of the Nava
Samasamaja Party leader, Mr. Vasudeva Nanayakkara, that from
August 1983, they were preparing for some form of violence or
disturbances.
We have evidence that, soon after
the referendum or during the referendum, a certain group that
were called the Naxalite group, were preparing, by inflaming the
people’s minds, making them violent minded against the
Government, against the President, that they would take some
action, in case they returned to office, to destroy the United
National Party and others who thought democratically, including
those in the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, who were democratically
minded. We have also the conduct of the JVP which is a party
which took to arms in 1971, fought the Government of the day,
tried to destroy it, took over the Police Stations and almost
succeeded in bringing down a lawfully elected Government. I
remember I was the Leader of the Opposition at that time in
Parliament. I gave the full support of myself and my Party to
Mrs. Bandaranike to defeat any insurrection which sought to
overthrow a legally elected Government.
The JVP also made statements and
made it clear after they lost the Referendum, they did not even
contest some of the bye elections. They made it clear that they
are giving up their parliamentary tactics and that they should
take to non- parliamentary tactics in order to defeat a
Government, which by a Referendum extended its period by more
than six years. We have, therefore, reviewed certain political
parties in this country - the Communist party, the party of
Vasudeva Nanayakkara called the Nava Samasamaja party, the party
of Rohana Wijeweera, the JVP - as dedicated not to the
democratic way of life, but to a violent way of forming a
Government and maintaining it by violence. We have, on the other
hand, the United National party, the Sri Lanka Freedom party,
which are democratic parties.
During the elections that were
held last year, out of six million five hundred thousand voters,
six million voted for the two democratic parties, the United
National party and the Sri Lanka Freedom party. It is,
therefore, parties that represent only five hundred thousand
people who believe in violence as a way of attaining political
power. We also find in the violence that took place from the
25th of July, there is a certain pattern of leadership, where
gangs of youth were going about in vans and bicycles and motor
bicycles and cars, inflaming their supporters in various towns
and the city and violence and arson took place after that.
We found that in Colombo, we
found it along the Colombo - Kandy - Galle Road, we found it in
Kandy,
Badulla and
Bandarawela. That is not a sudden outburst of mobs, surely? But
was planned and carefully nurtured over a period of time. We
found also that the murder of thirteen of our soldiers in Jaffna
took place on a very significant day, the day being 23rd July,
1983. It was six years before that on the 23rd of July, 1977,
that I myself and my Government were sworn-in exactly on that
day, also a Saturday, that we find this outburst, beginning with
the death of 13 soldiers in Jaffna.
That was the signal for the
uprising which took place in certain parts of this country. I
would, therefore, like you to remember that we have the JVP,
which initiated the insurrection of 1971, who were released by
me as I thought we should give them a chance, return to the
democratic system, contest the elections. But having lost the
presidential election, having lost the Referendum, having lost
the by-elections, they thought the only way to return to power
before the six years were over was by violence.
Now, these are being investigated
by certain authorities and when we receive their report, further
action would be taken. Where parties that believe in democracy,
for democracy to function, the majority who prevail, where a
parliament functions after elections by the free vote of the
people, the Government and the Opposition are chosen and laws
are passed by the majority vote taken in parliament, where
discussions to settle problems affecting communities of people,
are settled by round table conferences by discussions and
majority vote.
These matters are alien to the
thinking of those who believe in violence, if I may say so, some
of the Marxist parties in our country. Without law and order
being preserved, without the law being respected, without order
being the guiding line for Government,
you
cannot have democracy. Those parties do not believe in
democracy. Those parties feel that under the democratic system
the economic advances that we have undertaken, the economic
steps we have taken, to give jobs to our people, to raise the
standard of living of our people, would attain such a height in
the next few years that all chances of coming to office will be
lost and finished.
Therefore, my friends, this
Government is dedicated not only to the democratic way of life,
not only to economic development according to the plan outlined,
but also primarily to maintain law and order. In that our
Government is completely dedicated and resolved that where
people seek to disturb and disrupt law and order in this
country, the strictest tenets of the law will be enforced.
Whatever punishment there has to be served out to them, our
Government is determined to do that, whether it be individual or
party.
Thank you for listening to me and
I hope I have the cooperation of all those who believe in
civilization, in a civilized way of living, who believe that law
and order must prevail, that the smallest, the poorest and
whatever race or caste he may belong to, who is a citizen of
this country, is entitled to live and think and work within the
framework of democracy. That I feel would have the fullest
support in all the efforts that this Government is taking to
preserve that itself."
|
