Fill text of the speech

Mr. Speaker,  may I commence  by placing before the House my Adjournment Motion 
Sir,  I move :

"That   this House debate the following matter of urgent public importance. 

"1.  The current state of efforts if any, to evolve an acceptable  political solution to the national conflict, the Tamil question.

2.   The serious consequences of the efforts to impose a military solution to the said conflict, such as the grave human rights violations and immense humanitarian deprivation and suffering imposed on the Tamil people in the North-East as a result of  such military efforts.

3.  The grave human rights violations occurring in other parts of the country consequent to the war psychosis built by such military efforts."

Sir, the political process towards the evolution of a political solution to the national conflict, the Tamil question,  under the aegis of the  present government has been through the APRC process.  I have on an earlier occasion  in Parliament dealt at length with the commencement of the APRC process,  the inaugural speech of the President, the appointment of the multi-ethnic experts committee,  the reports of the said experts  committee,  the report of the APRC Chairman, the unseemly intervention  of the President in the deliberations of the committee, and how the whole thing ended in a fiasco. With the President unwilling to allow the APRC process to reach its final destination,  whatever that may have been, based upon its own deliberations, and the President  seeking refuge in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution which had already existed in the statute book for over 18 years, and despite the existence of which, every one of his predecessors in political office, accepting the futility of the Thirteenth Amendment  as a solution to the Tamil question, had endeavoured to come up with more progressive Constitutional proposals in an effort to evolve an acceptable political solution.  I must emphasize that such efforts were made by President R. Premadasa, President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe.  I must also emphasize that  the proposals that were framed during the term in office of each one of the persons I have referred to, was a considerable advance on the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  These efforts were the clearest statement that the Thirteenth Amendment was unsuitable to resolve the Tamil question.  This was the reality, Sir, which every one of these leaders unequivocally accepted.  There could have been many a reason for these proposals not being translated into Constitutional provisions.  The foremost of such reasons being the lack of a bipartisan consensus between the two main political parities, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party and the United National Party, which in fact, has been the bane of this country, particularly on the national question.  But the fact of the matter was, that everyone of these leaders whom I mentioned, endeavoured to face the challenge, and take the process forward. 

The fact that certain utterly inadequate, unacceptable, outdated provisions already existed in the Constitution cannot be a valid reason for resorting to such provisions to resolve the grave Tamil question which has become graver by the year, after the lapse of 18 years since the enactment of such provisions, and after two years of deliberations in a current process, to come up with something more adequate and acceptable.  This in my submission, Sir, is nothing short of a downright subterfuge, and no sane self-respecting Tamil will ever be a party to such subterfuge.
 
Further, Mr. Speaker, what is being sought to be implemented in the North-East today, is not intrinsically the Thirteenth Amendment -a merged North-East Province was the most significant achievement of the Thirteenth Amendment and the Provincial Councils Act following the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord.  That is now regarded by the Rajapaksa Government to be non-existent, again after 18 years, through the devious device of fundamental rights applications filed by three individuals so as to deny the fundamental rights of hundreds of thousands of Tamil-speaking citizens in the North-East, and as is well known the provisions pertaining to the meagre police and land powers in the Thirteenth Amendment have not been implemented and as per the Government statements are not to be implemented. 

What, Mr. Speaker, is the current state of the APRC?  Despite efforts to revive it, it is in a moribund state. Given the shabby and insolent treatment meted out to the APRC thus far, it has in my view, lost its stature and is most unlikely to be activated into a vibrant body.  Every Member of the APRC should by now know that  Presidential fiat would determine the ultimate outcome of the APRC.

Mr. Speaker, the international community made concerted efforts to influence the parties to evolve an acceptable political solution.

The international community called for dramatic changes, for radical changes in the structure of government.  The international community stated that the Tamil- speaking people, the Tamil people and the Muslim people, must have the right to determine their destiny in the areas they have historically inhabited.  The international community reminded the Sri Lankan political leadership that they have talked of maximum devolution, of the right to internal self-determination within a federal system in their areas of historical habitation and that there must be proposals which should incorporate these concepts.  The international community has stated that it is important that the political system recognizes the geographical or linguistic or ethnic divisions amongst the people and creates political institutions that will accommodate these differences and give voice and representation to all sections of  the people. These views Sir, were expressed by the Co-Chairs of the peace process, India, the United States of America and the other important members of the international community. 

The international community Mr. Speaker, has consistently and persistently emphasized the need for the evolution of a political solution and has similarly emphasized that there can be no military solution. The international community has thereby unequivocally acknowledged that the demand of the Tamil-speaking people for substantial self-rule in the North-East is a fair and reasonable demand.   Beyond paying lip service to a political solution, has this Government during its 2 ½ years in office, taken any concrete steps towards the evolution of an acceptable political solution?  The answer is a resounding,  "No." 

The APRC process, as I have explained, has become a mere charade.  The Government will persist with this charade because they hope that they can keep the international community somewhat appeased. Far from attempting to evolve a political solution, the Government is engaged in reversing the progress thus far made towards achieving a political solution.  The Government is also not concerned in the least about completely alienating the Tamil population.  The Government does this in the pursuit of its narrow sectarian political agenda of propagating and perpetuating Sinhala nationalism and Sinhala supremacy.

 I refer in particular Sir, to the steps  taken by the Government to institutionalize the purported invalidation of the merged North-East through three spurious  fundamental rights applications and the ruthless and reckless manner  in which the Government prosecutes the war to capture territory in the North East without any regard to the death and grievous injury caused to several hundreds of Tamil civilians, men women and children, the displacement of tens of thousands of Tamil civilians and the devastation and destruction  caused to Tamil civilian-owned assets and properties. 
   
The war is prosecuted as if the war is being waged against an alien enemy and in total violation of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Laws.

The war psychosis is so severe, that even Tamil civilians in other parts of the country, outside the North-East are treated as if they did not belong to this country.  This Sir, is very largely the feeling of total alienation experienced by the Tamil people in this country today.  They face the worst in the theatre of war, as happened to the Tamil people in the Eastern Province sometime ago, and as is happening to the Tamil people in the Wanni now, or they live in perpetual fear, uncertain of even their lives, as is happening within the Jaffna Peninsula and in other parts of the country.  In the theatre of war, the Tamil people are bombed from the air, they have to face indiscriminate heavy artillery attacks, they have to face claymore mines set off by deep penetration units, all carried out by the Sri Lankan State.  They are killed, they are maimed, their houses are destroyed or damaged, their farming equipment, their fishing equipment, their animal husbandry and their plantations are destroyed, they are displaced, they are deprived of their livelihood, they are impoverished, they have to seek refuge in various places, sometimes even under trees, those who can flee the country are fleeing the country.  They do not have the bare necessities of life, food, shelter, medicine and clothing.   Fortunately, some non-governmental organizations help them to the extent possible, but the Government which inflicts such immense harm on the people, is not concerned.  The Government only gives them food supplies available under the World Food Programme. 

However, the Government pretends as if everything is being done by the Government.  Have the families of around 300 persons killed during the military operations in the Eastern Province been paid compensation?  I tabled names of over 250 persons killed, in Parliament in September last year.  Have the displaced Tamil families been paid compensation for the destruction and damage caused to their houses, their assets, their farming and fishing equipment, animal husbandry and plantations?  Nothing whatever has been done by this Government, and the only reason can be that they are all Tamil people and the same will happen to the Tamil people who now face the same situation in the Wanni. 

The President says that people are being liberated from the LTTE.  By reason of your intense military onslaught both from the air and the land to capture territory under the control of the LTTE, you ruthlessly and recklessly inflict immense harm on the Tamil civilian population, and you thereafter leave them in the lurch, and proclaim with glee, that they have been liberated. 

How can these people who led normal lives, who led contented lives, ever get on their feet again?  How long will it take for that to happen?  Are you in the least concerned?  These Tamil families, Sir, have lived in these areas, their historical habitation for generations and centuries.  Their lives had economic, social and cultural underpinnings in these areas,  all of which have been destroyed by your intense military action.  You have reduced them to a state of utter penury and destitution.  These people who led a respectable peaceful life have now been reduced to the state of abject refugees. 

This is not all, Sir.  A large number of families have not yet returned to their original lands.  I propose to demonstrate this by dealing with the situation in the Trincomalee District.  Seventy four families in the Echchilampattai village are not able to resettle in their lands as their lands are now  occupied by the Army who have established an Army camp on these lands after these people were evicted in 2006.  The Army can surely relocate in some other place and permit these families to occupy their land.  In the Mutur-East area of the Mutur Divisional Secretary’s Division where the war was prosecuted and from which area all civilians, all Tamils fled, the position is as follows.  There are 11 Grama Sevaka Divisions in that area.  This entire area has been declared as a high security zone.  In the division of Pallikudieruppu comprising of 539 families, in the division of Nallur comprising of 237 families and in the division of Paddalipuram comprising of 400 families, people have commenced resettling on their lands despite all the deficiencies but the people have not yet fully returned.  Similarly, in the division of Kaddaiparichchan South comprising of 374 families, people have returned partly.  In the divisions of Navaratnapuram comprising of 240 families and Chanaiyoor comprising of 425 families, no resettlement has taken place and the position is unclear. 

It is two years, since these people were evicted from their lands.  There has been no concerted, coordinated programme by the Government to resettle these people.  The fact that the Government which is responsible for the eviction of these people does not make a major contribution towards their resettlement is undoubtedly a major cause for the delay in their resettlement.   

In the divisions of  Koonitheevu,  Sir, comprising of  192 families, Sampur West comprising of  398 families, Sampur East  comprising of 338 families, Kadatkaraichchenai  comprising of  595 families,  and Kaddaiparichan North comprising of  343 families  totalling to 1,866 families,  it would appear that resettlement is not to be allowed.  These are ancient Tamil villages in which these Tamil people have lived for generations  and centuries.

In all,  only under 1000 families have been resettled in the whole of  this area  thus far; over 3,000 families are yet to be resettled.

I would refer in particular, Mr. Speaker, to the position pertaining to the 1,866 families in the five Grama Sevaka Divisions last referred to by me.   The Government states that the LTTE has been evicted from this area with their weapons.  There can be no justification for the Government to deny these people the right to resettle in their lands, particularly, given the fact that they are historical inhabitants of these areas.  These people lived there long before the LTTE came into being.  The LTTE came into being on account of  the lapses of the Sri Lankan State.  Why should these poor people be punished now?  Surely civilians, mostly Sinhala civilians  live in other areas which have been declared high security zones, such as Katunayake, Kolonnawa and Ratmalana.  Why should there be such severe discrimination against 1,866 Tamil families.  If  the Government persists in this harsh decision against such a large number of  Tamil families, the conclusion would be irresistible  that even in regard to the right to  live on your own land,  the Government does not mete out equal treatment  to both Sinhala and Tamil civilians.  I want to appeal to the Government that there should be a balance between the  security concerns  and the fundamental rights of these Tamil people.  The Government should understand that this is a humanitarian concern affecting the rights of  people who have lived on these lands for  very long.  Considerations of  security surely cannot be an all time concern in such matters.  There must surely come a time, when the war must and will come to an end.  Then there will surely be no need for  high security  zones. 

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Member.  I will repeat myself with the last sentence. There must surely come a time, when the war must and will come to an end.  Then there will surely be no need for  high security  zones. There will be no need to  deprive these people of  their lands. 

This needs to be borne in mind. Meanwhile Sir,  it would appear that steps are being taken to apportion for these people, small parcels of   land of a few perches each, elsewhere, in an effort to compel these people to resettle on such lands.  These people have quite rightly refused to accept these lands.  There is no reason whatsoever, why  these people should accept these small parcels of land, in lieu of  much larger residential and farm lands that they possessed and owned in the areas they historically inhabited.  The cruel injustice of this whole exercise stands exposed, in the context of Sinhala colonists from other parts of the country, who were brought and settled in the Eastern Province having been given each, three acres of paddy land with irrigation facilities, and half an acre of highland with a house.  Such treatment of the Tamil people must inevitably inculcate in the hearts and minds of the Tamil people a deep animosity against the Sri Lankan State. 

The greater part of this High Security Zone, Sir,  is not accessible to these  people. I am informed that  even civilian officials  cannot have access to these areas.  I have information that buildings including houses in the areas where resettlement is not to be permitted,  as presently contemplated,  have been destroyed.  Building materials, roof timber, doors, windows and other valuables from  these areas have been transported out in lorries.  This has been seen by the people in different areas. 

Why should there be such great secrecy about what is going on in these areas?  If something sinister is not happening why should everything be so opaque.  There are some disturbing developments.  Construction is said to have commenced on a new circular road.  The purpose of this new road is not known.  It is said that this road will link Sampur in the South to Kuchavelli in the North.  The proposed road is presently visible  at Saradhapuram before  entering Trincomalee town and near Kiranthimunai along the Muthur road.  Without any consultation with the owners and without proper procedures being observed, both residential and agricultural lands belonging to both Tamil and Muslim people, have been taken over for the construction of this road. 

How can a government act in such a blatantly unjust and illegal manner without consulting the owners and without adopting any procedures to  take over both agricultural and farm lands  and residential lands belonging  to both Tamil people and the Muslim people unless the Government's attitude is that it does not care two hoots for the rights of  Tamil-speaking people. 

When things are done, Sir, in such a high-handed way,  the  objective cannot be clean.  It is said that this road will have a buffer zone on either side.  The width of the buffer zone is expected to be between 100 metres and  500 metres. No one is quite certain yet. Private land is being taken over for the buffer zone also   without any consultation with the owners and as desired by the Government. 

Yet another new road is said to be under construction from Seruwila to Polonnaruwa through Mavil Aru.  There is information that the land on either side of the road is to be colonized with about thousand Sinhala families from other districts.   Similarly, in the Batticaloa District,  a road is said to be under construction from Vakarai to Welikanda in Polonnaruwa District.  Similar colonization plans are afoot in the said area too. 

I must at this stage, Sir, refer to yet another activity clearly indicating the Government’s programme in the East particularly in Trincomalee.  I refer to the Report of the reputed human rights organization - University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) Sri Lanka (UTHRJ) Information Bulletin No. 46.  The date of issue is 8th July, 2008. I quote from that report, Sir.  It says:

“From Sampur 16,000 people were bloodily and brutally evicted from very fertile land with longstanding cultural and historical associations, and 700 acres were simply grabbed for a coal power station….”

It further states, I quote:

“The ex-general GA, T. T. R. de Silva, justified the takeover claiming at a meeting in the Trinco Kachcheri that the displaced people from Sampoor had no claim to the land there as they had no land titles.  Being in charge of the Trincomalee Kachcheri, which has a land registry, he should have known better.”

Sir, these people have been living there for several hundreds of years.  There is an ancient temple called “the Sri Bhadrakali Amman Temple situated in Sampur.  It must have been there for many many hundreds of years, probably as long as thousand years. 

Again I quote from the report, it states:
“We have a copy of a survey map of the area of 1949 showing the  lands, paddy fields,  water resources and residential areas.  Thanks to a government, which behaves like a Bandit,  the displaced have been left in the lurch.”

They go on, Sir, to refer to various other matters and this is what is most interesting about what they say.  I quote:
 
“The Government has also other tricks up its sleeve.  Over 200 Tamil families were displaced from Raalkuli west of Mutur due to the fighting in 2006.  There were also reports of plans to settle a section of the Mutur East, including Sampoor, displaced in Raalkuli.  Fears were aroused particularly after reports that on 8th September 2007 a government delegation led by Basil Rajapakse laid a foundation stone for a housing project in Raalkuli, for over a hundred families, funded by a Buddhist organization in Colombo and concrete posts came up in the area.”

I do not know whether the Hon. Ameer Ali who is here was also in that delegation.

The report further states:

“Suddenly in the last April(2008), 20 to 30 Sinhalese families reportedly of  ex-convicts, were brought and settled in the land enclosed by concrete posts - reminiscent of Weli Oya in 1984, which saw the first LTTE massacre of Sinhalese moved from Anuradhapura prison to the area in South Mullaitivu from which the Tamils had been driven away.”

The Report further states:

“According to trusted sources in Trincomalee, an INGO was persuaded by the ex-general GA to provide assistance in the form of materials for shelter to the Sinhalese families moved into Raalkuli.  The Sinhalese felt uncomfortable staying there and did not return after leaving the same month to spend Vesak in their native place.” 

That clearly shows, Sir, what is going on in the Eastern Province under this Government, particularly in Trincomalee.  Some people, Sir, never learn even from their past mistakes.

A special economic zone has also been declared within the Trincomalee District.  Work has already commenced in certain areas.  It would appear that the private sector is to be encouraged to invest in this area. 

All these projects come within the “Nagenahira Navodaya,” translated into English, “The Eastern Revival Programme.” 75 per cent of the population in the Eastern Province are Tamil speaking.  When the country attained Independence, 90 per cent of the population in the Eastern Province were Tamil speaking.  Tamil is today an official language having equal status with Sinhala.  Why cannot this Programme be called by a Tamil name?  Why should the predominantly Tamil speaking Eastern Province be denied this right? 

Our roads are all in a dilapidated state, those linking our villages and our different districts. 

This Programme, Sir, does not seem to be intended to benefit the people living in the Eastern Province now, including those who have traditionally lived in the Eastern Province.  This programme is clearly intended to benefit persons who will come from outside, who will further change the demographic composition of the Eastern Province to the advantage of the majority Sinhala community.  This is why things have got to be kept hush-hush.  Sinhalization must be done quietly, without anyone’s notice.  But, quite clearly the Sinhalization agenda of the Rajapaksa Government in the Eastern Province is very much at work. 

The actions of the Sri Lankan State in the past which were the major causes for the origin of the conflict are being re-enacted.  This can only lead to further exacerbation of the national conflict.  We would appeal to all concerned not to contribute towards further exacerbation of the conflict. 

I referred, Sir, to the purported invalidation of the merged North-East Province.  I have dealt with that question at some length during earlier debates.  The Tamil people of the North-East who were even denied the right to be heard in the Court proceedings, do not accept that judicial decision as a just determination.  It must be pointed out that the Court did not question the basis upon which the merger was effected, that the Northern and Eastern Provinces, linguistically contiguous territories, were the areas of historical habitation of the Tamil speaking people.  The judgment of the Court did not question the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement - an international treaty.  That treaty is valid and is in force.  Sri Lanka does not have the right in international law to renege from the Agreement unilaterally. 

The merger of the Northern and the Eastern Provinces remains in force as per the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord.  This is a reaffirmation of the reality on the ground.  The Prime Minister of India, Shri Manmohan Singh, accepts the merger of the Northern and the Eastern Provinces as the cornerstone of the peace process.  In fact, he has impressed upon the President of Sri Lanka that the merger should not be disturbed.  I was recently informed by Indian officials at the highest level that Prime Minister Shri Manmohan Singh is deeply concerned about the Tamil question in Sri Lanka.  I have not the slightest doubt that that represents the correct position.

The Indo-Sri Lanka Accord, Sir, was signed on the 29th of July, 1987 between the then Prime Minister of India, Shri Rajiv Gandhi and the then President of Sri Lanka, Mr.J.R. Jayewardene.   Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi made a statement on the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord in the Indian Parliament on the 31st of July, 1987.  I wish to place before the House, certain relevant parts of that statement.  This is what Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi said, I quote:

"We have structured a framework for a durable solution to the Sri Lankan ethnic problem.  The Agreement meets the basic aspirations which animated the Tamil struggle namely the desire to be recognized as a distinct ethnic entity; political autonomy for managing their political future, and appropriate devolution of governmental power to meet this objective, the recognition of the Northern and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka as areas of historical habitation of Tamils and the acknowledgement and destination of Tamil as an official language of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka". 

Shri Rajiv Gandhi, Sir, further stated, I quote:

"The Agreement constitutes the Eastern and Northern provinces of Sri Lanka into one administrative unit with an elected provincial council and a Chief Minister.  Powers would be devolved to the provincial council within the framework finalized between May to December, 1986 to ensure a full measure of autonomy to the provinces in Sri Lanka". 

The international treaty signed between Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and President J.R. Jayewardene constituted the Northern and the Eastern Provinces into one political entity.  That is the reality. 

Shri Rajiv Gandhi went on to say in the course of that statement, I quote:
"The Agreement suggests the holding of a referendum on the basic issue of the link between the Northern and Eastern provinces by the end of 1988, which the President has the discretion to postpone."

This, Sir, was a recognition of the right of the Tamil people, the Tamil-speaking people inhabiting the Northern and the Eastern Provinces.  The Tamil people from the early 1950s accepted as their political goal the right to internal self-determination in the areas of their historical habitation - the Northern and the Eastern Provinces.

It was the British colonial rulers who, as per the Colebrooke Commission recommendations of 1833, unified the territories occupied by the Kandyan Kingdom,  the Low-country Sinhala Kingdom and the Tamil Kingdom, which were captured separately and ruled separately by the different colonial rulers, and it was thereafter, that the British, on assuming control of the whole island, demarcated the nine provinces for their administrative convenience.  In 1833, when the unification of the territories took place, the territories comprising the Northern and the Eastern Provinces were overwhelmingly Tamil-speaking.  In 1827, Sir, according to an available census the Sinhalese people in the Eastern Province were only half a per cent.  This, Sir, was a recognition not conferred on any party or any organization.  This recognition belonged to the Tamil-speaking people of the Northern and the Eastern Provinces. 
 
The judgment of the Supreme Court has only held that the procedure adopted in bringing about the merger was illegal.  The merger of the North and the East is a political issue, not a legal one.  The judgment of the Court, in upholding an alleged procedural flaw in bringing about the merger, cannot by any stretch of imagination, be regarded as the final disposal of the matter, particularly when the judgment of the Court respectfully, is open to attack on several flanks, as outlined by me in the course of earlier debates.  The merger of the North and the East as per the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord remains despite the judgment of the Court.  That is the position of the historical Tamil-speaking inhabitants of the Northern and Eastern provinces. 

If, Sir, despite the unequivocal acknowledgment of the right of the Tamil-speaking people to a single unit of governance in the North and the East based on their historical habitation of such territory as contained in the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord, the Sri Lankan State was to attempt to sabotage this right and deny the same to the Tamil-speaking people through some stratagem,  misusing its powers of governance, the inevitable corollary would be that the Sri Lankan State would forfeit its right to preserve Sri Lanka as a single, united, undivided country. 

Immediately after the judgment many important personalities in the Government expressed their dissatisfaction with the judgment.  This is a matter of public record. The Prime Minister in a statement made in Parliament on 7th November, 2006 outlined several options available to the Government, one of which was to legally rectify the alleged procedural flaw. 

The Government’s later actions would suggest that on this vital issue too, the Government has succumbed to Sinhala nationalism and Sinhala supremacy. 

While continuously inflicting harm on the Tamil people in numerous ways, Sir, the Government is brazen enough to put forward the pretence of enjoying Tamil support. 

The Government has recently held elections to the Eastern Provincial Council.  There are some actions pending in the court pertaining to these elections.  For the purpose of record, Sir, I wish to draw a comparison between the total valid votes polled at the Parliamentary Elections in April, 2004 and the Provincial Council Election in the three different districts in the Eastern Province.  In the Trincomalee District, at the Parliamentary Election, the total valid vote polled was 182,930.  In the Provincial Council Election held recently, the total valid vote polled in the Trincomalee District was 137,929.  It was less by 45,001.  In the Batticaloa District, in the Parliamentary Election held in 2004, the total vote polled was 241,375.  In the Provincial Council Election held recently, the total vote polled in the Batticaloa District was 181,355.  It was less by 60,020.  In the Ampara District, in the Parliamentary Election held in 2004, the total vote polled was 290,361 and in the recently held Provincial Council Election, the total vote polled was 272,392 and it was less by 17,969. 

The total vote polled in all three districts in the Provincial Council Election was 112,990 less, than what was polled at the Parliamentary Election held in 2004.  It would be my submission, Sir, that the shortfall was largely the Tamil vote.  It is accepted that the Muslim and Sinhala vote polled in strength because the two main political parties, the UPFA and the UNP, in alliance with the SLMC were in the fray.  It is also widely accepted that there was much abuse of the Tamil vote cast.  The rejected votes in all three districts were significantly higher in the Provincial Council Election than in the Parliamentary Election, indicating that many Tamils had spoilt their vote.  This would all go to show, Sir, that the Tamil people did not regard this so-called Eastern Provincial Council Election as a legitimate election. 
 
I must place on record, Sir, with due respect to the Members of the Eastern Provincial Council, that we do not recognize the Eastern Provincial Council as a legitimate political entity.  These are all spurious exercises that the present Government is engaged in, in order to show that it is interested in evolving a political solution to the Tamil question. 
 
What, in fact, is the current position, Sir?  The Ceasefire Agreement has been unilaterally abrogated by the Sri Lankan Government and the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission has left the country.  Does not that decision signify a military approach? 
 
The facilitator has a nominal presence.  It would appear that the Sri Lankan Government does not permit the facilitator to proceed to Kilinochchi.  Does the Sri Lankan Government have contact with the facilitator at appropriate decision-making levels?  I am subject to correction, but apparently not. 

I raise this question, Sir,  because the President  frequently claims that he is ready for talks with the LTTE on certain conditions.  If the Government is sincerely for talks, under whatever circumstances, does not the facilitator have a role?   If the facilitator  is not able to interact personally with the Government and the LTTE at appropriate levels, how can the facilitator play any role?  The LTTE says it is ready for talks, it has not laid down any conditions.  Looking at the totality of the picture, Sir, it seems clear that the Government will continue to prosecute the war.  The Government resorting to the subterfuge of the Thirteenth Amendment and seeking to institutionalize the purported invalidation of the merged North-East Province, both of which are retrograde steps and the Government’s performance in the past two and a half years, clearly indicate the unwillingness of the Government to move forward on the political front.  If the Government is unwilling to move forwards on the political front, is not a military solution the Government’s only alternative?  Avoiding evolving an acceptable political solution is feasible only in the context of a military solution.  That is the situation in which the country is today.

We are gravely concerned, Sir,  because the war inflicts immense harm on the Tamil civilian population as has already been outlined by me. 

Is it not clear, Sir, that the Government thinks that if the LTTE is militarily marginalized the Government can impose on the Tamil-speaking people a worthless political solution.  In fact, things may be left as they are now.  Sinhalese nationalism would have triumphed.   Sinhala supremacy will prevail.

All  right-thinking people in this country need to ask themselves the question, whether this would be in the long term interests of the country.

The Tamil people as a people with a distinct identity, who with the Tamil-speaking Muslim people have occupied certain linguistically contiguous territory, have claimed their right to internal self-determination in the areas of their historical habitation.

This is their most fundamental inalienable human right.  This is a right which cannot be denied to them by anybody.  Our struggle starting with Mr. S. J. V. Chelvanayakam in the 1950s was a peaceful non-violent struggle for several decades.  Unbridled violence was unleashed against the Tamil civilian population who  engaged in such peaceful non-violent struggle.  The  Sri Lankan State initially condoned and subsequently became a party to such violence.  It was in these circumstances, that the LTTE came into being.  The emergence of the LTTE, and the military action by the State against the LTTE, cannot negate the legitimate Tamil-speaking demand for the right to internal self-determination in the area of their historical habitation.  This is what the international community, as I have outlined earlier, have clearly advocated.  This failure on the part of the Sri Lankan State continues to be the root cause of the conflict, and is today the cause of the conflict being prolonged.  The Sri Lankan State seeks to conceal its unwillingness to come up with an acceptable political solution, and  its unwillingness to evolve a Sinhala consensus particularly between the two major political parties, the SLFP and the UNP, on an acceptable political solution, by blaming the LTTE.  The moderate Tamil position has always been that the Sri Lankan State has never come up with an acceptable political solution that has constituted a political challenge to the LTTE.
  
It is also our contention that the present pursuit of a military solution is just because of the Sri Lankan Government’s unwillingness to come up with such an acceptable political solution.  It is also our contention that if the Sri Lankan Government comes up with an acceptable political solution, there will be no need to pursue a military solution. The result would be that civilians, particularly Tamil civilians but also Sinhala civilians and all others will be saved all the agony that the war inflicts on them.

I wish to also state, Sir, that the armed struggle cannot be de-linked from the failure to evolve a political solution.  The moderate Tamils were driven to demand a separate state before the armed struggle commenced.  These moderate Tamils in their election manifesto of 1970 opposed separation specifically in writing.  They asked the Tamil people to vote against any candidate who fought on a separatist policy and these moderate Tamils defeated all candidates who contested on a separatist agenda. 
 
Why were these same moderates driven to demand separation?  A separate state was not the demand of the LTTE.  It was the demand of the TULF; it was the demand of  Mr. S.J.V. Chelvanayakam.  Please, get that clear.  If you delivered during the time of the moderates the armed struggle would never have commenced.  You failed to deliver to the moderates; you are continuing to fail to deliver after the commencement of the armed struggle and that is why the conflict is being prolonged.  Even if the Interim Self Governing Authority or the Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure was implemented, one would never have reached the present situation. 

You now think that this issue can be settled through war.  Your current war is not only against the LTTE, it is against the Tamil people also.  If you want this country to be undivided, please remember that there must be a just political solution which is anchored in certain principles - recognition of the right to internal self-determination of the Tamil-speaking people in their areas of historical habitation.  There must be something genuine.  The Tamil question cannot be resolved through the bogus exercises you are now engaged in.  You will soon realize that this is not possible.  In the context of your failure to deliver an acceptable political solution, the primary objective, the primary purpose of the armed struggle of the LTTE is to establish the legitimacy of the Tamil struggle for internal self-determination in their areas of historical habitation - and you cannot negate the legitimacy of the Tamil struggle by blaming the LTTE only.
 
Sir, the Government also has the misconception that the Tamil-speaking demand for the right to internal self-determination in the area of their historical habitation can be circumvented by this mysterious word called “development.”

Let me make it abundantly clear, Sir, that development cannot and will not be permitted by the Tamil-speaking people to become a substitute for their cherished political goal.  The right to political power of the Tamil-speaking people which flows from the right to internal self-determination in the area of their historical habitation, cannot be diminished by this mirage of development, which is dependent today, entirely on the mercy of the Sinhala political leadership in Colombo. Development as determined by us, and not harmful to us, must flow out of  the right to internal self-determination in our area of historical habitation.  It is only then, that such development can permanently have a beneficial impact on the future of  our people.  Restoration of  irrigation schemes,  land development and  colonization that followed in our areas, was development, but the traditional landless residents in our areas  were not the beneficiaries, as indeed, they were entitled to be.  The beneficiaries were largely the Sinhala settlers who came from other districts.  The same thing happened when development was pursued through  various Government corporations in our areas.  Development must be oriented towards enhancing the quality of life of all people living permanently in our areas irrespective of whether they are Tamil, Muslim or Sinhala.  Thus far development in our areas has been discriminatory against the Tamil-speaking people.  Development must inevitably flow out of the right to internal self-determination, if it is to be fair and just. 

Sir, having said that,  before I conclude, I wish to say a few words about the current human rights situation in this country which has assumed alarming proportions and which I think has become a matter of  much international concern.  I have with me a document that has been prepared in regard to the current situation by a group of  Parliamentarians from the Government side  who have been concerned with  some of  these matters which shows that in the month of  June 2008 alone - from the 1st of June to 27th of June -   the total number of people who went missing was 147.  Of  that 38 people have returned, 15 are in Boosa  and at the TID and 94 are still missing.  Names of  all the people, their places of   birth, from where they went  missing, the dates, and the other remarks are available in this report.  It is a document prepared by a group of  Parliamentarians on the Government side which shows that in the month of  June 2008 alone - from the 1st of  June to the 27th of  June - 94 people have gone  missing. 

Sir, I have here with me another document prepared by the North-East Secretariat  on Human Rights. They have given all the particulars, the names, ages and the places where they went missing and all that type of  thing.  The civilians who disappeared in the month of  June 2008, the  total number is 63, and the civilians who have been killed in June 2008, the total number is 84, which includes even the civilians killed by the LTTE  in the course of bomb attacks in Colombo -  20 civilians and two civilians on the same date, 6th of June.  So 84 civilians have been killed  in the month of  June and 63 civilians have gone missing according to the report prepared by the North-East Secretariat on Human Rights.

We have,  with us Sir, the US State Department Country Report on Sri Lanka  and what does it say?  I am sad that such adverse comments have been made about my country by other people.  It says,

"There were numerous credible reports  that  the Government or its agents  committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.  During  the year  approximately 1000 of the  estimated  3200 deaths associated with the hostilities  between  the  Government security forces and the LTTE   were civilians,  according to public sources.  International organizations have documented   approximately  one-third of these.  The  casualties  occurred in part  as a result of   artillery fire into populated areas, aerial bombings, landmines and other military actions,  but  international organizations noted that most of the civilian casualties occurred in individual incidents such as extra-judicial killings."   "There were numerous killings of those  employed by NGOs,  and other humanitarian assistance workers. The  UN Under Secretary-General for   Humanitarian Affairs,  John Holmes estimated  that approximately 30 NGO  workers  died in the past two years  although   NGO  sources estimated the figure to be approximately  44.  On June  3, for example,   men dressed in police uniform   abducted two  Tamil employees of the Sri Lanka Red Cross from the Colombo train  station,   a high security area.   The Red Cross  employees'  bodies   were discovered  approximately hundred kilometres away, in  Ratnapura. "

They refer to various other matters, Sir.  I will not take the time  of the House  reading  all these matters, but this clearly shows  the  sort of   dreadful situation that is prevailing in this country, where people are being killed, people are disappearing,  their bodies are found later, there is  absolute impunity,  the law enforcement machinery is  totally paralyzed, no one can account for  what is happening,   no one can stop it, it  is a continuing  phenomenon; and that  is why  the President, I think,   appointed the  Commission of Inquiry to which 16 cases were  referred and  there  was also  the International  Independent Group of  Eminent Persons comprising  11 persons from  different  parts of the world who were appointed to guide and assist the Commission.   I have been very concerned, Sir, because  two of these ghastly  incidents  were from my area:  the five students  killed  in Trincomalee and 17 aid  workers  killed in Muttur. I know all these families personally.  They are decent  people.  When I  met  the  President after the five students were killed  I gave  him the pictures of the  five students and told him, "These boys are like your sons.  How can these boys be killed?  What is your answer?"  He gave me an answer.  He  told me who killed them.  I will not talk about it now.  The President  told  me who killed them. 

Anyway Sir, what has happened now, to the Commission of Inquiry and the  International Independent  Group of Eminent Persons? What is  presently going on? As everyone knows, Sir, the International Independent Group of  Eminent Persons have decided to terminate  their  activities in this country and they have withdrawn  by the end of March.  In the context of events that have taken place, I think, a brief examination   of who constituted  the International Independent Group of  Eminent Persons and  why the IIGEP terminated its mission in this country  is important,  in the interest of  the truth being known.  I would  first read out to the House the names of the 11 persons who were on this  International Independent Group of  Eminent  Persons.

They were outstanding persons from different parts of the world.  They were:  Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Chairman, former Chief Justice of India, Mr. Marzuki Darusman from Indonesia, Mr. Arthur E. “Gene” Dewey from the  USA, Prof. Cees Fasseur from the Netherlands, Dr. Kamal Hossain from Bangladesh, Dr. Bernard Kouchner from France  later replaced by Judge Jean-Pierre Cot from France, Prof. Bruce Matthews from Canada, Mr. Andreas Mavrommatis from Cyprus, Prof. Sir Nigel Rodley from the United Kingdom, Prof. Ivan Shearer from Australia and Prof. Yozo Yokota from Japan.

I must say a few words about Dr. Bernard Kouchner who was on  the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons  who is  now  the Foreign Minister of France.  I watched  him on a programme of NDTV.  There he was asked a question, “You are the Foreign Minister of France?”  He said, “Yes. When President  Sarkozy offered me the Foreign Ministership I said  I worked  against you at the presidential election.  I worked for  your  rival, Segolene Royal. Why do you want to make me Foreign Minister?”  The  President said, “I know you worked against me but I want you as my Foreign Minister.”  That is the calibre of the person who served on the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons and together with the other 10 people, today he has left the country.  They are not persons against whom anyone can raise a little finger.  They were outstanding people. 

In fact, at the time that this body was being constituted various international organizations and various high-ranking diplomats met with some of us and told us that we must  all co-operate  because a very high- ranking team was coming to this country and we all welcomed it.  What did they say Sir, when they left?

I will now  quote from the  IIGEP  Public Statement in regard to the reasons why they left this country.  It is very significant.  It states, I quote:

“The IIGEP has not been able to conclude, as required by the terms of the Presidential invitation, that the proceedings of the Commission have been transparent or have satisfied basic international norms and standards.  The particular reasons for forming that opinion and motivating the IIGEP to terminate its mission before the conclusion of the proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry, are the following:

(a)A conflict of interest in the proceedings before the Commission”

That was the first reason.  Again I quote:

“In the opinion of the IIGEP the Attorney General’s Department of Sri Lanka has played an inappropriate and impermissible role in the proceedings of the Commission and in advising the Commission on the conduct of its proceedings.  An officer, (Deputy Solicitor-General) of the Attorney-General’s Department has taken a leading role in two of the four cases before the Commission so far, by way of acting as lead counsel in the questioning of the witnesses.  At the same time, the Attorney General is the legal adviser to the Government and must protect the interests of the Government when actions by its organs, including the police and the armed forces, are called into question.  The presence of the Attorney General, through his officers acting as counsel assisting the Commission, raises a serious issue of conflict of interest.  Many of the cases under review by the Commission involve questions of the adequacy of the original police investigations, or allegations against government forces, including the security forces.  The Attorney General has powers, and exercised them in some of these cases, to give advice or directions to investigating officials during the original police investigations.  The Deputy Solicitor-General in question has been so involved.  In the opinion of the IIGEP these considerations present an unacceptable conflict of interest which does not accord with international norms and standards, and to which attention has been drawn by IIGEP right from the commencement without success.   

Leave that aside.  We, as citizens of this country know that the same officials of the Attorney-General’s Department go along with the Ministers who go to Geneva to defend the Government on its human rights  record.  You go with the Government Ministers to Geneva to defend the Government on its human rights  record and how can you be regarded as being independent persons who can lead evidence against the  alleged perpetrators of these crimes before the Commission of Inquiry on behalf of the victims? 
The second reason they gave, Sir, was the lack of effective victim and witness protection.  I will not go into that because that will be dealt with separately.  There is a bill coming up later on.  We will discuss that when it comes up.

The third reason given was lack of transparency and timeliness in the proceedings. 
The fourth reason given was lack of full co-operation by State bodies.   I quote the contents coming under it:

“There has been a refusal by State bodies to comply with the Commission’s requests for information and documentation.  Additionally, certain officers of the armed forces have refused to give information regarding the presence or absence of certain units at a particular time or in a particular place relevant to the cases so far examined by the Commission.  National security has been cited as the basis of such refusal.  The legal basis for claiming privilege with regard to information of this nature is not clear.  No certificate to this effect has been tendered to the Commission, nor were reasons given why national security might be compromised.  The Commission itself has not pursued the witnesses in this regard.” 

The fifth reason given was lack of financial independence of the Commission.  I quote its contents:

“The Commission lacks financial autonomy.  It does not have an independent budget and depends on the Presidential Secretariat ….”

The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces who  were  alleged to be accused in matters before the Commission.  It further states, I quote:

“ …. for control of its finances.  The IIGEP has expressed its concern about the Commission’s lack of financial independence, and has supported the Commission’s requests for such independence.  The Commission has also complained about the insufficiency of its funding as a constraint to several activities.”

These are the reasons, Sir, as to why the IIGEP decided to pull out. 

Before I comment any further, I think, I must also read out certain other paragraphs which put these reasons in  a better perspective.  I will  quote   from “The role of the Attorney-General,”  under the main  heading, "The IIGEP's Principal  Concerns”

“An astonishing event occurred in November 2007 at the joint plenary meeting held between the Commission and the IIGEP.  A letter dated 5 November 2007 from the Presidential Secretariat and addressed to the Chairman of the Commission was revealed to the meeting.  It stated that: The President did not require the Commission to in any way consider, scrutinize, monitor, investigate or inquire into the conduct of the Attorney General or any of his officers with regard to or in relation to any investigation already conducted by the relevant authorities. This letter, which also extended the term of office of the Commissioners, was stated to be by way of a “clarification” of the scope of paragraph 5 of the Presidential Warrant establishing the Commission.  The IIGEP was deeply disturbed by this communication.  Even some of the Commissioners appeared to be taken aback.  The IIGEP considered that such a “clarification” from the President could only be viewed as a directive from the highest level, rather than as a suggestion to the Commission to be taken as an advice.  It was the single most important event prompting the IIGEP to decide shortly thereafter that it should bring its presence in Sri Lanka to an end”. 
 
This is what happened.  The Presidential advice which has been regarded more as a directive than as an advice was in direct confrontation with and was directly contradictory to  the view taken by the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons on the role of the Attorney-General's Department; that the Attorney-General’s Department could not be regarded as being an independent  institution  to deal with this matter.  And the  IIGEP strengthens their case  further by stating in the report as follows, I quote:

"The IIEGP was greatly strengthened in its opinion on this vital question by the opinion it solicited from two eminent Sri Lankan jurists with long practical experience in the law.  This opinion  concluded: The CoI is required to examine and comment on the adequacy and propriety of investigation already  conducted". "Necessarily, therefore the CoI must scrutinize the role of the Attorney-General and officers of the Attorney-General's department who supervised, instructed and/or gave directions to the investigators. Using the Panel of Counsel, consisting of those very same officers and/or their colleagues, will
undoubtedly give rise to a public perception of a conflict of interest and even of an appearance of bias.  The public, and especially victims - to use the language of the Disappearances Commission - will be 'very much affected by the awareness that State Officers are investigating into complaints against Officers of the State.'  Independent counsel are a sine qua non."

It was not stated by somebody else.  It was stated by two independent Sri Lankan Jurists.  Then what happened?  Thereafter, it was even more alarming and more revealing.  It also states, I quote :

"An amendment to the Commission of Inquiry Act 1948 formalises the role of the  Attorney General in all future commissions.  The  newly enacted Bill goes beyond the right of the Attorney General to be present in Commissions of Inquiry.  It gives the Attorney General the right to provide counsel to assist  the  present Commission of Inquiry as well as all future  inquiries under the Act. This confirms the IIGEP's apprehension  regarding the absence of political will and the institutional inability of Sri Lanka to conduct human rights inquiries in accordance with international norms and standards."

First, there was a clarification with regard to the role of the Attorney-General by the  Presidential Secretariat, then the Bill was brought to Parliament.  When the Commission of Inquiry Act Amendment was brought, everyone in Parliament thought that it must be some  innocuous Commission, and what is wrong with the Attorney-General going there.  But, the  objective and the ulterior motive was the planting of the Attorney-General in this particular Commission of Inquiry and giving a legal status which nobody could question.  This, Sir, is a travesty of justice. 
 
What do the above facts reveal?   The International Independent Group of Eminent Persons were fiercely independent on certain matters and they were elbowed out. First  by the clarification / directive, then  a legislation was brought to Parliament, giving the Attorney-General a definite status before the Commission of Inquiry.

A situation was created where it was made impossible for the IIGEP to function.  If they were not prepared to function on the Government's terms they had to leave and that is what happened and that is how they left.  Surely, if the International Independent Group of Eminent Persons’ role was to ensure observance of international norms and standards, no one else could have and  no one else should have questioned that view.  You brought these eleven eminent persons to this country saying that international norms and standards would be observed and when you found that what they were saying was uncomfortable to you, was embarrassing you, you elbowed them out.  They should have been the final judges on whether  international norms and standards were being observed.  If not, why invite them?  You  can do it as you like. 

Subsequently, one of the Commissioners was attacked.  I will not refer to that gentleman’s name.  The Presidential Secretariat lent support to the attackers.  The Commissioner widely regarded as a person of impeccable integrity has resigned.  He is alleged to have had a conflict of interest.  This conflict of interest was based upon the views of persons who appeared on behalf of the possible perpetrators of the crimes under investigation before the Commission.  The IIGEP’s views on conflict of interest had to be struck down by a directive and by legislation in Parliament and they had to leave.  Effective steps had to be taken to achieve that.  But this vague and in my view and in the view of many responsible people - flippant charge, frivolous charge of conflict of interest against the Commissioner had to be upheld and that gentleman was  compelled to resign.  Did that happen because he was a Tamil or did that happen because he was an independent Tamil, at that?  You can be a Tamil.  That would not matter.  But did this happen because he was an independent Tamil and because the victims in the cases under investigation are all Tamil speaking people?  Can you ever protect human rights in this way?  Have you acted fairly and squarely in regard to this matter?  What is this Commission of Inquiry worth today after what has happened?  What is this Commission of Inquiry worth?  I have much respect for some of the members of the Commission of Inquiry.  But how long will it last?  How long can it  function independently?  I do not know.  I have my grave doubts whether it can ever function independently in the future.  You probably want the people of this country to have confidence in your Human Rights Commission.  Your Human Rights Commission in the International body of Human Rights Commissions has been demoted.  It is no longer a member.  It is only an observer on account of its bad record.  That is the position. 

Sir, before I conclude, there is something I want to say about the position of the international community.  The international community had been consistently demanding that there must be a political solution in Sri Lanka.  It is now six decades since this country attained Independence.  But the international community has not been able to get Sri Lanka to come up with an acceptable political solution up to date.  We have only demanded the right to internal self-determination in our areas of historical habitation which is a legitimate political demand which can never be denied to us and for whatever reasons the international community has not been able to persuade Sri Lanka to come up with such a solution though they have stated their views unambiguously and very clearly both on the side of the Sri Lankan State and on the side of the Tamil-speaking people. 

On behalf of the Sri Lankan State they have very clearly said that they are committed to the unity and territorial integrity of the Sri Lankan State.  On behalf of the Tamil speaking people they have said the Tamil speaking people have a right to determine their own destiny in the areas which they have historically  inhabited and that  they are entitled to the right to  internal self-determination. That is all it means.  There are numerous Constitutions of the world Canada, Australia, Switzerland, even India where these concepts are recognized.  You are not prepared to move.  In the meanwhile, we are gradually going through a process of genocide.