Taraki - the postscript to a murder

Who killed cock robin?
I said the sparrow
With my bow and arrow
I killed cock robin

* *

Who saw him die?
I said the fly
With my little eye
I saw him die

* *

The fly is missing in the Taraki killing. No one saw Sivaram or Taraki die. But there was one, who enjoyed drinks with him till a few minutes earlier who vividly saw his abduction. There were also two others, who enjoyed his company and drinks and walked out of the restaurant together, as well as their three-wheel taxi driver who saw his abduction.

The first is a journalist of sorts, who did TV interviews on SLRC during the previous UNP administration. One of the others is a former researcher at the Social Scientists Asociation; was later associated with the Ministry of Constitutional Reform during the same UNP government, and is now linked to a foreign NGO.

The third drinking colleague of Taraki's on that tragic and fateful evening was a trade unionist in the health sector.

They can all be considered responsible citizens. But for some inexplicable reason none of them thought it necessary to inform the Bambalapitiya Police, located right across the road from the Bambalapitiya Restaurant, from where they walked out after imbibing with Taraki minutes ago, of the terrible drama they saw take place.

How come they lacked the civic responsibility to report a crime one sees being committed or a threat to one's own drinking companion of a few minutes ago, to the nearest policeman or police station? This question will continue to reverberate as the inquiry into Taraki's killing remains open, which I hope is not too long.

Many theories are bandied about this deadly attack on the freedom of expression, and especially the freedom of the journalist. There are people rushing to point accusing fingers without even a modicum of proof, let alone suspicion. What is needed now is all help given to conduct a proper inquiry, even with foreign assistance.

Ranga Kalansooriya, a journalist who won a Reuters Fellowship to study journalism in the UK, and made a special study of the Northern Ireland issue, makes an interesting remark in the "Daily Mirror" of May 4, 05.

In a piece titled "Siva played 'the other' in one-sided debate" he says: "Exactly a week ago Taraki, in his widely read column on Wednesday, commented about neo colonialism and Sri Lanka's prospects of becoming a pluralistic society.

"The next day he was gunned down by the elements who chose not to tolerate the basis of a pluralistic society freedom of expression". This is good a record of events. He says, "Taraki's has become the latest blood stain on the fabric of Sri Lankan journalism".

I would go further to state that it is a bloodstain on Sri Lankan democracy and the attempts to establish and nurture democracy and pluralism in areas where these concepts are not even tolerated.

Hijack Tamil militancy

He says further: "Taraki left behind his gun more than a dozen years ago and took up the pen to continue his political struggle. But the staunch nationalist elements in the South could not accept him as an important element of a democratic society." I need to take issue with Ranga Kalansooriya on this part of his analysis.

Who are the "staunch nationalist elements in the South" that could not accept him as an important element of a democratic society? The emotions aroused by a killing of this nature must not hide the reality. Where did Taraki practice his journalism all these years, except in the South? When did he face any real threats against carrying on his work in the South?

On the other hand, should not one raise the question as to whether Sivaram as Taraki could express even a modicum of his somewhat critical views about the "Tamil struggle" had he functioned in the North or East?

Is it not a fact that the biggest threat to democratic pluralism has come from a group in the North that carries out the worst violence against all those who dare express dissenting views? It is necessary to recall that this has been so from the time that the LTTE launched a campaign to hijack Tamil militancy and claim to be the sole representatives of the Tamils.

Task of journalists

Luis Botello, Programme Director of the Washington-based Internal Center for Journalists (ICFJ), speaking at a Video Conference with journalists in Colombo and Djakarta, facilitated by the US Embassy here, said that in other countries where such attacks on journalists took place, the journalists themselves and media institutions too, played a role in hunting down the criminals.

It was a task in which journalists, their organizations and civil society too should play a major role. Journalists should take up such daring challenges.

This is a position I have held for sometime. Protest rallies and demonstrations were able to keep a Southern-based government in some check against its attacks on the media and journalists in 1992/1993.

But statements, demonstrations and such forms of protest are of little use if the threats of today come from areas where the writ of government does not fully apply, and controlled by an organisation that leaves no room for dissent or pluralism in politics.

This is where the investigative journalists from both the North and South, should bring about networking arrangements to expose a common enemy.

It was strange to read criticisms of Taraki's killing by members of the TNA and see TNA members in the protest against this killing near the Fort Railway Station.

Are they unaware that the LTTE, of which they are nothing but proxies, has been killing journalists all these years from the killing of Rajini Tiranagama? Are they ready to raise their voice against these killings even today?

The presence of TNA MPs in the FMM-led protest on the killing of Taraki was as farcical as UNP MPs participating in the FMM demonstrations against the killing of Richard de Zoysa. There was no room for such farce in the FMM at that time.

In the LTTE's major split with Karuna, Taraki remained with the Vanni faction. However, one is not certain where he stood in the current internal struggles between the Soosai and the Prabhakaran factions, or between Balasingham and Thamilchelvan. These are also matters for study in probing this killing.

The last piece

Another important aspect is the contents of the last piece Taraki wrote in Tamil, published in the "Virakesari" of April 24, 2005.

It was a strong attack on the Tamil media for giving false hopes of peace to the Tamils, and also a very strong criticism of Erik Solheim for giving cause for such false expectations, that lead to the political aspirations of the Tamil people being blunted.

Taraki wrote: "Solheim's visits. His meetings with the Liberation Tigers and the portrayed cordial nature of it all creates a psychological impression in the minds of the people. These scenes create the impression that a solution will be upon us soon.

The feeling that 'some political solution will be reached, so let's do nothing in the meantime,' has started to envelope our people, and the result is the spread of political apathy" (TamilNet May 2, 2005). There is a clear note of desperation at the apathy and departure from militancy among Tamils.

Taraki remained the militant at heart. What is the organisation that does not tolerate mention of such apathy among the Tamil people and criticism of Solheim and his false hopes? Looking in those directions could bear more fruit that shadow boxing with "staunch nationalists in the South".