Ghouls hold wake before funeral

Violence: Protesting against the rapidly growing culture of violence in society, marked by killings and abductions; made worse by poor policing and failure to apprehend the guilty, is a necessary aspect of a functioning democracy, even though worn at the seams.

There is an even greater importance in such protests when the victim is an elected representative of the people, seeking to give voice to a minority that by and large, correctly considers itself oppressed by the State; and is also one who walks a dangerous balancing act between the forces of democracy and those of terror.

Nadaraja Raviraj, the slain MP from the Jaffna District, a lawyer and former Mayor of Jaffna, was a person who deserved such protest at his killing.

His political affiliations should not be held against an outcry of condemnation of his killing; for it is the stuff of democracy that gives him the right to hold his own views and express them, however objectionable they may be to others.

A frequent participant in TV debates - his last act in life was one such appearance - Raviraj gave the impression that he had somehow mastered the walk on a deadly political tightrope, made with strands of democracy and terror.

He was an affable man, who knew how to needle his opponents in debate, and had an impact with his ability to make his points in Sinhala.

Public desecration

Nadaraja Raviraj deserved to be mourned in public, and in full measure, in keeping with the best Sinhala and Tamil; Buddhist, Hindu, and Christian traditions of mourning. His assassination deserved of the strongest public condemnation.

But, what he did not deserve was for his body to be made an object of public desecration.

The protesters of the Anti War Front and others could have done it effectively by carrying a symbolic coffin; they could have weighed it with rocks if they felt the need to carry a weight.

What happened instead was a mockery to the memory of a man snatched away from us so brutally and lying still in that coffin.

His mortal remains became a pandu in the hands of its callous handlers who, but for lack of strength, would have thrown it about for a catch or two, like a bridegroom at a wedding.

Far from mourning the tragic death of Nadaraja Raviraj, the handlers of the coffin with his body were seen behaving the most ghoulish manner, obviously delighted at having a real cadaver to play around with.

Politicians, big or small, whether in or out of power, are known to revel in a chance to use a body for maximum publicity for them, and their often devious aims. We have many the dead being exploited for political gain, before.

But, all that was eclipsed by the manner in which the alleged mourners for democracy, human rights and Nadaraja Raviraj, behaved at the Vihara Maha Devi Park last Monday.

Their contemptible exploitation of the tragedy of a family, was amply seen in how all the great mourners, from Marxists to Peace Builders, champions of women's rights, and loud voices for human rights, all faded away once their ghoulish performance was over; leaving the coffin carrying Raviraj's body with the members of his bereaved family, to be taken back to the funeral parlour.

In a country where neighbours flock to keep vigil at a funeral house; reduce the volume of their home radios to respect a nearby funeral, those who used Raviraj's death and funeral to draw attention to their dubious cause, were not even there to form a cortege back to the funeral parlour.

These mock mourners clearly demonstrated a total lack of civilized behaviour, which raises many doubts about the true nature of their commitment to peace.

Haven't we had enough of these vulgar operatives to whom peace is only a convenient mantra of self interest? They enjoyed a wake for Raviraj long before his cremation.

The blame game

Last week saw many who enjoyed playing the blame game to their own satisfaction, and the hope of misleading others.

Some of the statements referring to this assassination, by those from whom one expects serious comment and observation, were either knee-jerk reactions or politically coloured viewpoints, with little bearing on the search for the truth.

Undeterred by lack of evidence, they were doing their contemptible best to lay the blame for the Raviraj assassination at the door of the Government.

R. Sampanthan, the leader of the TNA Parliamentary Group, stands out among these knee-jerk commentators.

He is quoted in the media saying that "Raviraj's assassination was connected to the previous day's protest opposite the UN office in Colombo." "This is not the work of a madman" he said, forgetting there could be method even in madness.

If it was directly connected to the protest demonstration of the previous day, it could not have been so a well-planned and executed. How could a criminal plan have worked so well, so soon?

The killers arrived in a three-wheeler and made their getaway on a waiting motorcycle. If it was an immediate consequence of the previous day's protest, would the killers have known the movements of Raviraj so well, as to get him when and where they did?

The events are more suited to a grisly act planned and hatched earlier, and carried out the morning after the protest near the UN office, which had its own advantages to the conspirators; mainly the huge international publicity, coming on top of the death of civilians in the incident at Vakarai.

Sampanthan and others too, have compared this assassination to that of Joseph Pararajasingham, at midnight Christmas service in a church at Batticaloa, on December 24 last year. No doubt there is a clear comparison between these two killings.

The killing of Pararajasingham, took place barely a week after President Mahinda Rajapaksa took office as President of Sri Lanka, it was the first well-planned stain on the shine of the new presidency.

The killing of Raviraj was just a week before the first anniversary of that swearing in. One more ugly stain. Could this be coincidence?

There is another important commonality in these killings. Both of them, in their timing, made sure that they would get the maximum international publicity. One capitalized on the Christmas mood, the other capitalized on the aftermath of Vakarai.

Both these killings drew huge international publicity and condemnation, much more than the usual political killings carried out in Sri Lanka so frequently, by the forces of terror.

The friendly bonding

Anther important aspect about these two killings, ignored by those who draw comparisons between them, is that both Joseph Pararajasingham and Nadaraja Raviraj were Members of Parliament together with President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the former MP for Beliatta from the Hambantota District.

They too were lawyers. Both of them were very much interested in human rights. More significantly, both Pararajasingham and Raviraj were closely associated with President Rajapaksa, either in his capacity as Prime Minister or President.

The late Pararajasingham was drawn closer to Prime Minister Rajapaksa, from the time of the tsunami of December 24, 2004.

The day before his assassination on December 24, 2005 he discussed aspects of relief for tsunami victims with the new President. He was a frequent and very welcome visitor at Temple Trees.

Raviraj too had a similar relationship with Prime Minister and later President Rajapaksa. The personal note that the President struck in his reaction to Raviraj's killing, showed the bonding that existed between them.

He was very appreciative of Raviraj's outspoken nature; his fluency in Sinhala, and readiness to explain his political position in Sinhala. Raviraj too, was a welcome visitor to Temple Trees.

With all these commonalities, would it be wrong to suppose that close relationship with President Rajapaksa too may have been a factor that weighed against these two TNA members, in the eyes of those who plotted their assassinations? I make no allegations. These are only observations.

Maybe, this could interest the investigators into the Raviraj killing, whether from the Sri Lankan CID or Scotland Yard.

One more democrat

Sampanthan and others have said Raviraj was committed to democracy.

He has been praised as one who never tolerated violence and injustice in any sector. These are certainly laudable qualities. But these are certainly not the most acceptable qualities in the quarters that eschew democracy, and are keener on terror than dissent and dialogue.

Who is it that Raviraj could have angered by participating in a protest rally in Puttalam against the forced removal - ethnic cleansing it is called - of Muslims from the Jaffna peninsula? Is it the Government, Muslims, or Sinhala extremists?

These are good thoughts to chew on before one rushes to make allegations about the killers of Raviraj. It is also important to recall that Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam, Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, Ketheesh Loganathan, Appapillai Amirthalingam and so many others lost to the gun of the assassin, were also persons with a full commitment to democracy, for which they were not liked by their killers. Could Raviraj have escaped the wrath of terror with his commitment to democracy?

There are many rushing to point the finger of suspicion at the Government for this assassination. A Government of a country is responsible for maintenance of law and order.

In that sense, it has to accept responsibility for the breakdown of law and order, too, and take adequate remedial measures; the sooner the better.

However, is it possible to believe the Government could be so distanced from reality as to have organized the killing of Raviraj, the day after the high-profile demonstration near the UN Office, against the unfortunate incident at Vakarai; when it was already overwhelmed by the international criticism of the death of civilians at Vakarai?

It was an incident that prompted the President to express regrets on behalf of the Government, and also order compensation to the families of the victims.

Allegations are always easy to make. But the worth of allegations depends both on the actualities behind them and the absence of petty advantage in making them.