Will Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu shed much-needed light, please?

Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu in an article titled ‘Advisory Panel: In search of a response’ (Daily Mirror, May 5, 2011) argues that the report submitted by three persons led by one Darusman has generated ‘more heat than light in terms of contents and implications’.

He is correct in the assertion. He says that this is not surprising. I agree. The contents are so dark, convoluted, contradictory, slothful, slanted etc., that only an optimist or a moron would seek light in it. This does not mean that one should not read the document of course. Even if the government feels that an illegal document and one which was spawned in arrogance, ignorance and vilifying-intent does not warrant official response, it has to be seen as indicator of political intent of powerful nations and personalities and as such containing the kinds of grenades that might be flung at Sri Lanka from time to time well into the future.

Final phase of war

It is not the case that the ‘darkness’ has not been dissected and the shades of grey analyzed. Saravanamuttu is probably well aware of the ‘takes’ on substance and relevant implications. In this article (as indicated by the title), he is begging for content-analysis from the government, thereby giving respectability to a piece of trash. Whether or not the government will take the bait, I do not know. He seems to be claiming that communications between the panel and the government indicate that such respectability has already been accorded, but that’s just splitting hairs. Courtesy is not equal to conferring blessing, but perhaps it is best to let the government to figure out what to make of word and claim.

Saravanamuttu says he has made two observations: a) the Report is out there and requires a response that will settle the matter once and for all, and b) the Report is justifiably harsh on the LTTE for the atrocities it committed in the final phase of the war.

First of all, as I pointed out earlier, there’s nothing to say that government must respond to each and every ignoramus who thinks fit to raise finger and sarong at it, even if such actions are prodded by big-name personalities. The government is not an NGO that is desperate for visibility, after all. Secondly, even an A/L student of Political Science will see that the panel HAD to throw some grenades at the LTTE to appear neutral. Saravanamuttu knows that the ‘recommendations’ in the report say nothing about holding the LTTE accountable, even though history of such justice-seeking mechanisms consequent to war-end have not summarily acquitted anyone militarily and/or politically associated with the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. His inability to see slant in this reveals his own slant. Not that such revelation is required, of course.

Diplomatic community

He is moreover the boss of an organization that concerns itself with policy and relevant alternatives. He has a track record as an advocate of a wide range of policies, even moves to destabilize the country.

Whether or not the government responds to this report, all citizens ought to peruse its contents and reach their own conclusions. Saravanamuttu too. He is, after all, a Sri Lankan citizen and one whose opinion is frequently sought by the high and mighty in the diplomatic community. I am sure he has the grey matter to answer some questions.

Does Saravanamuttu believe that Ban ki-Moon overstep the boundaries of his post? Would he say that the panellists overstepped their mandate, obnoxious though he may conclude this mandate to be? Does not the appointment of this panel itself constitute a sarong-up at the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly and the Security Council? Do the track records of the three panellists indicate they are people of integrity, are unquestionably neutral with respect to government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE? Does he believe that the sources tapped by the panellists are reliable and if so, can he furnish evidence to support such a thesis? Is the report error free? Is it free of contradiction? Is it innocent of deliberate misquote and part-quote to buttress argument?

Double standards

Did or did not the panellists consult or question Saravanamuttu at any point? Is the entire process an attack on the sovereignty of this country? Is it ‘unnecessary interference’? Is it not? Would Saravanamuttu say that the process indicates double standards by its architects and the person(s) who commissioned them to engage in the exercise? Would he venture to list (for the benefit of the general public) other countries that warrant investigations far more urgently than Sri Lanka does and if not, would he tell us why not?

As I said, Saravanamuttu is correct: there is heat but very little light. On the other hand, in the matter of shedding light, those with integrity cannot be selective. Saravanamuttu has the resources. He has a mind. He can write. He can talk. Let’s have some words.

I am willing to give Saravanamuttu the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he has not read the document in full. A week is probably long enough for someone like him to read, digest and comment and in the comment to answer the above questions. Let’s see.

[email protected]