Rascality unlimited: re-invention of a gonibilla called ‘Enraged Tamil Citizen’

‘Human Shield’ as far as the LTTE was concerned was not a convenience but a necessity. That’s another story and several doctoral dissertations on crimes against humanity waiting to be written. ‘Civilian’ had many uses. They were good as shield, good as cannon fodder, good to abduct, good to assassinate, good as token, good as alibi, good to hold hostage, good as flag and good for number-fudging; in a word ‘expendable’. From Day One, one must add.

There was also an interesting civilian category while the Ceasefire Agreement was officially in operation: ‘The enraged Tamil civilian’.

According to the LTTE each time a political opponent was murdered or an attack carried out against the security forces, the culprit was the enraged civilian, provoked (allegedly) out of his/her mind. That’s what they wanted the world to believe. And that’s the story that their proxies in Colombo purchased happily for never did they venture to counter such claims.

LTTE-controlled areas

The ‘enraged civilian’ was forced to build trenches (not bunkers) in Vakarai. The ‘enraged civilian’ was made to starve while ‘the boys’ lined their bunkers with sacks of rice and dhal that had been sent to LTTE-controlled areas courtesy the good offices of the Sri Lankan government. A mob of enraged civilians killed SSP Charles Wijewardena, when he went to settle a dispute and calm down people justifiably angered by a freak accident that killed a civilian. He went without the protection of the Police or Army. He was unarmed. He was beaten to death. The ‘enraged civilian’ was, then, not always a pawn or proxy; he/she was the LTTE.

I have argued that it was not only Prabhakaran who used human shields (see ‘Human Shields: Never the preserve of the LTTE’ in the Sunday Island of May 15, 2011: www.island.lk). This morning I realized that I had neglected to mention a different dimension of the phenomenon. This morning I read Jehan Perera’s article in The Island of May 17, 2011 (‘Less visible undercurrents in Jaffna’).

Academic circles

Perera twists and turns to salute the Darusman Report. He calls it ‘UN Panel Report’, ignoring completely the fact that it has no legal weight in terms of the UN Charter. He observes that restricting the mandate (sic) of the panel to the last phase of the war ‘has permitted earlier atrocities perpetrated by the LTTE, and also by previous governments and the Indian Peace Keeping Force, to go unmentioned’. He notes that this is particularly infuriating to the government. He shows absolutely no compulsion to question the integrity of the exercise on this particular point. The ‘why not’ says a lot about him of course.

This slithering around naturally sees him sliding to the LTTE’s favourite alibi: the Tamil civilian. Perera claims he’s talked to people in Jaffna. He doesn’t tell us who these people are, how many there were, whether they got ‘participation fees’ etc.

He gets these ‘people’ to say that they are happy ‘that what had happened in the course of the last phase of the war is now known throughout the world’. In other words, Perera, who is well acquainted with basic investigative caveats such as reliability and verification, and knows very well the contempt with which conjecture and hearsay are treated in academic circles, does the convenient and unpardonable. He does the ‘go along’. So it is not these ‘people’ who are saying it, but Perera himself. He has, one must not forget, consistently balked at responding to criticism, preferring the tail-between-legs method of engagement. Surprising, one might add, for someone who talks about democracy, peaceful engagement, free exchange of views and debate. ‘Coward’ comes to mind.

That’s beside the point, however. What is pertinent is the claim that these ‘people’ are suffering some kind of ‘dejection’ and ‘powerlessness’ which Perera claims is ‘concealed’ from the casual visitor.

Political leadership

He seeks to add credibility to the story by taking up the position that he sees the report not as an instrument for punishing but one for reconciliation, never mind the slant, sloth and slobbering on behalf of the LTTE that is embedded in the text. Surprise, surprise! Next he says that even though he, Perera, says he is not for punishment, the ‘people’ he spoke to are all for it.

All of a sudden, some unidentified bunch of people are forcing Jehan to reconsider his position vis-a-vis the report.

There are questions which I doubt Perera would have asked these ‘people’.

Had any of them, at any point, publicly condemn the LTTE for all the crimes that organization committed, especially to the Tamil civilians? Perera might say that they were scared to speak out. Understandable. Well, are they saying it now?

I am sure they can make some LTTE-condemning noises, because, as Perera points out it is not the LTTE that is in the dock here, even though the history of justice-seeking with respect to crimes against humanity does shows that those who pulled the trigger, ordered the shooting and those who carried messages between commander and murderer are all guilty and therefore all those who have made representations (given their personal histories) regarding the issue at hand need to be arrested and tried.

On the other hand, if indeed they do make such noises, would they stand up and applaud those who have made it possible for them to do so, namely the Sri Lankan security forces and the political leadership of this country? If not, why not, would Perera care to answer?

Myths and legends

Did Perera ask them if they have any proof for the claims made (knowing well that the report is thick on allegation and thin on substantiation)? Did he ask where exactly these ‘people’ were during the last phase of the military offensive? Did he ask them if they saw with their own eyes and if not, who told them what they now utter? Did he question them about source-reliability? Did he tell them, quoting chapter and verse, of his long complicity in the political machinations of the LTTE (as I pointed out recently in an article titled ‘And some people will continue to bat for Eelam and the LTTE...’ in the Daily News of May 11, 2011)?

If he has not, why did he not? And, if he did, and is satisfied with the answers he was provided with, would he blame the state for erring on the side of caution, given the history of what ‘enraged civilians’ have done and how they’ve compromised the security of the nation and the citizenry?

The bottom line is that a nation that suffered at the hands of a ruthless terrorist articulating with bullet, grenade and whatnot a politics based more on myths and legends than hard fact cannot take chances.

Perera is naturally chagrined at the way things turned out (ref his pro-LTTE utterings over the last 20 years). Today he seems to be busy conjuring up or re-inventing a gonibilla called ‘the enraged Tamil citizen’.

I am not surprised. Rascality is the preserve of rascals. And I am being extremely generous here. [email protected]