Falsehoods in the British House of Commons
Prof Rajiva Wijesinha, MP
I was deeply shocked by various pronouncements in the recent debate
in the House of Commons on what was termed the issue of Human Rights on
the Indian Subcontinent. Much of the debate was about Kashmir, and
several MPs weighed in against India in what seemed a very unfair and
biased fashion. But India is large enough to look after itself, and even
to cope with the indignation the Britishers expressed when it was
reported that India had reacted strongly to the British parliamentary
debate on Kashmir. After all, as a lady called Joan Walley put it so
expressively, 'There are many people in Stoke-on-Trent from Kashmir who
feel strongly...'
What shocked me
What shocked me, sympathetic as I am to the feelings of anyone from
Stoke-on-Trent, was that these British MPs simply had no regard for
truth. They made things up as and how they liked. I had previously been
used to Siobhain McDonagh, but what was astonishing was that two
Conservatives had jumped on the bandwagon as far as Sri Lanka was
concerned.
I will confine myself here only to matters where blunders were
egregious. There were several matters about which looking at evidence
would suggest these sanctimonious creatures were wrong. But to be
totally wrong, with no concern for evidence, struck me as very sad
indeed.
Far less foolish
A man called Lee Scott, whom I had met with Ms McDonagh, and who had
struck me at the time as far less foolish than the good lady, referred
blithely to reports from the United Nations 'that 40,000 innocent people
were massacred at the end of the conflict'. Actually the Darusman Report
only says in Para 137 that 'A number of credible sources have estimated
that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths. Two years
after the end of the war, there is still no reliable figure for civilian
deaths, but multiple sources of information indicate that a range of up
to 40,000 civilian deaths cannot be ruled out at this stage' And Gordon
Weiss, whose book perhaps Mr Scott thinks is a UN report, has claims of
between 10,000 and 40,000. But no, doubtless primed by his constituents,
Scott has no qualms about going for 40,000.
Crude witticisms
Scott also engages in crude witticisms when he declares that 'There
are still children in some of the camps who are four or five years old,
and I have yet to meet an 18-month old terrorist'. The effort at humour
seems designed however also to conflates the rehabilitees with the
children amongst the 7,000 in the camp. They are with their parents,
none of whom were suspected of terrorism. All former child soldiers were
released a year back.
Scott's mordant wit emerges again when he refutes Mr Binley's comment
about the 160,000 people he saw in Puttalam (he calls them Tamils, but
they were probably Tamil speaking Muslims from the North) who said they
had been driven out by the LTTE. He accepts that they may have said
this, but declares that what happened in Libya indicates that people
change their story. I presume he was not referring to the sales of arms
Britain engaged in to Libya shortly before they decided to overthrow
Gaddafi.
Scoring brownie points
Scott claims too that 'A number of babies and children below the age
of 12 were not accounted for.' This is what the tracing service
established by the Vavuniya Government Agent is about, and perhaps the
British High Commission could help Scott by transmitting any names he
has to the GA. But I suspect he has no real concerns, and is simply
scoring brownie points with his constituents, as also with his claim
that the elderly and displaced are unaccounted for, which is bizarre,
because they were amongst those first released.
Scott however seems almost sensible in comparison with his fellow
Conservative, Robert Halfon from Harrow, who asserted that 'As well as
the thousands and thousands of Tamils killed by the Sri Lankan regime,
17,000 Tamils are still caged behind barbed wire and another nearly
200,000 in transit camps have been refused permission to return to their
homes'.
Full freedom of movement
In reality, leaving aside his omission of any mention of the Tamils
killed by the LTTE, the fact is that there are only 7,000 Tamils in
Manik Farm and they have full freedom of movement. Transit camps are
used for a day or two before resettlement, and there are hardly any in
such at present. The figure of 200,000 refers to those who had been
displaced long before the last year of the conflict, including the
100,000 and more Muslims expelled by the LTTE. They have been free to
return but most do not wish to now.
Halfon later refers to reports of 'Tamil civilians being summarily
executed or disappearing, and that follows the genocide of 40,000 Tamils
in the last decade'.
I am not sure if the first part of that statement was also about the
last decade, to include the many Tamils killed by the LTTE during the
Ceasefire period, about whom no sympathy was extended by British
politicians. The High Commission should be asked to check with him
whether there are any current reports he is referring to. Certainly he
seems to have no idea about either Sri Lankan history or the current
situation, for he says that 'An estimated 180,000 Tamils are still
displaced, either in transit camps or sheltering'.
Muslims chased out by LTTE
The figure must refer largely to the Muslims who were chased out by
the LTTE 20 years ago - again with no British politicians extending
sympathy or concern - and who prefer to stay on in Puttalam, given the
housing the government started before the LTTE was destroyed in Sri
Lanka. Those displaced in 2009, about whom alone concerns were
expressed, are almost all now resettled.
He declares too that 'Names of prisoners have still not been
published' whereas the list is with the HRC, and visits have been taking
place. If he is talking about the rehabilitees, that list was always
available and visits were regular from the start
Halfon is also critical of Sri Lankan relations with other countries
including Libya. He is obviously not concerned about British relations
with Libya.
To be continued |