Human Rights Violation in Srilanka
ETHNIIC CONFLICT: : The peopling of Sri Lanka has been a continuous process of migrants from India with indigenous and other earlier migrant groups [Bandaranayke: 1985]. The Sinhala or Sinhalese (74%) constitute the major ethnic group; the Sri Lankan Tamils, who inhabit the north and east form 12.6% and the group known as Indian Tamils (19th century migrants for work on plantations) 5.6% of the population. While Muslims constitute the third largest ethnic group (7.4%), there are also small minorities such as Burghers (people of mixed decent), and Malays. All the major groups in Sri Lanka belong to a similar ethnic mix of migrants from various parts of India, especially South India, to which there have been Southeast Asian, Arab and European admixtures. In spite of this, each ethnic group today has a distinct identity with strongly held myths of origin; the Sinhala believe that they are Aryans from Bengal, the Tamils claim pure Dravidian origin, and the Muslims aspire to descent from Arabs. The history of ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is the history of emergence of consciousness among the majority of the community, the Sinhala, which defined Sri Lankan society as Sinhala-Buddhist, thus denying its multiethnic character. The growth of this consciousness impinged on the minorities in Sri Lanka to the extent that internal resolutions of the problems become impossible. The Sinhala dominated the country from about 5th century BC and succeeded in establishing a kingdom with its centre in the North Central Province of the island. The term `Sinhala' was first used to indicate the royal family of the island, then extended to cover the royal retinue and then further extended to include the people; this social process dating to about 6th century AD is simultaneously the process of the ethnic consolidation of the Sinhala people. [Gunawardena: 1984:55-107] The Sinhala kingdom which controlled the entire island most of the time entered into relations both of alliance and hostility at various periods with the Chola, Pandiya and Chera Kingdoms of South India. There were frequent invasions from these kingdoms, and also frequent alliances and intermarriage of the four royal families. There were thus strong links with India, especially South India. This long history of links with South India is still present in popular Sinhala consciousness, with perhaps the aggressive acts being best remembered. LTTE
((LI IBERATION TIIGERS OF TAMIIL EELAM)) The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, are a separatist group in Sri Lanka. Since the 1980s, the LTTE have been agitating for a homeland for ethnic Tamils, who feel persecuted by Sri Lanka's ethnic majority, the Sinhalese. The LTTE is notorious for having pioneered the suicide bomb jacket, as well as the use of women in suicide attacks. They are blamed for a dozen high-level assassinations, over two hundred suicide attacks, and its war against the government has cost more than seventy thousand lives. In May 2009, the Sri Lankan government declared the twenty-six year long conflict had ended. The military claimed it had defeated the rebels and killed the LTTE's elusive leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran. The group conceded defeat and in a statement said it had decided to lay down its arms. However, some experts warn it may be too early to write off the group, which has proved to be a ruthless guerilla outfit in the past. Both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan military have been accused of engaging in abductions, extortion, conscription, and the use of child soldiers.
S SR RII LLA AN NK KA AN N ((M Moooorr eetthhnniicciittyy:: S Srrii LLaannkkaann m moooorrss,, aa ggrroouupp ooff ppeeooppllee)) C CH HA AN NG GE E
By killing many off tthe Tamilians in i Srri ilanka,, iti t made iti tselff a crruel l natti ion Human Rights Viola ation In I Srri i Lanka Major human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as the State and the European Union, have expressed concern about the state of human rights in Sri Lanka. British colonial rulers, the government of Sri Lanka and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are accused of violating human rights. Amnesty International stated in 2003 that there was a considerable improvement in the human rights situation attributed to the peaceful context of a ceasefire and peace talks between the government and the LTTE. In their 2006 report, however, Amnesty International stated that "escalating political killings, child recruitment, abductions and armed clashes created a climate of fear in the east, spreading to the north by the end of the year," while also outlining concerns with violence against women, the death penalty, and "numerous reports of torture in police custody." Although Sri Lanka has not officially practiced the death penalty since 1976, welland murders by documented cases of state-sponsored 'disappearances' non-partisan humanitarian organizations, notably Human Rights Watch, contradict official statements. In 2012, the UK charity Freedom from Torture reported that it had received 233 referrals of torture survivors from Sri Lanka for clinical treatment or other services provided by the charity.
Role off Prress on Violat tion The Hindu was quoting Colombo s Daily News for Mr. Gotabhaya s remarks. According to the Daily News, Mr. Rajapaksa observed that India could never absolve itself of the responsibility for creating terrorism in his country, though some of those directly involved in subverting Sri Lanka were blaming the Rajapaksa administration for the plight of Tamil-speaking people in Sri Lanka. The remarks came as a response to an article titled Why India is right on Sri Lanka, by Hardeep S. Puri, India s former permanent representative to the United Nations in New York, which appeared in The Hindu recently. The Daily News quoted Mr. Rajapaksa as having said: People of all communities would have been still suffering the horrors of war, if not for the eradication of terrorism in May 2009, following a three-year combined security forces campaign. The defense secretary has also said that Mr. Puri was involved in the Indian operation against the then J.R Jayewardene government, ahead of the Indo-Lanka Accord, in July 1987. He was one of those aware of the Indian operations here, he said, adding that both, Hardeep S. Puri and his wife, Lakshmi had been attached to India s mission in Colombo during the tenure of J.N. Dixit as India s high commissioner in Colombo. Responding to Mr. Puri s call for investigation into specific allegations of war crimes during the last 100 days of military operations, Mr. Rajapaksa said: Those demanding accountability on Sri Lanka s part for alleged atrocities committed during the last 100 days of the conflict were silent on the origin of terrorism here. Mr. Rajapaksa said that Indian intervention had resulted in a major regional crisis, when Sri Lankan terrorists, trained by Indians, raided the Maldives in early November 1988. The international community should consider a comprehensive investigation into the issue beginning with the Indian intervention. Observing that Mr. Puri could aid investigation by revealing what was going on at that time, Mr. Rajapaksa said Mr. Dixit, in his memoirs, had
said that arming Sri Lankan Tamil youth was one of the two major policy blunders of the then prime minister Indira Gandhi. Meanwhile, the Sinhalese nationalist party Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) has said that before pointing its finger at Sri Lanka, Delhi should address human rights violations in India. Expressing skepticism about the Indian parliamentary delegation s visit, JHU general secretary and Science and Technology Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka was quoted as saying that if the delegation had come with honorable intentions, their visit would be welcome, but it was evident that the Indian visit was part of a protest campaign to further distort the country s image, according to a report in Colombo s Daily Mirror newspaper. PEACE AGREEMENT:: The Peace agreement has roused varied reactions. Opinion in India, even on the Left, has been favourable. Some have also seen it as a foreign policy triumph for Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, reaffirming India's role as the regional power, safeguarding India's security as well as manifesting humanitarian ideals. It has been criticized by a few of Gandhi's political opponents, but this has been limited to speculations that it embodies a hasty and simple solution to a very complex problem and that it might fail as, for example, the Punjab Accord has failed. In Sri Lanka, a section of the Sinhala majority including Sirima Bandaranaike see it as a base surrender to Sri Lankan Tamils on the question of the Tamil region, and to India on the use of Trincomalee and other ports. The traditional Sinhala fears of domination by India, specifically South India, have been aroused by the Agreement. It has been argued that Sri Lanka's sovereignty and independence have been seriously eroded.
However, other sections of Sinhalese welcome the Agreement as the only alternative to continuous warfare and misery for the people of Sri Lanka. By, Manikandan M, XI B