The ramifications of the Channel 4 documentary ‘Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields’

The recently telecast Channel 4 documentary on ‘Killing Fields of Sri Lanka’ sheds no new light (despite claims to the contrary), in terms of groundbreaking evidence, regarding the incidents related to the end of the war in Sri Lanka.  If anything, it will seek to entrench already hardened attitudes and decrease the ever reducing space for dialogue and reconciliation.

From the government’s perspective, it will seek to discredit the documentary as fake as it feeds into the insecurity that it surrounds itself with, of a perception that the west has been influenced by a highly successful pro LTTE lobby.  The end result will be the securing of its ‘credibility’ especially as a ‘victim of an external conspiracy’ consequently rallying the people’s sympathy, thereby making any genuine attempt to hold the government accountable for anything fruitless.

On the other side, for the pro LTTE lobby (largely represented by their supporters in the UK, US and Canada) this will be a ‘vindication’ of their claims regarding the Government and its conduct of the war, thereby serving to boost their movement and support whilst ignoring the part that they have played in fund raising and supporting the LTTE (despite the proscription of the LTTE as a terrorist group). This has been helped by a fairly sympathetic media (angered at being excluded from the front lines by the Sri Lankan Government) which so far has tended to focus on the government’s part in the end of the war rather than also holding these representatives in the West, accountable for the crimes committed by the LTTE.

It is this decrease in the space to explore mutual understandings that lie at the heart of most people’s disapproval of moves like Channel 4 or the UN to talk about War Crimes. At the end of the day, the repercussions will not be felt by the Diaspora in the Global North or even by the Government.  It will be felt by the ordinary people in Sri Lanka who have to live with the consequences.  For those of us who are active in trying to work on post conflict reconciliation, it is not about defending the indefensible.   We are not here to deny or justify abuses. War is never just or civil, even when it is fought against a proscribed terrorist organisation.  There is no excuse for abuses to be meted out. But the question remains how, who and when should accountability take place?  Is it when the wounds are still fresh or is it when there has been enough time for healing to have taken place? Equally when accountability is demanded it has to be done against all responsible and for all crimes.  Whilst blame is very often vociferously laid at the feet of the Sri Lankan government for its actions, nothing is said with the same intensity about the atrocities committed by the LTTE such as: the ethnic cleansing of 100,000 Muslims from the north (who still live in refugee camps today in the north west of Sri Lanka, with no one voicing any concern about them); the assassination of key political and intellectual leaders (of all ethnicities)  or the forcible recruitment of child soldiers.  The reports do not carry any discussion of how the LTTE combatants mingled with civilians and forcibly conscripted them to fight in the final stages, as has been documented in an  interview given by a former Tamil National Parliamentarian who was trapped inside the war zone during this period.  This former Member of Parliament said that he saw people being shot and killed by the LTTE.  No explanation is given about the fact that during the heaviest of fighting, the LTTE also moved its heavy artillery positions near the no fire zones and within the hospital compounds and used them. The Tamils who objected to this move were brutally shot dead which has been corroborated by the war victims and even former LTTE cadres and can be viewed on You Tube.  Nor do they discuss the phenomenon that Mark Meadow’s 2010 book ‘Tea Time with Terrorists’, describes of how  former LTTE fighters have explained LTTE tactics such as “LTTE cadres dressing up in Sri Lankan army uniforms, then firing at unarmed civilians to put false blame on the army”.

The truth of the matter is that the conflict in Sri Lanka is not black and white. The truth is somewhat blurred in between. Unfortunately, in the midst of this flurry of interest once again in what happened in Sri Lanka in 2009, the real discussion is becoming sidelined, for whilst it is important to look at the past, it is vital that an eye is placed towards the future at all levels, not just political.  How can Sri Lanka learn from the mistakes of the past that sidelined the minorities and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians? Successive governments have always hid behind the pretext of winning the war and defeating the LTTE militarily without addressing some of the fundamental key issues concerning minorities. Now with the defeat of the LTTE, there is a real opportunity to address the legitimate grievances of the minorities to ensure that the country is not subject to a repeat of the conflict ever again.  The questions becomes, how can  Sri Lanka, despite more than sixty years of independence, develop a constitutional framework that will satisfy the aspirations of all its citizens and deliver an environment of peace and harmony? Moreover at a grass roots levels, how can people work towards reconciliation between polarised communities (growing increasingly suspicious of each other thereby encouraging inward looking clannish tendencies)  and ensure an environment of peace, justice and equity that can hold politicians accountable for good governance?  Like it or not, it is at the grass roots level where ideologies take root and prosper or fester and also where consequences are felt, either way.

Those involved in conflict resolution and peace building will often talk about a period of healing in order for accountability to take place.  The Bloody Sunday acknowledgement by the British Government took 38 years after a 12 year investigation.  Poland and Germany still have strained relations incurred during the Second World War.  The period of healing for Sri Lanka is still in a baby stage of 2 years yet is not being addressed. As it stands it is doubtless felt that such endeavours will in fact damage efforts being undertaken to achieve reconciliation.

What is critical for Sri Lanka is the rebuilding of trust which can only be rebuilt when a space is created for effective dialogue and understanding.  Rebuilding trust is about honouring unity and celebrating diversity, working towards equity and justice and ensuring the eradication of social prejudices in building a collective identity.  Sri Lanka needs the space for this to happen.  It needs time for its people to go through the healing process.  Its people need to come up with their own locally developed solutions.

Transparency, accountability and social justice are the pillars of a mature democratic society.  Sri Lanka’s journey is still very early in trying to achieve this, but nevertheless it has started.  Accountability will come in time once people are ready to not allow the past to become a ball and chain for the future.  The release of this documentary and other reports provides unwarranted distraction from the main issues that the government (and any government in a post conflict country) should be held accountable for including: steps taken towards reconciliation, stemming the rising cost of living, tackling corruption and trying to ensure law and order.   By demanding it from outside, it also abrogates responsibility from all the stakeholders at all levels within Sri Lanka to ensure that seeds are planted at the grass roots that will not fester into another conflict. This is possibly the biggest disservice we do to those people who died (on both sides) of the conflict for something they believed in or were forced into due to other’s selfishness.

###

This originally appeared on Groundviews

Living with each other's differences

The story of the ‘The Imam and The Pastor’, is one that needs to be revisited to fully comprehend the concept of the need to move beyond the concept of a clash between each other to reaching out and developing an alliance with ‘the other’.

Emerging from the 1990s in Northern Nigeria after being in the frontlines of confrontations between Christians and Muslims which saw the killings of thousands in inter-religious warfare, Imam Muhammad Ashafa and Pastor James Wuye are two of the most unlikeliest of allies, forging new grounds with their Interfaith Mediation Center, responsible for mediating peace between Christians and Muslims in Nigeria's Kaduna state.

They both came out of the heart of the religious teachings of their communities (Imam Ashafa was once committed to the total Islamization of Nigeria and Pastor James to its total evangelization) and were sucked into the religious conflict, becoming bitter enemies, determined to kill each other. Pastor James recounts that ‘My hate for Muslims had no limits’ whilst Imam Ashafa says that ‘We had a zeal to protect and revive the glory of Islam’.

Joining rival militias and fighting against each other, the Pastor had his hand hacked off while defending his church against Muslims and the Imam had his spiritual adviser and two of his brothers killed by Christian extremists. Imam Ashafa recalled that time ‘ For 48 hours, we were killing and maiming each other. Each of us were fighting believing that we had to defend our faith’.

In 1995, a chance meeting between the two at a mediation conference held under the auspices of the Kaduna State Women’s Commission, saw them discovering a lot of commonalities between themselves. This started their journey towards healing and forgiveness. They each began to question the cost of violence, reverting back to their scriptures for guidance on common approaches. The culmination of this was the Interfaith Mediation Centre which has been described as a prototype of global conflict resolution. The journey has been a tough one. They were labeled as betrayers by their own people and when they visited each other’s religious institutions, they were met with suspicion. Their personal journey was equally tough. Moving away from hating each other was a hard one. The turning point for Imam Ashafa came when he heard a jummah khutbah about forgiveness and the example of the Prophet (PBUH) who forgave the Quraish upon the conquest of Makkah. For Pastor James, it took him three years to really overcome his hatred. He says that sometimes when they would be travelling together, even sharing a room, he was sometimes tempted to try and suffocate Ashafa in retaliation for the loss of his hand. However it was with the sickness of his mother and the support shown by Imam Ashafa that Pastor James began to really embrace the concept of reconciliation. He was further helped by the words of a fellow evangelist: ‘You can not preach to someone you hate. You must begin to forgive them for every hurt against you.’ The two men are now working together and more importantly helping to empower others to understand and rejoice in the commonality in the faith of others and to speak of those faiths with the respect they deserve whilst remaining faithful to their own religions.

The story of Imam Ashafa and Pastor James is one about the power of the responsibility placed upon the shoulder of the individual to take the lead in becoming a true citizen of the country and of the world, where he / she can rise above their narrow confines of individualistic concerns to face the broader concerns of all humanity and to redress the contradiction of society. This is not just something that should be left to the politicians or the institutions but really no one can be ruled out having a part in contributing. Ultimately the contradiction of society will be redressed when people come together confident in their universal principles; strengthened by their common values; defenders of pluralism in their society and respectful of identities of others, which means that they will take up the challenge of joining forces in a revolution of trust and confidence against the tide of discrimination and intolerance and poverty.
Their journey of forgiveness and reconciliation is about taking an individual responsibility to create a safe space for people to talk and share ideas. This safe space entails not only moving beyond victimhood but also being cognizant of the past (accepting and facing up to the past honestly)

The story of the Imam and the Pastor shows that strong ethical commitment in religious traditions can sharpen identity politics but more importantly can form the basis of inter and intra faith collaboration. Thus religious pluralism can not only lead to an absence of violence mainly due to better understandings and interaction but it opens a space for discussion, dialogue and engagement. In short, we must learn to listen closely to one another, not simply because it is polite, but because it is just possible that we might learn something important about ourselves, and build a better global village in the process. This is perhaps the greatest lesson we can get from the story of the Imam and the Pastor.

Understanding the Need to Talk

The moment was poignant. A Buddhist Monk in Sri Lanka addressing a group of religious leaders in Tamil. The meeting was held by the North East Interfaith Forum at the Mahatma Ghandi Centre in Colombo in January 2011 to discuss practical actions that religious leaders could take towards post conflict reconciliation in the country.

For a country that has been ill at ease with the close relationship between Sinhala nationalism and Buddhism, the feat of a Buddhist Monk being able to converse in Tamil should not be underestimated. Sri Lanka is emerging from a conflict that has been rooted in a difference of culture, language, ethnicities and ultimately religion. Ultimately it has been rooted in miscommunication and misperceptions.
Hence any steps towards reconciliation would have ultimately started with the need to address miscommunication and misperceptions. The acknowledgement of the need to speak in a common language (either one that is neutral or the language of the ‘other’) is a first step.

Though the conflict was not directly related to faith, because of the inter relationships between culture, ethnicity and religious belief, faith has ultimately become a theatre in which the conflict has played out (your faith intertwined with your ethnicity has often highlighted your support for or against the conflict). Thus the coming together of the religious leaders was symbolic in attempting to arrest the misperceptions surrounding the role of faith in causing the conflict. The role of the religious leaders should also not be underestimated because for millions of Sri Lankans, religious leaders hold an influential role in their lives. By gathering together to express solidarity, the religious leaders were conscious of the influence they could hold on others.

In their deliberations, the religious leaders touched on many issues of concern for them which they felt they needed to address. What was also significant was the realization to move away from just rhetoric and to address burning issues of concern between them.

The deliberations touched on 6 aspects that was felt to be important to the group:

1) The realization of the need to move from an atmosphere of clash to an atmosphere of alliance. In other words, the first step towards understanding and reconciliation is the need to take a conscious decision that the moment for conflict is over. If anything the transcendental moment of lucidity has meant that there needs to be an alliance to move forward.

2) The realisation of the need to acknowledge the 'other'. This in effect means that importance is placed on someone who is 'different' to you. The Buddhist Monk speaking in Tamil provided an opportunity to recognise Tamils as a significant player in this process.

3) The need to move beyond victimhood. Very often it is easy to play the victim and to say that everyone is against us. However this does not get us very far and we become isolated and distrustful

4) The need to take responsibility. Playing the victim means abrogating responsibility for one's actions and blaming everyone else apart from yourself in what has happened to you.

5) The need to create a space. This can not be underestimated, as a space opens opportunities for dialogue and starting the process of understanding each other. The space for discussions is what has somewhat been constrained in the past

6) The need to acknowledge the past. This is an important step as it gives credence and importance to every stakeholder. The past should not become a ball and chain for the future, but it should be understood in order for us to move forward but not allowing the negative feelings associated with the past to weigh us down.

These 6 steps are somewhat a progression in terms of ideas as they represent certain milestones in people's journey's towards reconciliation. The mere fact that religious leaders are now taking the initiative to get involved highlights how important reconciliation is for the country away from the political nuances of the corridors of power. The religious leaders had assembled to share a declaration of solidarity in calling for a new environment to establish village level action committees in order to address grass roots issues. As they deliberated over key action points, it was clear that they were united in one thing: the need to develop a new vision for the country.

This in itself needs support.

The Commercialisation of Eid

Eid has come and gone and as the dust settles, I am trying to reflect on the day gone by and find out exactly what has happened to Eid? I think we are suffering from an intellectual inferiority complex. How did it go from being one of spiritual upliftment to one of commercial value? Have we forgotten the spirit and the principle of what Eid stands for?

The reason why I say this is that over the last 3 weeks or so, I have been bombarded with emails about Qurbani from organisations that I have not even heard of, each offering me better deals than the other. It seems that they have taken the concept of ‘competing with each other for good things’ literally as they competed to out do each other in offering the best price to slaughter a cow / sheep / goat around the world.

Forget even the Islamic magazines, flyers, TV stations etc who have carried out live appeals for people’s Qurbani. It seems that the powers that be have been intent on ensuring that we are left with no doubt as to who is the best service provider. The last straw for me was receiving a text message from one organisation whom I have not heard about saying they were the most competitive. I don’t even know how they got my phone number and don’t get me started on the legality of unsolicited contacting. As if these organisations would understand that!!!

The issue is this: it has come down to a competition on price. Pure capitalism at its raw and most original!! ‘I am offering a better price for a cow or goat or sheep so that you can get a better reward in the hereafter’. Each price is competitive and if you were to examine, you could actually shop around for the best deal in town, sort of like buying a car.

The numbers of players have increased as everyone wants to get into the business of doing charity and offering people redemption. This trust or that foundation or that relief agency seem to be doing the same thing but at a lesser price. Unfortunately with the proliferation of these organisations, it doesn’t necessarily mean things are getting better or that poverty (as these organisations are seeking to do) is being alleviated.

The problem is that they all work in pretty much the same areas of the world and considering the time of the month, most of these areas will be Muslim. With the addition of the organisations, it doesn’t mean that a space is being created for discussion on vital issues of dealing with the non Muslims, so all these organisations concentrate on Muslims. The problem comes when they undercut each other to provide the best prices on cows and goats in Pakistan, or Bosnia etc. However what people do not realise is that there are couple of issues inherent with this:
• Most of the organisations based in the UK, do this type of work through their local contacts and partners in whichever country that they operate in. The point is that these organisations do not want to incur additional administration costs or staff costs, which is understandable, so they rely on ‘reliable’ local people to do their work for them in choosing the animals, slaughtering and distributing.
• Yet how is it possible that in one country alone, different agencies offer different prices for effectively the same commodity, so for example in Sri Lanka, there are different costs for the cattle but this is not the reality on the ground. Come on Sri Lanka is a small country and the variations in price is minimal.
• Most of the local organisations that work in these countries are quite sophisticated in operation. They know that most of the UK based organisations will rely on them totally for the selection and distribution of meat as well as the reporting, and hence this is where the gap in transparency comes through. The UK based organisation takes at face value what is reported from the ground.
• Often in countries where there are fewer reliable local Muslim partners, you find that they have access to some of the main UK based Muslim agencies, and so they end up taking all the ‘contracts’ for Qurban from them. It also helps if you have people from your country as well living in the UK so they can effectively ‘lobby’ the UK charities for their business. So for example after working in Sri Lanka, I know one organisation that does Qurban for at least 5 different Muslim organisations based in the UK. I have no doubts about the integrity and honesty of this said organisation, but after working in Muslim Aid in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, I have come across instances where organisations have taken a photograph of a distribution of meat taking place at one area and using photo shop have inserted the different logos of the different organisations that they were supposed to be working for. Quite sophisticated I would say.
• Often the same cow has been ‘sold’ to different organisations who think it belongs solely to them.
• With very little coordination on the ground, you will find people being duplicated in terms of receiving meat, so the same person will receive meat from three different organisations (who believe they are solely giving it to the individual) whilst others go free.
• Often there is some internal corruption as meat prices are inflated to the donor, or the families of the people working in the organisation also receive the donations. I came across one instance where the butcher was the brother of the person in charge of receiving the donation from the UK based organisation, the person who distributed (and got paid for this was the son) and so on. Hence there is a nice internal family flow of money.
• The most serious problem though is that for the amount of money that flows into a country for the cattle, there are not enough animals to sustain that. I had someone tell me that their organisation alone receives 10 crore rupees (roughly 10 million rupees) which means that, that itself should satisfy all the needs for cattle without taking into account the local consumption as well as the other organisations., But this brings into question how can all this money be flowing into a country just for the slaughter of animals on one day and how can there be some much animals for that to happen?

This is just for the uk? How about the rest? How about Saudi? How about the locals who also choose to slaughter cattle? We need to be more systematic and transparent in our way of working. The amount of money that is given and spent on this alone can alleviate poverty ten times over, yet are being ‘wasted’ on this.

These local organisations are not entirely to blame. They are responding to a market demand. The fault is also partly ours, because of our commercial approach to eid. We want instant satisfaction. We want to go on the website or call the phone and pledge to help the poor people, without actually appreciating or understanding the realities on the ground. Honestly should the poor need meat for a day or do they need something for the year to help them live a better life, like better health care, education and so on?

So as we remember the sacrifice of Abraham, perhaps it is better that we actually revisit our concepts of charity otherwise, we will just be deluding ourselves.

The Nuances of Cricket

The sorry saga of the match fixing story of Pakistan continues into the 7th day with a strange twist. A counter claim has been put across that they were set up. Needless to say that the tactic of a best defence is a good offence!! No matter how this will play out in the future, the incident has served to unearth a sinister aspect to cricket in the Indian sub continent.

Cricket is big business in the Indian sub continent. Players are paid relatively well; there are sponsorships and the glamour. A telling interview in today’s Cricinfo with a former Indian player highlights the burdens of playing cricket in the Indian subcontinent: money, fame and narcissism. At the young ages that cricketers go into, they become vulnerable to temptation and unaware of how to handle fame and fortune.

In recent years, the appearance of Twenty 20 cricket and in particular the Indian Premier League has logarithmically evolved the amount of burden and temptation that players have to face. Cricket has become transformed from the quiet quintessential Sunday afternoon Englishman’s game to one of high stakes, fast women and fast money.

With the money that is flowing around the Indian subcontinent often from illicit deals, drugs, weapons smuggling and all other vices, cricket proves a very easy market for disposable income to be flushed around. The appearance of bookies (often from India) with millions of rupees (and dollars) to spend using all sorts of ways to tempt the players shows that the sport has now become much more than competition between nations. It is about money, corporate sponsorship and power.

Caught in the middle are the (often very young) players who come from very poor backgrounds, and in the transition between teenage years and adulthood, are thrust into the limelight with enormous pressure.

Whilst these players are being chastised, this is but the tip of the iceberg. The problem lies much deeper and the solutions will need to go to the heart of the problem.

Justifying a Lie

Someone said, we should be writing daily (or as much as possible) blogs reflecting thoughts for the day and seeing how this contributes to our mandate in terms of bringing people together.

So today let us reflect on what has been the main achievement for the day. Today marked the official release of Tony Blair’s memoirs. It was always guaranteed to ignite a storm what with the announcement weeks ago that the man would donate his proceeds to charity. ‘Blood money’ some remarked wryly. The storm did come in the form of many revelations about various parts of his premiership. The lack of regret and remorse especially with regards the Iraq war shows him to be a calculating strategist who has no qualms about sacrificing the greater good for his own glory.

Despite being ‘sorry for all the deaths caused’, he still justified the attacks despite knowing all that has taken place since then. This seemed to me akin to a robber saying ‘I am sorry for the sorrow caused in robbing your house, but I was still justified in robbing it’. Such an aspect does not bode well for the future generations.

In an age where individualism is triumphing over all others, what is the message that is being sent to the next generation about how to act and take decisions? It is that one can act with impunity and without facing the consequence of your actions. It is about your welfare and not the greater good. This has been sufficiently been displayed recently with the match fixing allegations of the Pakistani cricketers.

This can not be the future that we want to leave to our children. This needs to change.

Politics of Aid

The ramifications of the BBC world service report on the distribution of aid during the Ethiopian famine in the early eighties, shows no sign of abating. With the very public clash between Rageh Omar and Bob Geldof taking place last week in the Guardian, Sunday newspapers carried articles of how Bob Geldof has demanded the heads of the BBC personnel involved with the report.

Understandably Bob Geldof is upset. For millions of us, he epitomised the efforts to save millions of starving women and children and probably put the whole concept of aid and international charity giving into a public arena. I know for me, it was one of the first instances which motivated me to get involved in humanitarian work and is one of the reasons I hold Bob Geldof in the highest of regards.

However, I feel that in this instance, he should not feel too bad. Of course the inference of the numbers actually making it to the recipients hands is something that does need to be investigated particularly as people gave in good faith, but the fact of the matter is that you cannot divorce aid from politics and that in some ways there is some element of truth to the reports. Having lived in Ethiopia, it was an open secret that some of ‘Live Aid’ was used by all sides in the conflict to sustain and prolong the war. And unfortunately, this is not and will not be first time this has happened. As many current and former aid workers will tell you, you have to deal and engage with this reality on the ground and sometimes, the engagement is about tacit support whether you like it or not.

The fact that aid agencies are ‘apolitical’ has been made even more difficult by the war against Saddam Hussain's Iraq in spring 2003 which was a striking example of the mixing of military and humanitarian action. As the United States administration made clear, the military campaign aimed at bringing down the regime was to be accompanied by the delivery of humanitarian aid to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi people and make them accept the occupying force thereby changing the whole rhetoric on humanitarian relief.

Thus the sad aspect is that despite the best intentions, undoubtedly aid will become involved in politics and if you are working in regions affected by war, the politics will be dirty. This is something that everyone (particularly donors) has to realise and come to terms with. The quicker that people understand that, the less pressure will be on humanitarian organisations and individuals to deal with the consequences.

So the question should be ‘when is it alright for this to happen and when is it not?’ This is where the confusion creeps in. There seems to be a mixed response to this internationally.

Agencies who used to work in the former ‘uncleared areas’ in Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers will tell you that they had to deal with a separate administration, pay separate taxes and in effect had to prop up the LTTE administration despite the banning of the LTTE as a terrorist organisation internationally, if they wanted to get aid into the areas of need. Yet very few of them have been castigated internationally for doing so.

The story is very different for those organisations working in Palestine in particular Gaza. In this context organisations doing the same thing and working and dealing with different aspects of the Hamas administration such as hospitals or schools have been sidelined for supporting ‘terrorism’.

So there needs to be a change in the attitude and a consistency in approach. This is not about casting aspersions on the majority of humanitarian agencies who work without any agenda just trying to accomplish their mission of getting aid to the most neediest of people. They have to work under the most difficult and trying of circumstances and need to be supported. In recent times, despite the best efforts of ensuring transparency and accountability, aid organisations will inevitably face the challenge of working in politically complex situations. It is important for governments to ensure that these systems and regulations are in place to allow these organisations to work freely and fairly.

Ultimately aid doesn’t recognise borders and institutions and as such should be allowed to be as apolitical as possible not withstanding the political realities and complexities on the ground. Whilst the BBC report was disturbing and does need to be clarified, it does highlight the challenges faced by many people and organisations and highlights the need for the naiveté that exists in charity giving to be shed. Ultimately, Bob Geldof should take heart from this incident, that once again he has highlighted to the public the immense challenge in not only ensuring that money is raised and spent but that it is also intertwined with the political realities of the day. This education is invaluable and serves as a good reminder to all of us of the problems and challenges faced on a daily basis on the ground by those courageous aid workers forced to take difficult decisions. As such our support does not waver but in fact it grows.