‘LTTE and the Law in the Northeast’:
Following up on Sasanka Perera . . .
-Audrey Rebeira,
Indrakanthi Perera, Malathi de Alwis, Pradeep Jeganathan and
Sumathy Sivamohan
The following article takes as
its reference point an article by Sasanka Perera in the Island
newspaper. Sasanka begins with discussion of Sunila Abayasekara's
comment on LTTE law courts. She is quoted as saying that although
she does not support them, they do play a function in the north
and east in the absence of other judicial structures. He tries
to explore this further; saying the important question is for
all to find out what the content of the courts really is. What
are the theoretical, discursive, foundational bases of the Courts?
He asks if it is based on Roman Dutch law, the Chola system
of justice (What ever that may be) or some other system. Taking
off from there, we (the writers of this response) say the system
of justice promoted by the LTTE is based on the insider and
the other, namely the traitor.
Sasanka
Perera in his article on the ‘LTTE and the Law in the Northeast’
of Wednesday, the 25th of December, 2003 identifies
some key issues that we, as citizens of Sri Lanka who seek peace
with justice and equality, should be currently discussing. We
support him in his attempt to create a dialogue about practices,
which are being rubberstamped into legitimacy. We also wish
to further extend the debate and respond to some of the questions
he has raised.
It
is important to think critically about the kinds of discourses
that are being circulated about the peace process, at the moment.
Perera identifies one that is particularly troubling: Any questioning
of the parties involved in the peace talks is ‘sabotaging the
peace process’. Disturbingly, the word ‘sabotage’ is closer
to the LTTE’s rhetoric on traitors than the language we expect
from civil society activists. Personally we see opening up debate
and criticism as strengthening the peace process not sabotaging
it. If we cannot have an open and critical dialogue about political
issues which affect us all intimately during this process then
it is difficult to imagine that there will be space for this
dialogue in two or three years time. It has become commonplace
to say that the LTTE will learn the politics of democracy and
that a political space for dialogue will eventually evolve.
However, ironically, civil society activists who advocate peace
are not willing to have that political space discussed. This
trend of political quietism on the part of civil society, where
the LTTE and the government are concerned, is deeply alarming
and goes against the grain of left wing activism. The LTTE
are ‘technically’ not in power (here we are not talking about
the reality on the ground) but if we are unable to speak about
them or the government critically here in the South at this
juncture, then how can anyone argue that people in the North
and East will be able to do this in the future when the LTTE
gets the go ahead for full and visible control? The suppression
of public discussion and debate of crucial political issues
leads to our further alienation from the peace process. This
self-censorship on our part is an abnegation of all our responsibilities
to a free and open society for all. We are also silenced.
We should indeed reflect
on what an LTTE system of justice is founded on and whom it
seeks to punish and protect. Fundamentally the LTTE system
of justice revolves around the notion of the ‘traitor’. The
LTTE’s identification and elimination of ‘traitors’ has resulted
in assassinations, suicide bombings, lamp-post killings and
most recently, the dumping of bodies in rivers. This has killed
all possibility for dissent within the Tamil community leaving
UTHR as the lone voice for any independent opinion, albeit a
voice threatened by Tamil and Sinhala chauvinists and marginalised
by mainstream activism. For the LTTE the traitor is worse than
the enemy. Their system of justice will further entrench the
fear the Tamil and Muslim communities live under. The LTTE are
only able to act as lawmakers and the dispensers of law and
order because they have established their ‘legitimacy’ through
intimidation, repression and the elimination of traitors. This
LTTE system of ‘justice’ works at multiple levels --through
a formal court system, informal trial by murder of traitors,
torture camps to reprimand and prevent their cadres from leaving
etc. They are all founded on the rule of terror. For instance,
where are the six hundred prisoners in LTTE prisons? Where
is the system of justice for them?
Furthermore, LTTE
courts collapse government and judiciary into one. It is a monolithic
and authoritarian structure with no institutional spaces to
challenge it or call it to account. Legal systems while often
being authoritarian and representing the powers of the state
also hold out opportunities for challenge. We can certainly
take representatives of the Sri Lankan state to court, but can
we take representatives of the LTTE to court? Or for that matter,
can one member of the LTTE take another member of the LTTE to
court? Neither is possible. One can choose whether one joins
a political party or leaves a political party; yet can one always
choose to join or leave the LTTE? Whose interests are then safeguarded
by the LTTE system of justice? How do we hold such lawmakers
to account? After all one cannot have a dialogue with a gun.
What institutional spaces are created to redress the excesses
of the lawmaking authorities? At present, the LTTE is talking
about resettlement and rehabilitation in the North especially
in the security zones, but it postpones discussion on the political
and civil rights of Northern Muslims in their attempts to return
to their homes. Will the LTTE courts uphold their right not
to be evicted from their homes at the whim of the LTTE? Will
it uphold their compensation claims or the restoration of property
they held in the North? If not, then who will? As Sasanka Perera
points out, this is a system without any checks or balances;
features that represent the least we should expect from any
political system.
The LTTE courts
have been justified on the grounds that they facilitate the
day-to-day lives of the people in the North and East by taking
care of their needs and providing instant and efficient justice.
However, the needs of the residents of the North and East also
include not being arbitrarily taxed by the LTTE, not having
their children conscripted by the LTTE, not having their husbands,
wives, parents and children killed by the LTTE for being ‘traitors’,
for being members of rival political groups, for being Muslim,
for wanting to leave the LTTE or for being an obstacle to LTTE
policy and practice. We would like to know how those needs are
being met. After all the freedom of speech, the freedom to carry
on your livelihoods without harassment, the freedom to go to
school and to not be forced to carry arms are all intimately
connected to the day to day lives of the people living under
LTTE control. Tell us how do we hold the LTTE accountable? Can
we do that as an individual in the LTTE courts? If not then
what functions do they fulfil exactly?
It is no longer adequate to say that resistance to the LTTE must come
from the Tamils from the North and East alone. The Southern
activist bloc, which is actively supporting the MoU, has entered
a dialogue with the LTTE in which it is not raising crucial
“human” concerns where the people of the north and east are
concerned. Is the present peace process in the end about peace
in the South and not Peace in the north and east?
We think it is important for all of us to raise our voices and talk
about what is happening. Given that since the MoU the space for dissent in
the North and the East has further narrowed it is ever more important and
urgent that we in the South carry on bringing up these issues. Those living
in the North and East are not our exotic ‘others’; they are our fathers and
mothers, brothers and sisters. Some of us now live in the South because the
North and East are no longer safe for us, some of us have been born and bred
in the South. We are all accountable and we should all take responsibility
for the society we are living in and bringing to pass. That is why we are
writing this and we hope it will invite responses. If we are denied space
for debate then let us try and create it ourselves.
