The story of the people of Kepapilavu

கேப்பப் பிலவு மக்களின் ஒரு தரப்புக் கதை:

In search of justice: The story of the people of Kepapilavu

 The life and times of the people of Kepapilavu should make for a study in endless suffering. After witnessing the war at its cruellest, experiencing multiple displacements and spending the longest interval of time confined in Menik Farm, one would expect that life can hardly get any worse. Yet, their present situation is darker than their past, and the future is a landscape of uncertainty.

The story of the people of Kepapilavu reminds all of us that the ethnic conflict is far from over. Their reality contradicts the regime’s claims of rapid post-war development and the rhetoric of peace.
So much for rights

“Any citizen of Sri Lanka has the inalienable right to acquire land in any part of the country, in accordance with its laws and regulations, and reside in any area of his/her choice without any restrictions or limitations imposed in any manner whatsoever”  

The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission Report ( 6.104).

The Headquarters of the 59th Division, in Kepapilavu, Mullaitivu spans over a thousand acres. Much of the residential land and some of the agricultural land are believed to be legally owned by private individuals who hold legal documentation. This military base is the root cause of all the problems the people of Kepapilavu are facing. The Government Agent of Mullaitivu and several military officials, who visited the Kepapilavu families in Menik Farm a few days before the closure of the internment facility, promised the people that they would be resettled in the lands of origin within two months. It’s been three months and the promised resettlement is yet to happen: the people are still living in Seeniyamottai, a barren area close to Nandikkadal. They were forced to take refuge here as a temporary measure after leaving Menik Farm.

Massive buildings in the Kepapilavu HQ and the army’s general behaviour suggest that the promised closure of this facility will not happen anytime soon. The allocated compensatory plots, in Seeniyamottai, are infertile and smaller in size than the lands in Kepapilavu. The army is coercing the people into accepting Seeniyamottai as the alternative. In a bid to seal the dispossession, the army is building permanent houses for the families; in contrast humanitarian agencies refused to construct any permanent structures, fearing that it would compromise the people’s rights and wishes. When six women braved their circumstances and made preparations to file fundamental rights petitions to acquire their lands back, they were called into the GN office and threatened by high ranking army officials. They were apparently told that their pursuit of justice would ‘result in losing what little they have.’

The normal and the abnormal

 Fear and intimidation caused by the military’s presence is plainly visible. The level of military involvement in civilian life in the Seeniyamottai camp is a grim reminder of Menik Farm days. The uniformity in the people’s answers to certain questions demonstrates that they are under strict orders.
For ordinary people, survival is the priority. Enforcing helplessness is the simple strategy employed by the Government in its attempts to normalise the present. The goons, the conventional army, and the military intelligence department operate on many different levels in the mission to silence the people’s voice. The goons go around throwing petrol bombs, pouring foul oil on protestors and collecting information for the higher powers; the conventional army is the pacifying force, and does the propaganda work as well; the intelligence department is responsible for promptly removing anyone who shows the slightest glimpse of political awareness. While this is the general trend in the North and the East, in the Vanni it is worse. The day when the abnormal becomes the normal is not far away. As for the people in Kepapilavu, it has already happened.

Unwillingness to learn from the past

 The mistreatment of Kepapilavu families highlights that Sri Lanka is yet to repent for its original sin: the failure to treat the minority communities as equal citizens. Living in one’s land of origin is a fundamental right. The denial of this right was a major factor that gave rise to the country’s ethnic conflict. It is depressing to see the mistake so wilfully repeated in the lives of the people of Kepapilavu. Indeed, what we are witnessing now is nothing new. Sri Lanka has already seen the consequences of arrogant denial of rights.

Today, in Sri Lanka, more than ever, the place of the minorities’ is increasingly under threat. The self-proclaimed patriots who concern themselves with the fight against separation remain consciously ignorant of the causes that gave rise to the Tamil struggle. Tamil political leaders have failed to envision a new strategy: they seem stuck with the international community – a force that has failed the Tamils and will happily do so again. Moderates, of course, are silently watching the inferno burn down the country. Will Sri Lanka ever learn?

Natural justice, the Chief Justice and the people of Kepapilavu

 Ironically, the people in Kepapilavu are the very people the state proudly claims to have liberated from the LTTE. Recently, the government drafted an Action Plan to implement the LLRC recommendations. And it has also promised a new dawn in Sri Lanka’s human rights history. Three-and-a-half-years after the end of war, there is nothing new in the lives of the people in Kepapilavu.
‘I just want to live and die in the land of my origin,’ a middle-aged mother summed up the entire community’s plight. The demand to return to their lands goes beyond economic reasons, and has nothing to do with any ethno-political ideology. There is no justification for setting up a swarm of military bases and stealing private lands in the process. This land grab by the military is illegal, and must be treated as such. The Army HQ must be closed down, or relocated, and people must be allowed to settle in the original habitat.

Natural justice does not discriminate between the powerful and the powerless, or between ethnicities. The Chief Justice and the people of Kepapilavu, in the eyes of justice, are the same. Those who want the PSC’s verdict on the impeachment motion annulled on the grounds of natural justice, in the same spirit, should be willing to defend the basic right of the people of Kepapilavu. After all, the government gave the CJ a trial: the people of Kepapilavu cannot even file a petition.

Donald Trump should not be allowed to speak in UK parliament, says Speaker

Donald Trump should not be allowed to speak in UK parliament, says Speaker

Government sources describe John Bercow’s comments about US president as ‘hugely political and out of line’

Anushka Asthana , Jessica Elgot, Rowena Mason
Monday 6 February 2017 23.01 GMT  First published on Monday 6 February 2017 17.07 GMT 

Donald Trump is unfit to address MPs, according to the Speaker of the House of Commons, who said that he would refuse to invite the US president to speak at Westminster because of parliament’s long held opposition “to racism and to sexism”.

John Bercow warned that the opportunity to speak in the prestigious Westminster Hall during a state visit “is not an automatic right, it is an earned honour” in an extraordinary intervention that divided MPs and annoyed No 10.

The unprecedented step caused many MPs to pour praise on Bercow, but also triggered an angry response in parts of government with ministers privately claiming that he had overstepped the mark.
Senior figures accused the Speaker of grandstanding – while his counterpart in the House of Lords, Lord Fowler, was understood to be irritated by the unexpected statement.

Bercow, whose role is non-political, told MPs that he did not have the power to block the state visit invitation extended to Trump by Theresa May, but made clear that he would use his authority to prevent what is considered one of the high points of the official trip.

The Speaker made clear that he was always against the idea of Trump making a speech in the same hall that Barack Obama did in 2012, but said recent policies had left him even more determined to block the move.

“After the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall,” Bercow told MPs, who were visibly shocked by his comments.

“I would not wish to issue an invitation to president Trump.”

In a raised voice, he added: “I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations in the House of Commons.”

The Speaker made clear that invitations to address Westminster Hall were not simply issued by him but also Fowler.

“The Lord Speaker was not consulted by Mr Bercow on his statement. The Lord Speaker will make his own statement tomorrow to the Lords,” said a House of Lords spokesperson.

Bercow’s intervention is hugely significant because of the process by which a dignitary is invited to speak. Officials made clear that a government request to invite a head of state would be sent to Bercow and Fowler, who both have to agree to it. The lord great chamberlain, who represents the Queen, is then consulted.

His unexpectedly strong response shocked ministers and Downing Street officials, who have been working hard to build relations with the new president, including through the recent visit in which Trump grasped hold of the prime minister’s hand. May has also offered to be a “bridge” to Trump for European Union leaders, in a bid to make the most of the special relationship, which is seen as increasingly important by advisers following the Brexit vote.

“Bercow better make sure of the president’s plan before he shoots off like this. The clear indications are that the White House are not even planning to address both houses of parliament,” one government source said.

The mood in Downing Street was said to be mild annoyance with the Speaker, with some questioning “if there is anything else that has never been proposed to which he would like to object”. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Bercow’s statement.

But there was also a sense that the Speaker – who has sat as a Conservative MP – was sufficiently separate to May for his comments to be of “no real consequence”.

Bercow was responding to a point of order by Labour MP Stephen Doughty, whose early day motion calling on officials to withhold permission for an address to Westminster Hall was signed by 163 colleagues.

I am delighted that the Speaker has listened to members from across the house regarding our deep concerns that Donald Trump not be honoured with an address in Westminster Hall or elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster, after his comments and actions on women, torture, refugees and the judiciary,” he said.

Labour’s Yvette Cooper said Trump was “continuing his assault on the democratic values that the British Parliament holds dear”.

She said it was fine to invite him to the UK but not to offer the “special privilege of an address in the heart of our democracy”.

And Chi Onwurah said that more than 1.8 million people had signed a petition against a Trump address at Westminster Hall, saying it was “ridiculous” to allow it to go ahead. “I am glad the Speaker has given voice to what so many feel.”

Tory MP Heidi Allen admitted the comments were “controversial” for some, but insisted they were right.

However, Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said a number of his colleagues were surprised and annoyed by Bercow’s intervention. “He’s completely overstepped the mark. It was a pre-emptive strike to torpedo the leader of the democratically free world and our greatest ally from speaking in parliament,” he said, stressing the importance of a UK-US trade deal.

“Our relationship is now more important than at any time than the second world war.”

Bercow made clear that he had less say over the Royal Gallery — a second, smaller room that is used by world leaders to address parliamentarians — although he said he still had “a say in that matter”.
The government has rolled out the red carpet in a state visit more than 100 times, with controversial figures including Vladimir Putin and Robert Mugabe travelling to Britain for the honour. However, visits do not always include an invitation to address parliament. Westminster Hall tends to be limited to the most coveted guests, which have included the Pope, Nelson Mandela and Barack Obama.
Other leaders, including Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, have spoken in the Royal Gallery.
Government sources have told the Guardian that Trump would see such an address as “the ultimate establishment” act and claimed he would not want it. Instead, he is keen on the “pomp and ceremony” of a visit with the Queen, a military parade and golf at Balmoral palace.