.

Milinda Moragoda interviews Karu Jayasuriya, Chairman UNP
UNP chairman speaks out

• People are aware of Karu Jayasuriya the politician but could you speak on Karu Jayasuriya the individual, the career path that you have followed, the lessons you may have learnt in your career as you came up?

I had my basic education at Ananda College and I was interested in seeking a career in shipping so accordingly I obtained my professional membership with the Institute Chartered Ship Brokers having qualified the exams in 1965 and joined a Danish based group. My interest was to sort of get into the shipping department; after a short while my Danish boss thought I would be a better trader than a shipping manager. So really in my career I was a commodity trader and I had my career advance in commodity trading. As an executive I was asked to trade in coconut products, in rubber and in various other kinds of produce and after that I was elevated to the rank of export manager then general manager, executive director, managing director and eventually the chairman of the group. Since I have seen the companies grow, I was put in charge of companies that were losing, that were taken over by the Danish based group. Of course, I had my job satisfaction. I have served this group for almost 28 years and when I look back at my career I always believe that it was a team effort. I got a lot of mental happiness by creating jobs. When I joined the organization there were 200 people; when I left the group there were close upon 5000 people and that itself gave me lot of mental satisfaction.

• You were also a soldier. Soldier and a diplomat. Could you talk more about those two aspects?

I was commissioned in the voluntary force of the army in 1965 and I served there until 1972 and it was after an unsuccessful coup that the military unit was disbanded and the government had to recruit new officers so I was one of them. I must say that I always enjoyed being in the army. It gave me discipline and a sense of loyalty to the country. I served mostly in the North. I have served in seven northern camps including the Pooneryn camp which was a small shed at that time, manned by a few officers and soldiers. At that time the conditions were very peaceful. I was involved in the 1971 insurgency and I was shot at too. Looking back I am very happy we were able in some way to contribute in establishing peace in this country. However, being in the army helped me to be come a disciplined man.

• You were also the Sri Lankan ambassador in Germany, how did you find that experience?

President Premadasa was very keen that someone from the private sector take up that position in Germany. He was very keen because he admired Germany as a country which could be taken as an example for Sri Lanka. At that time Germany was our second largest partner in terms of export, number one in terms of tourist arrival and also the 2nd or 3rd largest donor. He was very much interested in skills training so he asked me to go there. It was not an appointment that I sought or was very keen on but we agreed that I would serve half my term but unfortunately he passed away before I completed my term but definitely it was an experience. I was accredited to Austria and Switzerland as well. Looking back once again, during my term it was possible to shift the embassy to a better location, increase the number of trade fairs, then increase the volume of trade assistance. In all respects, it was definitely a memorable career for me and I still enjoy having served this assignment.

• Now you’re a politician. What inspired you and what motivated you?

I never wanted to be a politician but my first contact was in 1977 when President Jayewardene appointed me to the privatization commission and then President Premadasa asked me to head Sri Lanka’s first privatization exercise which was taking place during the height of the insurgency. That was a tremendous task in the sense I was threatened, people came to kill me because the elements at that time were against privatization. On one side, our external resources were dwindling, there was no possibility of even importing food stuffs at that time due to a shortage of foreign exchange so there was this pressure for privatization at any cost. I had a wonderful team with me at that time and together we carried out the privatization of United Motors, the first privatization very successfully which became a model with regard to employee participation. That was the only company where the employees were given 51% of the shares. Subsequently, I was able to talk to the shareholders and get an additional 10% at a special price to the workers.

• In every poll and survey that one sees, it appears that people are fed up with politics and politicians. There is a perception that politicians are corrupt, very selfish and narrow minded in the way they look at issues. How are you going to be a different kind of politician, have you reflected on this? How are you going to convince the people that you are different?

When you asked me how I entered politics I didn’t mention that President Premadasa during his term asked me to serve as the first chairman of the first peoplised institution. He also wanted me to be in charge of the first Sri Lanka international trade fair which once again was a painstaking task. However we were able to make it a success. Thereafter, when General Ranjan Wijeyratne was killed he invited me to join the cabinet and wanted me to become a politician, but I politely declined because I thought politics was not my cup of tea. But when I subsequently returned to Sri Lanka after my diplomatic assignment and after the election, Ranil Wickremesinghe was looking for someone who had a private sector background to get into politics. So, my initial agreement was with Ranil Wickremesinghe. I was to help him behind the scenes but I never thought that I would be asked to contest, to be mayor or anything like that. When Faizul Hameed resigned as the chairman of the party due to ill health, I was asked to take over as party chairman which I accepted. Then came the municipal election once again the party wanted or Ranil Wickremesinghe wanted a new face. He wanted me to contest, which I did that successfully and thereafter he thought I would be the best bet for the Western Council. Now having finished with that I have come out openly into politics . Well, I agree with you that politicians are looked at with certain reservation which is very unfortunate, but being born to the Pre-Independence Sri Lanka, I was a young boy when we got independence and took a part in the independence celebrations. I have seen the caliber of politicians at that time; they loved the country. I don t mean that there are no politicians of that caliber today, but today the political field is under people who are more selfish than people who have joined politics to serve the country. This is probably the reason why the average person started hating the politicians. I think in time things will change. In our party we started this trend well, we have started this trend of changing. We have the grass-roots level politicians. I mean, to be a politician, you don’t need money alone. You need not require education alone. We have bought in lot of grassroot politicians, well respected and liked by the people. And even in the selection of politicians the party is very careful. We look at people’s background, behaviour, etc. So we have to change the culture, bring respected and good people into politics and also particularly the people who take politics seriously. People who come to serve for the purpose of serving people and not for the sake of a part-time job.

• Now you have been inactive politics for two years. If you were to recite your main achievements in that short period, what would your main achievements be?

If I look back, it was my service with the Municipality and the Western Provincial Council and of course as the chairman of the party. As the Party Chairman, I always tried to bring about harmony within the party. If there are any disagreements, I tend to talk to people and sort things out. And I must say, in that respect, I was able to defuse lot of situations.

Secondly, when I look back at my career in the Municipality, first I must say, whatever I have achieved, there was a team effort. So it is not ethical for me to take credit for the achievements of the Colombo Municipality. But I served there according to my conscience. I have never taken a decision which I thought was improper. But we were able to turn around the city. I have served for 23 months and within the 23 months with my team we were able to make Colombo a better city in all respects. Colombo was recognized as a city that went through dramatic changes. Within a short space of time, we were recognized by several international organizations, several governments and finally the ADB themselves recognized and brought in more than 30 municipal personalities to the city of Colombo to witness the changes that had taken place. But I must tell you, everything has been a team effort and I was able to depoliticize the institutions. When I look back, Colombo municipality was subject to heavy politicization. There were elements outside, controlling the city. We changed that. I delegated a lot to my deputy. I delegated a lot to my other senior members. We were able to move away from traditional politics to a politics of compromise. Also it was possible for me to be in the opposition and work in harmony within the setup. It was in fact, an example where opposition members became chairmen of standing committees. And these chairmen became members of my inner cabinet so it was perfect harmony from the beginning, except for two or three people, everyone else cooperated for the common good. We had lot of achievements during that short period, in spite of time constraints. I cannot tell you everything in detail but definitely people have accepted that Colombo went through a rapid change during that short period of our administration.

• Sri Lankan society has become plagued with politicization and this has become unconstructive. If we are to meet the challenges of the 21st century, a more bipartisan and depoliticized type of approach is needed. How are we going to create this climate at the national level?

The example should come from the top. When I say this, I mean the president, prime minister or ministers. They must realize that they are not holding that position only for the people who voted for them, that they are holding that position for the entire country. This is what we did in the Municipality. I said I was the Mayor for the city of Colombo and not for the people who voted for me. We should have that mentality and not allow external interference in administration. I was particularly keen to see that my officials were not disturbed by the political elements. I had given them a free hand, but I said, serve according to your conscience. Do what is right. I will stand by you when you are right. But if they do the wrong thing, of course they will have to pay for it. And when there was praise, I passed it on to them and when there was criticism, I took that.

• During your term as Mayor you took many measures to try to integrate the ethnic aspects of both the City of Colombo as well as the Municipality itself. Could you elaborate on some of the initiatives?

As you know Colombo is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society. And also it so happens that the majority race has become a minority race in the city of Colombo. With those abnormalities we were able to have a perfect balance. We have the three-language policy. We ensured that all the road signs, etc. had used the 3 languages. In correspondence, we have used the language of the writer. And also for example, in the Municipal itself, for the benefit of one member, in the 137-year history, we were able to bring simultaneous translations. So this was appreciated by the people. Also we were able to have lot of cultural societies that we formed during our term, where the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims were able to integrate to a greater extent. In the city of Colombo we never had any racial disagreements. But looking back I am very happy, the steps we have taken proved to be very effective.

• Are you continuing these initiatives?

Yes, I believe so. It is being done.

• There is a perception that Sri Lanka has become lost as a society. We have lost our sense of what is right or wrong. We have got used to crime and murder. As a society we have become very callous. One example of this is that just a couple of weeks ago, we heard of a large number of soldiers and civilians dying in the North and East. But people in Colombo continued to go on as if life were normal. What has happened to us? Where have we gone wrong? Where have we lost our way?

So there is a degeneration of society and also commercialization has taken away social and moral values and I for one feel very sad. On the occasion of the Central Bank bomb blast and the occasion of the railway bomb incident, there were instances where people were running away with broken pieces of arm and others were trying to get their jewellery or running away with their purses rather than helping the people who were injured. This clearly shows, that human values have gone down, so the time has come for religious and civil leaders to change the thinking of the society. But also don’t forget that we are living in a criminalized society. There should be the rule of law but unfortunately, there is none. Today it is the criminals who are running the country. And once again, I wouldn’t blame anyone but the politicians who have politicized the society. It is the politicization of society that is the root cause for most of the events.

• You are a strong advocate of the death penalty. This is a controversial area, because in some Western societies there is a feeling that the death penalty does not work. I know you have advocated it and you have been advocating it at various programs. Could you elaborate on this view and address both sides of this debate as well?

Whilst I do not advocate the theory of the principal an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, when we live in a criminal society, we have to civilize the society. In this context we feel that bringing in the death penalty for a short while would certainly be desirable. And I feel the death penalty not only for murder but even for gang rape and even for the transfer of drugs as well. This is the only way we could civilize the society.

In the West there is a certain belief that the death penalty itself will not serve the purpose. In a civilized society itself, yes, I agree with you, but what I am advocating is that for a short period, maybe three or five years until the civil society is established, with the depoliticization of society, with the rule of law established then of course I agree with you that things can change, but initially to discipline society, bringing the death penalty in my opinion is certainly desirable.

• What about addressing the symptoms, rather than the problem itself. Family values in Sri Lanka seem to be breaking-up. You mentioned about religion. Religion itself is not taken seriously anymore in this country. There are other social aberrations that are taking place. The criminalization, as well. How can you address the core issue here, rather than the deterrent? The deterrent is important as well. But what can we do to bring back caring and morality into society as a whole?

Well, I believe that religious leaders and civil society have got a role to play there. If you look at the past, you will find in the village the whole society was centered around the village temple or church. But we are breaking up those values. So, of course, with the Middle Eastern employment and things like that, you can see the family breaking up. Unless the young minds get the guidance of their elders, and of their religious leaders, you can’t prevent them from going wild. Especially with the advent of television and all types of blue films and things coming up, we have seen young minds being polluted. This is why I say, there is a certain role to be played by the government or by the state in that direction. Law enforcement agencies, religious leaders and the civil societies, there should be an effort on the part of all those concerned.

• You have also been a strong advocate of setting up independent commissions, such as for elections, the police and also the pubic services and bribery, as well. It is said that if these institutions can create paradise, then in Sri Lanka we are in paradise, because we have institutions that are doing everything. However, our institutions do not seem to work and from the operational aspect they seem to be failing. What makes you think that if given a chance, it would be any different?

Well, my view is that, if you appoint the right people for these commissions, people who have no particular bias, people who are respected, people with independent views, people who are committed, then they should work. Look at the case of Singapore Airlines or the Singaporean National Shipping Operations. Both are government-owned, but are operated completely as independent units and professionally run as two of the world’s best-run organizations. So I think what matters is the non-interference of the state and appointing the right people. I am firm in that view. The setting up of independent commissions should get the highest priority of any government.

• In this aspect, as a politician, I mean, in opposition things look really different. But when you’re in office, the pressures are different as well. What makes you think that you will counter those pressures and ensure that these institutions and values that you are advocating today will be implemented if you are given an opportunity to serve in office?

I am firm in the view that if you have the right people and the right vision, it should work. It is up to the leader of the party and the country to ensure that the right people are given the right job.

• To what extent does your family get involved in your political life and do they approve of your entry into politics?

Unfortunately, both my wife and children are not happy that I went into politics, but I did explain to them this purpose of serving the nation. Although they do not get directly involved, they have a been a source of strength to me. When I get home, I have a happy family. A wife that cares for you and children that love you makes all the difference.

• You are also a philanthropist. Both you and your wife have set up foundations. Could you talk more about that?

We thought that we owe something to society. We are also products of free education. That is why whatever public service we undertake, we have not been receiving any benefits from that. In addition to that, from our will, we have also provided that. My wife and I have also been involved in the provision of medicine and the provision of other assistance to the poor and needy. We take pleasure in doing that.

• How would you like history to remember you? What would you like your epitaph to read?

I would like to be remembered as a person who served the country with my conscience. I obeyed my conscience. — (Business Today)

The choices before the nation

By Dr. Piyasena Dissanayake
Secretary
National Joint Committee

The ability to grasp the meaning and significance behind a political event is said to be the hallmark of a discerning political leader. Judged against this criterion, most people must have heaved a sigh of relief on hearing President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s victory speech on December the 22nd. Understandably, her speech was full of emotion, but it contained a clear and precise message to the violence-weary nation. The message was that the President had unwaveringly resolved to root out LTTE terrorism.

In tough and resolute language she declared thus: "Let those who secretly or openly condone the path of violence pursued by the LTTE be warned; the days of terror in this land are numbered and that number is small". None could have been clearer and more precise than Mrs. Kumaratunga about the immediate task that lie ahead of us as a nation. She had truly grasped the meaning and significance of the events that had led up to her narrow escape from death and her swearing in as President for the second term.

However, long before this realization dawned upon the President, it was crystal clear to the vast majority of our people that this nation had to choose between two alternative choices: one is total surrender to Velupillai Prabhakaran and his fascist dictatorship. The other is militarily defeating Prabhakaran as envisaged by the President in her victory speech.

The first choice in effect meant virtually abandoning the values of human dignity and decency that we as an ancient land with a distinguished culture have stood for over two millennia. Prabhakaran is no respector of democracy or humane governance. From time to time, he has spelt out his political programme, according to which the so called Eelam will not confine itself to mere Northern and Eastern provinces. Once these two provinces are combined under the label of Eelam, he will link up with the plantation areas of the hill country. Thereafter he will expand southwards until the whole country comes under his sway. It is said that he will not be content with that either. His dream is a federation of Sri Lanka and the South Indian state of Tamilnadu where he hopes to be the paramount ruler.

Some of us may be tempted to call this a midsummer night‘s dream! But dictators in history have had no limits to their dreaming. We might recall that Hitler’s dream was the subjugation of the entire world. He failed miserably to translate his dream into practical reality but his ambition brought death, destruction and untold misery to many millions of innocent people. The great tragedy about dictators, however, is they in their impatience totally ignore the practicality or otherwise of their dreams with the inevitable result that the people for whose benefit they say they work are eventually called upon to sacrifice everything they hold dear. During the last sixteen years, Prabhakaran has amply demonstrated the validity of this observation. He has firmly and consistently stuck to the path traversed by all dictators known to history.

In these circumstances, aside from any other reason, the sheer interest of humanity demands that we resolve, once and for all, to stop Prabhakaran from proceeding further along the path of destruction and death. His own track record suggests beyond any reasonable doubt that no amount of logical reasoning or democratic argument could bar him from his chosen path. When democratic and civil approaches fail the military has to intervene. Therefore, this country is left with no option but to decisively defeat LTTE terrorism by military means.

This is the stark reality we are faced with today. In this context negotiating with Prabhakaran is both irrelevant and illogical and serves no useful purpose. If at all, it will only provide him with further opportunity to kill and maim innocent men, women and children as he was accustomed to do during the last sixteen years.

A recent statement by the Army Commander Lieutenant General Srilal Weerasooriya is significant. In the course of his new year address to the top brass of the military establishment he had said "that it is necessary to crush terrorism militarily to bring about lasting peace to the country". This statement has to be construed as the most authoritative professional recommendation, on the subject of achieving peace for this country. Although not specifically addressed to the President in her capacity as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, she cannot lightly ignore the Army Commander’s considered view on the most burning national issue of our time. Moreover, it has come in the wake of the President’s own public commitment to root out terrorism which she so eloquently spelt out in her acceptance speech.

Now that the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (i.e. the President) and the next highest military officer in the country agree on the methodology of approach to the problem, the armed forces must be given the green light to go ahead without any further delay. In the light of past experience it seems best that they should be left alone to attend to the job according to professional norms and practices. Political expediency must not stand in their way.

This is a radical departure from the past and it calls for considerable commitment and effort by the civil society as well. They must realize the gravity of the situation the country is faced with and voluntarily come forward to assist the authorities in whatever way necessary and possible. They must willingly give up ostentation and help create a sense of national emergency so as to boost the morale and patriotism of all ranks of the fighting forces. The forces must be genuinely convinced that they sacrifice their lives for a noble cause: that of saving their motherland and its distinguished heritage for posterity!

The Government and the opposition must sink their political differences for the time being and work closely together as a well-knit team and place the country on a war footing. An intensive recruitment drive need to be launched with an appeal to the youth to come forward to save the nation. An effective War Council comprising the head of state, leader of the opposition, the service commanders and a few retired high ranking military officers of proven ability and integrity is an urgent necessity. The war council has to ensure transparency in the procurement of military hardware so that the public may give of their best to the war effort. A network of civil defence committees must be established and entrust them with the responsibility of surveillance of their areas and thus release the armed forces exclusively for combat duties.

Considerable harm has been caused to the war effort by the so-called peace organizations and the state sponsored projects such as the Sudu Nelum Movement. The Government’s own media apparatus must fall in line with the new approach and stop dissuading the youth from joining the armed forces. These organizations and institutions must be reminded that national security takes precedence over all other concerns.

The Tamils should be told that the fight against terrorism and fascism of Prabhakaran is a fight for democracy and human rights and that the Government cannot allow a racist group to survive at the expense of the people’s rights, honour and dignity. The Tamil political leaders must be given the option of falling in line with the Government or joining the LTTE.

Sri Lanka’s diplomatic missions abroad and genuine organizations of expatriate Sri Lankans must be employed to conduct an effective dialogue with the international community with a view to enlightening the latter on the genesis and development of the current conflict in the North and East. Every effort must be made through them to dispel the vast amount of disinformation that the expatriate Tamil community, has willfully disseminated throughout the world during the last twenty years. An attempt must be made to stop foreign governments from helping the LTTE by way of raising funds and securing arms.

It is vitally important to explain to the international community that the LTTE’s claim to a separate state is based on fictional grounds. The very hollowness of their so-called "non-negotiable conditions" for talks need to be exposed by reference to historical documents and where necessary to international legal conventions, norms and practices.

It would thus be seen that the government has to simultaneously fight on several fronts if we are to overcome this menace which is slowly but steadily affecting virtually all aspects of our national life. What is urgently called for is a total war against terrorism. And it must therefore be the duty of all communities who consider Sri Lanka as their motherland irrespective of their ethnicity and religion to extend a helping hand to the government to root out terrorism once and for all, so that all may live in peace with dignity. The country can then settle down to the equally important task of economic development which terrorism has effectively retarded.

LEGAL WATCH
When the state attacked its own media...

by Nayana
Following victory at the recently concluded presidential election, the President took the opportunity to hit out at the privately owned media which she felt had been maliciously critical of her prior to the election.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of those criticisms — on which we refrain from commenting as many of the matters are either already before court or likely to be in the near future - it is also a fact that hostile government interference with the media has not been confined to private media institutions and long pre-dates issues like "Channel 9".

One of the first such incidents occurred in early 1995 and gave rise to the Supreme Court case of Fernando v. Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and others. It concerned the Non-Formal Education Programme (NFEP) started by the SLBC in June 1994 - before the government changed.

The NFEP consisted of a regular schedule of programmes dealing with such topics as politics, human rights, ethnic issues, women’s rights, legal and medical issues, environment, science and literature. It was run by Tilak Jayaratne who had been Controller of the Education Service of the SLBC since 1988 and whose competence for the job was not disputed. A feature of the NFEP was that its speakers were not confined to staff reporters or specially invited experts, but also encouraged audience participation.

In October 1994 the newly elected People’s Alliance Government gave Cabinet approval to a "Statement on PA Government’s Media Policy" which included a recognition that "the subject of media freedom has gained considerable importance in the past few years" and that "threats levelled in the recent past against journalists as well as media institutions have largely emanated in response to their attempts to expose and to bring to the notice of the public corruption and abuse of political power."

Amongst other pledges contained in the Policy Statement, it was stated that: "Media personnel in the State sector media institutions will have the freedom to decide the content of news bulletins and news feature programmes, based primarily on the newsworthiness of events. We will not use state-owned media for partisan political purposes."

This Cabinet decision was conveyed to the Secretary, Ministry of Information, in November 1994, and he, by a circular dated 14 December, forwarded copies to all directors and heads of departments at the SLBC and asked them to comply.

On 6 February 1995 the NFEP broadcast a programme titled "Kamkaru Prajawa"" which included a telephone interview with Industries Minister C. V. Gooneratne as well as interviews with several workers of a private sector factory who were on a prolonged strike. ‘The workers complained that promises given to the strikers by the authorities had not been fulfilled. Minister Gooneratne had reportedly stated that the matter did not come within his purview but was a matter for the Labour Minister. The workers had then replied that the Minister of Labour had stated that he was not responsible and that it was a matter for the Minister of Industries. The workers had added that Minister Gooneratne who had visited their workplace before the general election and promised to solve their problems had now forgotten everything.

At this point the broadcast was interrupted and there was an announcement that only songs would be broadcast for the rest of the scheduled time. No further NFEP programmes were broadcast thereafter.

Tilak Jayaratne who had only one month previously been promoted as Director of the Education Service, found himself replaced in that post by one Nelson Jayaweera, while another officer was appointed as Acting Controller (Jayaratne’s original post). Shortly thereafter a notice was issued stating that responsibility for the NFEP would henceforth be vested in the Directors in charge of the National Service and the news.

The petitioner in this case was a regular listener to the NFEP who stated that he had on several occasions participated in phone-in programmes on human rights etc. and had, on this occasion, been listening to the "Kamkaru Prajawa" when it had been suspended. He complained that thereafter there had been no editorially independent programmes and no Listener participation as before, and that programmes were being broadcast ‘"only in order toplease the Government and to give a biased, one-sided picture to the people and to pretend that the NFEPs are still broadcast."

The petitioner claimed that his right to freedom of speech as a participatory listener had been infringed by the arbitrary stoppage of the NFEP broadcasts. This was not a new concept for the Sri Lankan Court. As far back as 1984, in the case of Visuvalingam v Liyanage,, a similar idea had led a reader and a contributor to the "Saturday Review" newspaper to petition against its closure on the basis that their fundamental rights had been infringed. Their argument, put forward on their behalf by the late S. Nadesan, Q.C., was that in order to give meaning to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression it was necessary to recognize a corresponding right to receive information, news and views without discrimination.

He cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Sri Lanka had acceded in 1980 of which Article 19(2) states that the freedom of expression "shall include the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds regardless of all frontiers".

The majority judgment of Justices Wimalaratne, Colin-Thome, Ranasinghe and Abdul Cader (Rodrigo J. dissenting) agreed that the petitioners had locus standi to make the application under Article 126 of the Constitution, but went on to hold that the restriction on publication imposed on the Jaffna-based "Saturday Review" was reasonable in view of the special security situation prevailing in the North.

In the SLBC case, Justice Fernando (with Justices Dheeraratne and Wijetunga agreeing) expressly refrained from holding that the freedom of speech automatically included a right to information, being of the view that the right simply to read or listen to material of one’s choice is more appropriately referable to the right to freedom of thought guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution. As this did not form part of the petitioner’s case the Court did not make a finding on it, but allowed the petitioner locus standi because in this instance he had been a participatory listener, exercising his own freedom of speech in the course of the NFEP broadcasts.

It therefore fell to the respondents to show that the stoppage of the programmes was justified. Four reasons were given: The alleged irrelevance and lack of educational content of the "Kamkaru Prajawa" and two other broadcasts that had preceded it; possible liability of SLBC and its managerial staff to defamation actions due to the contents; criticism of SLBC and its top management contained in one of the programmes; and public complaints said to have been received indicating discontent with the programme.

All four reasons were found by the Court to be without merit. The two broadcasts before "Kamkaru Prajawa" which had caused managerial displeasure concerned speculation about the reasons for Lionel Fernando’s sudden resignation from the Government’s four- team sent to talk peace with the Tigers, and a programme in which listeners had been asked for their views about the NFEP itself and attempts by management to exercise editorial control over the contents of the broadcasts.

The reasons for Lionel Fernando’s resignation, which had not been disclosed, were held to be a matter of legitimate public concern, as were the causes of industrial unrest as dealt with in "Kamkaru Prajawa". The danger of defamation suits was found to be negative because all material including phone-in comments were screened before broadcast. The idea of obtaining listener feedback on programme content and policy, even if it involved criticisms of the management, was also held to be in order. The criticisms, it was noted, had been "restrained in language and balanced in content". The Court observed that the Government’s official Media Policy was intended to encourage criticism in the public interest.

A case of attempted media suppression of a different kind arose in 1997 when the then Deputy Minister of Transport Reggie Ranatunga and his supporters were held responsible for an assault on Sumith Jayantha Dias, Head of the ITN News Service, apparently believing him to be from TNL..

In the case of Dias v. Ranatunga and others, Ranatunga and two of his supporters who were cited as the 1st to 3rd respondents failed to file any material to contradict the petitioner’s case, despite being granted several dates on which to do so. The petitioner’s case against them therefore stood uncontradicted. Only the Police officers involved in the incident appeared through Counsel to defend the case.

The petitioner’s case was that having travelled to Kandy with an electronic news team from the State-owned Independent Television Network (ITN), they were returning to Colombo at about 10 p.m. when they saw a burning lorry and a large crowd gathered at the Miriswatte junction. They stopped their van, which prominently bore the ITN logo, and got out to take film footage of the incident. The camera, which was held by the petitioner in the absence of the regular cameraman who had already been dropped off, also displayed the company logo.

At that moment an Intercooler Pajero with unregistered number plates accompanied by some other vehicles had also stopped at the scene. As the petitioner turned towards the new arrivals with camera in hand, Deputy Minister and Gampaha District MP Reggie Ranatunga who was in the front seat of the Pajero, had alleged that the petitioner was filming the number plate of the vehicle and had demanded the tape. The petitioner, while denying that he had filmed the number plate, had refused to surrender the tape, saying it was State property. He had produced his ITN identity card in support.

Not satisfied, the Deputy. Minister had told his supporters and accompanying security officers to seize the tape. The petitioner had managed to hand over the expensive Betacam camera to a uniformed Police officer at the scene before being set upon and assaulted by Ranatunga’s supporters and a policeman in civvies. He was then put in a van and taken to the Gampaha Police Station.

According to the petitioner, when he was brought into the OIC’s office, Ranatunga was seated in the OIC’s chair. He went through the petitioner’s identity papers and then told the petitioner that he had been mistakenly set upon by the people of the area because they had thought the he was from TNL, a privately owned television company. The Deputy Minister went on to say that this matter should be settled amicably and explained that he had feared that the petitioner would film his vehicle near the burning lorry and then say that he had fled the scene after setting fire to it.

In a bizarre twist, the petitioner was first examined by the Gampaha JMO who reported that he found no injuries but went on to say, without taking any tests, that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol. Thereafter the petitioner was examined by the JMO of Colombo South who reported seven injuries including an abrasion and three contusions on the chest consistent with assault with a blunt weapon.

In any event, in the face of the failure of the key respondents to file affidavits or place any other material on record to contradict the petitioners case, the Court accepted his case andawarded him Rs. 150,000 as compensation and costs. In the course of its judgment the Court stated that even if the petitioner had in fact filmed the unregistered vehicle and its number plate while it was in a public place, such an act would not have been unlawful, and the fact that the first respondent mistakenly thought the petitioner to be from a private television company made no difference.

Hijack drama sours Indo-Pakistan relations

by Dr. Stanley Kalpage
The hijacking of Indian Airlines plane IC-814 on 24 December 1999 occupied the attention of the world for more than a week IC-814 was on its way from Kathmandu to New Delhi, with 178 passengers and 11 crew members on board. The hijackers made three demands: a ransom of $200 million, the handing over of the body of a slain Kashmiri fugitive and the release of 36 Kashmiri militants held in Indian jails. Subsequently the hijackers were persuaded to drop the first two demands on the grounds that they were un-Islamic.

The plane was refused landing in Lahore (in Pakistan) and was diverted to Amritsar (in India). From there it proceeded once again to Lahore where it now landed and from there took off for Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. In return for refuelling in Dubai, the hijackers released 27 passengers and the body of Rupin Katyal stabbed on board, before taking off for Kandahar in Afghanistan where it stayed on the tarmac until 31 December.

The drama was called off in exchange for three Kashmiri militants released by the Indian government. The Afghanis gave the hijackers 10 hours to disappear. They have evidently crossed the border into Pakistan. The hijacking brought relations between South Asia’s nuclear neighbours to a new low.

Indian government in a dilemma

The Indian government was caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, the relatives of the hostages were demanding that the government settle the crisis and free their kinsmen. On the other, the government was careful not to give the impression that it was compromising on its anti-terrorism policy by trading militants, who had been considered as terrorists.

The experiences of the relatives of the hostages were as harrowing as those of the hostages themselves. Distraught relatives clashed with riot police in New Delhi as they accused the Indian Government of major bungling. About 70 relatives stormed the Crisis Management Group centre in New Delhi. They wanted the hostages released and recalled the December 1989 incident when, Rubaaiyah Sayeed, the kidnapped daughter of then Home Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, was freed in exchange for the release of four Kashmiri militants.

Hijackers identified

According to Home Minister L. K. Advani, the hijack originated as an Inter-Services Agency (ISI) operation carried out with the assistance of the Kashmiri nationalist organisation - Harkat-ul-Anzar. Advani said that the hijack was planned in Mumbai. The hijackers were provided with assistance by four ISI operatives who were arrested in Mumbai. ISI is Pakistan’s military intelligence agency.

The four arrested ISI operatives - an Indian, two Pakistanis and a Nepali - were rounded up on 29 December after one of them, Abdul Latif, had made a telephone call to a TV station in London saying that the plane on the ground at Kandahar would be blown up unless the demands of the hijackers were met. The hijackers are said to have communicated with an accomplice in Pakistan who had in turn contacted Abdul Latif.

The Bombay-based ISI operatives had, according to Advani, revealed the identity of the hijackers. This had been confirmed by means of photographs which had been shown to the released passengers and crew. However, the pilot of the aircraft Captain D. Sharan was quoted as saying that he was not shown the photographs and that even if he had been shown them, he would not have been able to identify the hijackers who wore masks and could not be recognised.

The five hijackers were named as Ibrahi, Athar - the chief hijacker, resident of Bahawalpur in Pakistan and brother of released militant Maulana Masood Azhar, Shaqir (from Sukkur city) and three Karachi residents, Shahid Akhtar Sayed, Sunny Ahmed Qazi and Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim. It is reported that at least three of them figure in the airline’s manifest that was sent to New Delhi.

Pakistan’s denial

Pakistani officials denied any knowledge of the hijacking and said that the Indian charges of Pakistan’s involvement were baseless. Pakistan’s military ruler General Pervez Musharraf accused Indian prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee of trying to smear Pakistan in hopes of diverting the growing domestic criticism of his government’s handling of the hostage crisis. Pakistan also alleged that India was attempting to persuade other nations to declare Pakistan a terrorist state.

Javed Jabbar, a close friend and adviser of General Musharraf is reported to have made the preposterous suggestion that he and the General believed that India had engineered the hijacking in an effort to malign Pakistan. The fact that the hijackers sought and obtained the release of three anti-India militants and after their release disappeared into Pakistan, makes it ludicrous to suggest that India had staged such an event.

Maulana Masood Azhar

The militant who had been most insistently demanded by the hijackers were Maulana Masood Azhar, the leader of the Harkat-ul-Ansar. Masood Azhar had been arrested and jailed by India since 1994 and Pakistani reports say that he has been held for five years without any charges being framed.

Born in 1968, in the town of Bahawalpur in the central Pakistani province of Punjab, Masood Azhar hails from a rich land-owning family according to whom Azhar is a journalist and religious scholar. Azhar’s brother, Ibrahim, is said to have been among the hijackers.

After his release Maulana Masood Azhar addressed tens of thousands of people outside a mosque in his hometown of Bawahalpur. He said: "There is no way open for us other than to wage Jihad (holy war) against India for Kashmir’s liberation."

The crowd responded with raised fists and promised to join the insurgency, which has been battling Indian soldiers for more than a decade demanding either outright independence for Kashmir or union with Islamic Pakistan. "Indian soldiers are killing our brothers and raping our innocent sisters," said Azhar. "The world should tell us which is bigger crime - the plane hijacking or Indian atrocities in Kashmir?"

Tardiness of India’s response

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee initial response was: "My government will not bend before such a show of terrorism." One week later he was claiming the settlement of the crisis as "a substantial victory for his government - which was guided by two concerns: the safety of the passengers and the crew, and the long-term, overall interests of our country." He added: "We were able to substantially scale down their demand."In any event, the performance of the Crisis Management Group (CMG) came in for much criticism. The Indian press sharply criticised the CMG for the initial delay and confusion in allowing flight IC-814 to leave Amritsar when it first landed there on 24 December without making any attempt to rescue the hostages during the time the aircraft was on the tarmac. "Not once in all those 39 minutes was any attempt made to try and open a channel of communication with the hijackers," said the Indian Express in an editorial.

The subsequent refuelling stops in Lahore and Dubai before the plane reached its final destination in Taliban-held territory, caused a prolongation of the agony of the hostages and their relatives and made an eventual solution depend on the mercy of the Taliban authorities.

The Hindustan Times commented that "one bungle led to several stumbles". "The Amritsar fiasco compelled India to communicate with two regimes it has conscientiously stayed away from - the military junta in Islamabad and the thuggish, Pakistan-backed Taliban in Afghanistan."

The crucial question to which there appears to be no credible explanation from the Indian authorities to date, is why the aircraft was allowed to take off from Amritsar. This was an Indian carrier with mainly Indian nationals on board on Indian soil. India compounded a very difficult situation by allowing the aircraft to fly away from Indian territory only to end up in a country with whom India has no diplomatic ties and where India had no real control of the hostage crisis. There were reports that the hijackers had acquired more deadly weapons during the stopover in Kandahar.

After the hijacking

Relief and happiness throughout India and the civilised world at the safe release of the hostages was tinged with sorrow at the brutal killing of young Rupin Katyal. But the entire hijacking episode was considered as a humiliating and damaging defeat for the Indian state. The hijackers achieved several objectives: embarrassment for India, the internationalising of the Kashmir issue, and the release of high security detainees such as Maulana Masood Azhar, a Pakistani national and collaborator of the Taliban.

Now that the hijacking is over India is looking into the lessons to be learned from the harrowing experience. She is tightening up security on all airline flights and has reaffirmed her determination to see that terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir is completely wiped out.

"The war against terrorism," said Advani, "has been a protracted one, always and everywhere in the world... But experience the world over has shown that a terrorist movement, confronted by organised state power, is always subject to the law of decreasing returns and increasing risks. They should know that they have no hope of winning against the might of the Indian State, complemented by the equal might of the unity and patriotic resolve of the Indian people."

The ubiquitous suicide-bomber

By Dr. W. M. K. Wijetunga
The increasing deployment of suicide bombers by the LTTE against selected prime targets as well as on unsuspecting bystanders is becoming a matter of great security concern. They have been deployed with devastating effect, and could pose even a greater threat than other types of conventional lethal explosive devices and contraptions.

The earliest most well known incident of the use of suicide bombers by the LTTE would go back to 1991, with the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi during the build-up for Indian general elections during the same year. Closer home we have the assassination of President Ranasinghe Premadasa on May Day 1993, followed by the assassination of Gamini Dissanayake, a presidential candidate, and many other notable UNP officials, on the eve of the Presidential elections in 1994.

Two more recent incidents are also connected with the Presidential elections in December 1999, with the unsuccessful attempt on the life of President Chandrika Kumaratunga and on the UNP supporters, with greater success. Those incidents took place on the same evening within few hours of each other. The most recent incident occurred on January 5 this year, that being the first of its kind for the new millennium. However the victims at the latest occasion were not VIPs, but no less important in terms of numbers falling victim to the explosion.

The increasing proliferation of suicide bombing coming within few hours and few days apart should no doubt concern our security establishment. The suicide bomber (SB) of whatever sex is a determined and a desperate person who has no regard for his or her own life, but determined to cause the maximum damage to the targeted person or persons, and property.

Even Israel, which is perhaps the most security-conscious country in the modern world has found it difficult to deal effectively with that phenomenon. The potential SB is often an unobstrusive and inconspicuous person, who can easily merge with the crowds, and show little outward signs of her lethal armour, which is ready to explode at very short notice.

The impact of a human bomb, unlike with conventional bombs, is not felt on the ground at the feet of the bomber, but on persons and materials in the immediate vicinity. The shrapnel which forms the most lethal part of the bomb travels at stupendous speeds on an upward trajectary, with deadly effect, and spreading the impact for some distance.

The tell-tale marks of this type of explosion is the complete mutilation of the human bomber, with the head often separating from the body, and travelling upwards to some distance. Often the limbs are also decapitated and thrown sideways, away from the body. The carnage at these bomb sites is a gruesome sight, and bears testimony to the warped minds and the intensity of hate and vengeance in these perpetrators, as well as of those motivating and manipulating them to undertake these tasks.

The phenomenon of the suicide bomber would require urgent study of the character and the personality traits of these weird persons. A thorough sociological and psychological investigation is called for with a view to constructing a credible profile of the actual as well as potential bombers. Are they also, like their leaders, sociopaths and psychopaths? What could be the political, social and psychological compulsions and impulses which drive them to these extreme inhuman actions? Even a superficial look would suggest that the female bombers in particular are not the most attractive persons in a conventional sense. What are their levels of literacy and other intellectual attributes, which would be determining factors in their easy susceptibility to choose such anti-social criminal behaviour?

The spectre of the SB also raises some horrendous implications. Their success rate would suggest that they are more effective than those engaged in one to one combat, in open warfare using heavy artillery, or even in more elusive guerrilla tactics. The last three incidents alone have resulted in a death ratio of 3 to more than 50 persons. The injured rate would be three times as many, or even more.

Their own attrition rate in open combat has always been worrisome to the LTTE, and has hampered their military operations. Under those circumstances a crazy woman is a small human prize to pay to obtain such disproportionate results. Would this situation suggest that there could even be greater recruitment to the ranks of SBs, and their widespread deployment among population concentrations, thereby causing a real security nightmare, not only for the military establishment, but also for the general public. Even worse is the fact that this is a challenge which cannot be matched by the government security forces in the same terms.

The human and material toll in these incidents also have a qualitative disparity between the two contending parties. One crazy woman or man could inflict irreparable loss in human terms, as is evident from the quality of human lives which have fallen easy prey to these LTTE predators. Presidents, presidential hopefuls, other senior political leaders, senior security personnel, other professionals, are among the victims, at these brief but devastating encounters.

Another implication is the nightmarish experience of the security personnel in dealing with these killers. The current practice of body searches at very close quarters is inviting instant death and mutilation to the death-dealers as well as those who bear the grave responsibility in performing their tasks. How long can they be expected to sacrifice their lives in these exercises heavily loaded against their own lives while dealing with these purveyors of self-destruction and destruction of others?

Like the fabled warriors in shining armour of the middle ages, should our security personnel dealing with SBs also should be clad in protective armour strong enough to withstand the ravages of RDX and the flying shrapnel? Or should they be carrying long poles with bomb/metal detecting devices, so that they could deal with potential killers at more than arm’s length? Can trained dogs be used as sacrificial lambs even as a limited counter force in dealing with these walking death-dealers?

These are issues of strategy, intelligence gathering, training, and even international collaboration. Constant and massive public awareness programs are called for, targeted specially at the most vulnerable groups, such as school children, office employees, and bus and train travellers. Provision of first-aid should be another urgent task both for training and equipment.

Time may be running out unless we get our priorities right, and appropriate action is put in place. We have to make the best use of our scarce resources in the defence of the country and its law-abiding citizens.

Continued...

  | NEWS | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |