RECONCILIATION SHOULD BE WITHOUT EXAGGERATION

While some groups engaged in commemorating the people who died in the war, especially during its final phase, in a related issue, a statement made by Michael Morris or Baron Naseby PC in the British Parliament in October on the number of deaths which occurred during the final phase of the war in Sri Lanka has been a topic being discussed in the South. However, the discourse seems to be destined to be smothered with the highly controversial local government elections.

Lord Naseby made this statement while speaking on a debate on what assessment the British Government has made of the progress made by Sri Lanka in meeting the requirements on reconciliation established by the United Nations Human Rights Council. He said, “The UK must now get the UN and the UNHCR in Geneva to accept a civilian casualty level of 7,000 to 8,000, not 40,000.”

He cited so many sources on which his argument was based. An unpublished report from the United Nations country team, Gordon Weiss, the former UN spokesman, University Teachers for Human Rights, an enumeration conducted by the Sri Lankan Government’s census department in 2011, US Ambassador Blake and dispatches by the British defence attaché, Lieutenant Colonel Anton Gash which Mr. Naseby had acquired through an RTI application were among them.

The issue he has raised is very important as many people who are concerned about human rights violations by warring parties in Sri Lanka and even the Tamil leaders as well as those who commemorate war victims, do not know the exact number of people killed during the armed conflict.

Hence, ridiculously, people quote numbers as they wish, mostly according to their political agendas, with Tamils preferring to see more deaths having occurred among their compatriots while the Sinhalese claiming a less number of casualties. The figure 40,000 was first given by the Darusman Committee appointed by the former UN Secretary General Ban ki-moon to advise him on Sri Lanka in 2010 and was an abrupt jump from far below the number circulated among the people concerned, including the Tamil leaders. The Darusman Committee claimed that the figure was based on credible evidence it had received and later it was oft quoted by international media and human rights bodies as an official tally, without questioning the UN on what its sources were.

The Sri Lankan authorities too, until their 2011 enumeration were clueless as to the exact number of the war deaths during the last phase of the war and relied on the figures (between 7,000 and 8,000) given by the local UN officials at the conclusion of the armed conflict in May 2009. Tamil leaders were not happy even with the Darusman report. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) in its manifesto for the 2013 Northern Provincial Council election said the death toll in the final phase was about 75,000. Some Tamil Nadu leaders who were even unhappy with the 75,000 deaths of Tamils as put by the main Tamil party in Sri Lanka, had claimed sometime back that around half a million innocent Tamils had perished in the final armed conflict.

The enthusiasm shown by some southern politicians on Lord Naseby’s statement is comprehensible, as it helps clearing the name of the armed forces which sacrificed a lot to free the country from terrorism. However, their lack of interest towards the one of the two local sources he had cited - the 2011 enumeration - since its publication in 2012, was appalling. Unlike his other sources it was the most reliable and scientific source. It was not conducted under a war-like situation and almost all field officers involved in that census were Tamils. It was never challenged by any individual or group. The TNA responding to the media queries, in the wake of the publication of the enumeration report, had told it would make its observations after studying it, but never did so. Unfortunately, even the former regime did not use it to counter the allegations of war crimes or genocide during the subsequent UN fora.

However, it does not mean that 7000 or 8000 civilian deaths occurred in about six months should be deemed insignificant or be ignored. Definitely they had to be accounted for. Both warring parties were responsible for them. At the same time exaggeration too would never help reconciliation.