The Rajpal Abeynayake Column

Poll posters and police disciplinary code

The law prohibiting the display of posters, banners, cut-outs etc. to promote any candidate from the day of the nominations till the day following the day of election, is very clear. In the case of the December 21 presidential election, the ban is effective from 16.11.99. till 22.12.99.

It is beyond comprehension therefore why the Elections Commissioner and the Police Chief should be fixing different dates for the ban to come into effect and keep changing the deadlines to enforce the ban which is the law of the land. The law in this regard has not conferred any discretionary powers on either the Commissioner of elections or the IGP.

Let us first ponder why this law was introduced. Experience during elections up to and during 1977 showed that elections-related violence was sparked off mainly due to friction between rival parties involved in the poster campaign and then spread to major incidents.

Therefore, to enable the Police to preserve the peace by nipping disaster in the bud, this law was introduced. The IGP is bound to uphold this law without any dilution, assistance from the Elections Commissioner notwithstanding.

The peace-loving citizens for their part are entitled as of right to demand that the law is enforced effectively and the fast spreading breach of peace prevented. Posters and other propaganda material are not displayed in remote and unpoliced areas, but in crowded public places where Police presence in any case is most desirable.

But how many detections have been made even by chance, by police patrols? Allowing this breach of peace to grow without invoking the provisions of the law effectively can expose the IGP to a serious allegation that the law and order situation was purposely allowed to deteriorate to suit mischief-makers so that interested parties can tamper with the elections.

The repeated 'orders' of the IGP in this connection with extended deadlines but no response from his officers, have become a joke in the light of the following sections of the Police Disciplinary Code.

Section 3: .Disobedience to Orders That is to say if he disobeys or omits or neglects to carry out any order, written or otherwise, issued by a superior officer.

Section 4: Neglect of duty - That is to say if he (a) neglects or omits promptly and diligently to attend to or carry out anything which is his duty as a police officer.

Section 16: Being an accessory to a breach of discipline - That is to say if he connives at or knowingly abets any offence or any breach of discipline under this code.

Any Police officer commits a breach of discipline under these sections, he is liable up to a maximum punishment of dismissal from service.

The important question that arises is, what action has the IGP initiated against his officers for breach of of the Disciplinary Code? Why are the Minister and he IGP vested with powers to inflict punishment on Police officers for breach of discipline? Surely it is not to satisfy any sadistic desire on their part. These powers are given to them because punishment is part and parcel of disciplinary control. When other means fail, those vested with disciplinary powers are expected to 'use the stick' for corrective action.

How miserably the authorities have failed in their duty in regard to the ban on posters etc. and the preservation of peace, is glaring in our faces at public places. The much-publicised 'orders' to remove them have thus been reduced to mere apologies, for public consumption. The IGP and the minister in charge are found badly wanting in the discharge of their responsibilities in this regard.

Now who is to take action against the IGP and the Minister for their connivance?

This is the rot the public will have to put up with until an Independent Police Commission is established.

Catholic clergy and its chilling sound of silence

By Kumabakarna

When the Portuguese advanced their troops from Delft to Jaffnapatam in 1544, the Jaffna regional leader "Chekavasa Sekaran" better known as "Sangkili" responded by massacring over 600 converted Catholics of Mannar and Maddhu areas. This angered the Catholics of Portugal and India including Father Francis Xavier, St. Tome Bishop of Coiambatore and Mignel Vaas who declared that Sangkili should be executed.

A modern day Sangkili, Prabhakaran has similar designs. His campaign pivots round the "holy Tamil land" concept and ethnic cleansing is his way of achieving this goal.

In 1984 he attacked the Dollar-Kent (Now Kalyanipura) farms and Kekulawala and in 1987 all the Sinhalese people were chased out of Jaffna. By 1991 he had chased all the Muslims from Jaffna making the peninsula an "exclusive Tamil homeland".

There is an important difference however, between the times of Sangkili and Prabhakaran. While Sangkili's actions raised the wrath of the Church, Prabhakaran's attack on Catholics at the Kekulawa village or the massacre of refugees in the Madu Church premises was met with deafening silence from the Church.

The population of Mannar and Madhu comprises 41% Tamil Catholics (1981 census) and the Tamil Catholics form a significant power block in the area. The "Christian factor" in the Tamil racist separatist struggle has always been evident. It has cleverly buried the hatchet of Hindu-Catholic differences when it came to the struggle for a Tamil identity when necessary.

Father Gnanapragasam endorsing the views of Simon Casichetty and C. Rasanayagam that an autonomous Tamil kingdom flourished in Jaffna for thousands of years and the arrest of some members of the clergy in the 80's for alleged involvement in the armed struggle are some instances that prove this point.

More seriously it should be noted that in this struggle Catholic Sinhalese are a non factor.The attack on the Catholic Sinhala village and destruction of the Church in Kekulawa in December 1984 and the massacre of six Sinhala Catholics among nine pilgrims on December 20, 1985 in the Madhu area highlight this.

At the end of the 20th century Madhu Church and Christian politics are more than ever in the picture. The recent events when the army recaptured the Madhu Church area further clarify the clergy's stand. As long as the Tigers were in control of Madhu no voices were raised in protest. The protests began only when the Madhu Church area came under the control of the Sri Lankan Armed forces, affording protection to the Sinhala Catholic worshippers.

For this year's Church feast Mannar Bishop Dr. Joseph Rayappu declared there would be no blood letting within the Church premises and assured that Tigers will not bring arms to the premises, instructing the army to follow suit. He further reiterated that if a single drop of blood was shed within the Church premises he would cancel the feasts. However not only was an unarmed soldier massacred in the Church premises, but worse still, not a single voice of protest was raised against this atrocity.

Likewise recently when the Tigers attacked Wanni and the Madhu Church premises there was no resistance by Church authorities. The army's recapture of the Madhu area brought forth a vicious response by the Tigers who killed 34 refugees. No voices of condemnation were heard on this atrocity too, not even from the Catholic Sinhalese.

Why is this special place afforded to Prabhakaran by the Church?

Why are the Catholics who went on a march for the freedom to religious beliefs (in protest against holding provincial elections on April 1, two days before Good Friday) silent on the rights of the Sinhalese who worship at the Madhu Church? Only a feeble protest by Bishop Oswald Gomes and Father Ernest Poruthota has been heard so far on this issue.

Why are Prabhakaran's action not treated the same way as Sankili's were?

One wonders whether this deliberate silence is the basis for the exaggerated accounts of the LTTE's growing capacity and the increasing number of Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim refugees in the country.

The foreign media is careful never to focus on the Sinhala/Muslim refugees of Welioya and Vavuniya. They are only interested in the increasing number of Tamil refugees and legitimising the case for foreign intervention in the country. They draw parallels between Kosovo, East Timor and Sri Lanka as another Palestine, forgetting conveniently that Serbs and Albanians could escape to Serbian and Albanian areas when attacked and that East Timor Muslims and Christians could escape to the West part and East part of Timor respectively. Did the Tamil's of Wanni and Mannar escape to the North/Jaffna, the so called Tamil Homeland or the South to live among the Sinhalese?

There is only one lesson to be learned from these tragic incidents of the past, that there is no racial or ethnic problem in Sri Lanka but one of terrorism and any promises made time and again by those who wield terror are only mirages soaked in blood.