Practical steps to meaningful reconciliation

17th February 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka: Several valuable recommendations are contained in the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s (LLRC) Report and they are all the more compelling because they have issued from a Presidential Commission. In pursuance of this, we the undersigned call upon the government of Sri Lanka, in consultation with the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and the leadership of the Muslims, to take steps to implement the recommendations. In this statement we have highlighted certain important recommendations. The government is morally bound to implement the proposals of its own commission or otherwise stand indicted of a lack of sincerity.

A lasting solution to the ethnic imbroglio can be reached only if power, including police powers, land use and allocation, and fiscal and budgetary authority is devolved to the Provincial Councils in accordance with the Constitution of Sri Lanka; but the government is stalling. In the context of this statement we refer in particular to the Northern and Eastern Provinces. The governance of the Northern Province should be handed over forthwith to democratically elected representatives of the people. We also state that without restoration and empowerment of the civil administration, effective demilitarisation, resettlement of Tamil and Muslim displaced persons, disbanding paramilitary forces, releasing illegally detained persons and rejuvenating the local economy, all talk of reconciliation is a deception.

There have been a number of proposals which if implemented would have gone some way towards ameliorating the conflict; the Mangala Moonesinge Report, President Kumaratunga’s proposals in the 1990s, the draft constitution of 2000, and the Majority Report of the Experts Committee advising the APRC. Now a set of recommendations has been made by the President’s LLRC appointees. Notwithstanding our criticisms of the LLRC in the Concluding Note below we are of the opinion that if the government implements the most important of its Recommendations, progress can be made towards reconciliation of the communities.

Demilitarisation
The ubiquitous presence of and pressure exerted by the armed forces in the Northern and Eastern Province engenders grave and direct fear among the people and inhibits social life. Militarization and armed paramilitary groups are the root cause of harassment and are associated with abduction and other unlawful acts. The spread of military tentacles into reconstruction projects is alarming and military sponsored expansion into small and medium business undertakings are taking precedence and steamrolling the local community out of the neighbourhood economy. Commitment to the concept of the primacy of civilian democracy over military power makes it imperative that the LLRC recommendations quoted below be implemented forthwith and in full. This needs the approval of no Parliamentary Select Committee or endorsement by the TNA. There is no justification for procrastination.

“The Commission, as a policy, strongly advocates and recommends to the Government that the Security Forces should disengage itself from all civil administration related activities as rapidly as possible” – (9.134).

“It is important that the Northern Province reverts to civilian administration in matters relating to the day-to-day life of the people, and in particular with regard to matters pertaining to economic activities such as agriculture, fisheries land etc. The military presence must progressively recede to the background to enable the people to return to normal civilian life and enjoy the benefits of peace” – (9.227)

The importance of demilitarisation extends beyond the North-East. There is alarm in the Sinhalese and Muslim communities in other parts of the country about mounting military involvement in civilian life such as state corporations and businesses, construction and urban development, provincial governorships and the diplomatic service. Demilitarisation of civilian and economic life is the common demand of people of all communities. The peril of military involvement in financial matters and sinecures of prestige has been well learnt in recent years from the Burmese, Egyptian and Syrian examples to name but three.

High Security Zones, paramilitaries and child soldiers
The LLRC Report deals with High Security Zones (HSZs) in paragraph 9.142 and recommends a review for the purpose of releasing more land to the public. We call for the immediate dismantling of all HS zones which serve no rightful purpose. All occupied land must be returned to rightful owners. The Report refers to illegal armed groups in paragraph 9.73 and to the alleged crimes of the EPDP in paragraph 9.208, but only calls for further investigation in both matters. We fail to see why paramilitaries and armed goons are allowed free reign in the Tamil areas at all. It is the duty of the state to disband these unlawful groups forthwith; the state needs no LLRC recommendation to carry out its bounden obligations. We support the recommendation that past activities of these gangs be investigated with a view to prosecution where warranted.

We support the recommendations in the report (9.77 to 9.80) regarding rehabilitation, return to families and provision of employment opportunities for former child soldiers. The recommendations in respect of tracing families or tracing child soldiers (9.81) are also commendable and need to be acted on. These are completely non-controversial matters, but it is regrettable that the government has commenced no action. There is no reason whatsoever for delay.

Unlawful detention
In ten paragraphs in a separate subsection titled “Treatment of Detainees” the Report deals with several aspects of lawful and unlawful detention and the treatment of detainees. The following passages are of particular note.

“However, the Commission expresses concern over some detainees who have been incarcerated over a long period of time without charges being preferred. The Commission stresses again that conclusive action should be taken to dispose of these cases by bringing charges or releasing them where there is no evidence of any criminal offence having being committed” – (9.70).

All places of detention should be those, which are formally designated as authorized places of detention and no person should be detained in any place other than such authorized places of detention. Strict legal provisions should be followed by the law enforcement authorities in taking persons into custody, such as issuing of a formal receipt of arrest and providing details of the place of detention – (9.67).

The commission has put its finger on a pervasive and persistent problem in the breakdown of law enforcement and justice in the country; illegal detention without adequate cause, failure to prosecute or release, and detention at unauthorised locations at which victims are alleged to be tortured or eliminated. Does a responsible government need the recommendations of a presidential commission to eliminate such practices forthwith? The government is dragging its feet while detainees linger in jails and camps.

The next of kin of detainees have the fundamental right to know of the whereabouts of their family members and they have the right of access to detainees. The LLRC notes numerous representations were made about this matter.

“A large number of representations were made with regard to those whose whereabouts are unknown, sometimes for years, as a result of abductions, unlawful arrests, arbitrary detention, and involuntary disappearances” – (9.43)

Land; Return of IDPs; Return of Muslims
Some recommendations in respect of land issues overlap the larger of question of devolution of land powers to Provincial Councils (9.124, 9.126 and 9.150). Other matters such as expediting the return of Muslims evicted by the LTTE to the North and steps to prevent the legitimisation of properties forcibly occupied during the war are worthy of support. These issues will be more complex in implementation than the matters adverted to previously as they require legislation and will certainly need the establishment of administrative support mechanisms. The government must demonstrate its good intentions by declaring its intention to implement these recommendations and state the time frame within which they will be completed.

We recognise that the full reintegration of IDPs into the community and ensuring the return of the Muslims (covered in 9.103 to 9.108 and 9.109 to 9.113, respectively) are important issues. The same is true of the broader discussion in paragraphs 9.121 to 9.152 dealing with several land related matters. While recognising the need for patience on these matters we are perturbed that there seems to be a lack of seriousness on the part of the government in getting started on the job. A matter of more immediate concern is that the provision of basic facilities is neglected while IDPs languish in dire conditions.

Concluding Note
Right thinking people of all communities are dismayed by the whitewash of atrocities against the civilian population committed by the Sri Lankan military in the final stages of the war. The LLRC has ignored allegations about the military targeting safe zones, hospitals, and locations where tens of thousands were packed together. The large scale and permanent displacement of the people of the Vanni and the destruction of homes and built infrastructure portends an effort to change the ethnic population profile of the region. The LLRC has documented LTTE atrocities and concluded that it is guilty of human-rights violations. Taking into account all these we believe that there is prima face evidence of human-rights violations by the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE; we demand an independent investigation.

The purpose of this statement is to express our dismay that the government is taking little follow up action to get down to simple actions that are not particularly controversial if there is a genuine commitment to democracy, human rights and reconciliation. Since in this statement we wish to emphasise matters that can be implemented expeditiously, we have not engaged in extended discussion of two fundamental concerns; that accountability for human rights violations must be followed up, and that a political solution based on devolution is the only feasible permanent solution. Nor is this document comprehensive since we have not dealt with women’s issues, education, compensation, restrictions on travel and the hard to understand delay in rebuilding the railway to the north – a one time artery of commerce and people movement.

Signatories

  1. Priyadarshani Ariyaratne
  2. Niran Bandaranaike
  3. Lionel Bopage
  4. Kumar David (Prof)
  5. Sunanda Deshapriya
  6. Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri
  7. Marshal Fernando
  8. Sarath Fernando (Monlar)
  9. Bhavani Fonseka
  10. Mano Ganesan
  11. Sivaguru Ganesan (Prof)
  12. N Ganesanathan (Dr)
  13. Ruba.H.Gnanaratnam
  14. Farzana Hanifffa (Dr)
  15. S.H. Hasbullah (Prof)
  16. Rohini Hensman (Dr)
  17. Jay Jayasingam
  18. Kumara Illangasinghe (Bishop Emeritus)
  19. M. C. M. Iqbal
  20. Vickremabahu Karunaratne (Dr)
  21. S. V. Kasynathan (Dr.)
  22. Uvindu Kurukulasuriya
  23. Sumanasiri Liyanage (Dr)
  24. S. Nagendra
  25. Suppiramaniam Nanthikesan
  26. Anita Nesiah (Dr)
  27. Devanesan Nesiah (Dr)
  28. Lanka Nesiah
  29. Vasuki Nesiah
  30. Nigel V. Nugawela
  31. Rajan Philips
  32. Mirak Raheem
  33. Lionel Rajapakse
  34. Mahinda Ratnayake
  35. Surendra Ajith Rupesinghe
  36. Jeanne Samuel
  37. Shireen Saroor
  38. Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu (Dr)
  39. Willie Senanayake (Dr)
  40. Sabapathy Sivagurunathan
  41. Daya Somasundaram(Dr)
  42. Ram Subramaniam
  43. Jonathan V Thambar
  44. J. Thiruchandran
  45. Selvy Thiruchandran (Dr)
  46. Bradman Weerakone
  47. Lal Wijenayake
  48. E Vivegananthan

Rural Education Assistance Programme 2009

The Rural Education Assistance Programme 2009 funded by Sahaya Foundation USA, aims to promote equitable access to education for some of the poorest children of Sri Lanka, the children of estate workers in the Plantation Sectors.

Administered by its local partner, the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) this programme will provide small scale scholarships taking into account their performance in the face of very difficult circumstances.

Download PDF with more information here.

Quo Vadis, the Conga Line?

When Sri Lanka vied for the 2018 Commonwealth Games, there was a telling photograph taken at one of the bashes the regime threw in the Caribbean, the culminating event of a labour intensive, extravagant self-indulgent exercise. The photograph has Hon Namal Rajapaksha MP leading a conga line followed by the Governor of the Central Bank. They both seem…well, happy. However, though a good time was had by all no doubt, that conga line led nowhere. We did not win the bid to host the 2018 Commonwealth Games; agnostics and atheists alike were put on notice about the existence of the divine. The country was saved. Yet the conga line as both a metaphor and description of the structure of power and the ruling regime remains. Into 2012, where will it head?

The old year 2011 like all others before was interesting in the sense of the Chinese curse. It saw the steady decline of governance and the Rule of Law, the steady rise of militarization and the interminable decline of the opposition; more attacks on the freedom of expression and association and the re-emergence of disappearances; grease yakkas, plastic crates and the fatal private pension plan; an unnecessary, yet revealing controversy over the national anthem; the release of a COPE report confirming losses by state enterprises running into billions of rupees and at the same time legislation deemed urgent in the national interest to take over underperforming and under utilised private sector enterprises. Sarath Fonseka continued to be harassed and is now to be written out of the history books Soviet-style, including the revamped version of the Mahavamsa; monitoring MPs and presidential advisors fought to the death and probable permanent disability, High Noon style, and in the dying days of the year, a Pradeshiya Sabha chairman alleged to have engaged in fatal political violence during the last presidential election, is now implicated in the murder and serious assault of tourists. There is of course the fiasco of the release of exam results and the sham/e of Sri Lanka Cricket.

Significantly, some 40 years on from the last pre-war election in 1977, one party was overwhelmingly returned in the south and another likewise in the north in local government elections. The regime – TNA talks are more and more reminiscent of the lines from Macbeth – tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow… it is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

On a positive note, the economy is supposed to be booming. Every index is up – number of tourists, remittances, exports, and foreign direct investment (FDI). Inflation, indebtedness and the cost of living too! The trade deficit remains in billions of dollars despite the increase in remittances, exports, tourists and FDI. The capital city is being beautified – a direct boon of the pairing of defence and urban development we are told and many believe, irrespective of the number of city dwellers who have paid the cost in eviction. There is a highway to the south and an aptly though controversially named Mahinda Rajapaksha Performing Arts Centre with state of the art facilities, as well as night racing to boot.

And there is the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) Report, the document, which, the regime has maintained, will answer its critics and lay to rest the charge of war crimes and the call for accountability in respect of them. This the Report does not do, thereby lending credence to the criticisms leveled at it in terms of mandate and composition and most importantly, thereby reinforcing the call for international investigation. The LLRC concludes that there was no deliberate targeting of civilians by the armed forces or use of siege tactics by the regime with regard to the provision of food and medicine to civilians in the Vanni. It acknowledges that, “…material points towards the implication of the Security Forces for the resulting death and injury to civilians, even though this may not have been with the intent to cause harm”.

This is largely based on the testimonies of the security hierarchy and suffers from the lack of witness protection, which would have facilitated a more comprehensive account of what transpired. The LLRC makes reference to the technical difficulties in reconstructing what happened and notes the near impossibility of doing so, now. On the key issue of war crimes and violation of international humanitarian law, the report is a whitewash of the regime. This is very disappointing given the urgent need for accountability at the community level in particular, as demonstrated by the number of civilians who testified before the LLRC despite the difficulties and subsequent dangers they faced in doing so.

It is a curate’s egg, however. Its conclusions on reconciliation, the atrocities of the LTTE, militarization, a political and constitutional settlement based on devolution, the politicization of governance, the erosion of the rule of law, the naming of para-militaries and the call for further action on this and on disappearances and detainees as well as the Channel Four documentary, on right to information legislation, are all to be welcomed. All of this begs the question of how any “independent’ or “proper” investigation the LLRC recommends can be done nationally. None of this is new; most of this has been championed by civil society for quite some time. That a regime appointed commission reiterates all of this, underscores both the scale and nature of the challenge the regime faces and accordingly, the scale and nature of the paradigm shift it has to undertake if it is to, as it must, implement these recommendations without delay.

Quo Vadis, the Conga line in 2012? Can the tiger change it stripes; the leopard its spots?

Can pigs fly?

FINAL VERSION: Release of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) Report

We apologise for the earlier version of this Press Release which inadvertently contained content in draft form.

4 January 2011, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) welcomes the release of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) Report, its analysis of the root cause of the conflict, the cataloguing of the atrocities of the LTTE, recommendations in respect of governance – especially the de-politicization of existing institutions, the introduction of Right to Information legislation, militarization, attacks on the freedom of expression, language rights, reconciliation and the investigation of the allegations contained in the Channel Four documentary as well as the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for disappearances and civilian deaths. We also welcome the LLRC recommendation that named individuals and organizations associated with the government be investigated for human rights violations and para-military activity, and its recommendations in respect of the Northern Muslims evicted by the LTTE and the Up Country Tamil population. The attention accorded by the LLRC to the situation of these two communities strengthens the coherence of this report on the pivotal issue of reconciliation for the peoples of Sri Lanka. We strongly urge that the testimonies and record of the proceedings of the LLRC be preserved for posterity.

CPA did not go before the LLRC because of reservations about the mandate and composition of the commission, the past record of presidential commissions, specifically the non- release and non-implementation of their recommendations –a point also made in the LLRC Report. We note however that a number of the observations and recommendations made by the LLRC reiterate those made by CPA and other civil society actors regarding the state of governance, the culture of impunity and human rights protection in Sri Lanka, in particular. The endorsement of these views by a presidential commission reinforces this civil society critique and underscores the importance of the credible and effective implementation of the LLRC recommendations in the areas mentioned above as a matter of the utmost national priority. This in turn, as also highlighted by the LLRC, is underscored by the failure of the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) to implement in full the interim recommendations of the LLRC.

Following the release of the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Panel Report and the calls for international investigation of the allegations of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) made against the LTTE and the GOSL, the GOSL has maintained that the LLRC Report would answer its critics. Central to this is establishing what happened in the last phase of the conflict and the issue of accountability. The LLRC has concluded that in certain cases the truth is near impossible to ascertain given the information presented to the commission and more importantly, the information that at this point can be obtained. Notwithstanding the issue of the limitations of the information available to it, the LLRC categorically states that it was not the intention of the GOSL to target civilians at any point. The LLRC also concludes that in certain cases further investigations are warranted to establish the responsibility of members of the armed forces for civilian deaths, war crimes and violations of IHL, though it maintains, “this may not have been with an intent to cause harm”.

This is a conclusion that echoes the testimonies of senior officers and officials in the political and security establishment. It has been arrived at through a process in which there was no witness and victim protection mechanism to facilitate further civilian testimony and thereby, a comprehensive account of what happened in the last phase of the war. In this connection it is pertinent to note the hardship and subsequent harassment faced by civilians who testified before the commission and the insufficient time allocated to civilians to make oral submissions before it. Most importantly, that so many family members of the disappeared and killed came before the commission, regardless of the difficulties and dangers they faced, attests to the dire need for affected communities to be heard as well as to the urgent need for justice and accountability at the community level. CPA finds the conclusion about the intentions of the armed forces disappointing. We firmly believe that it reinforces the demands for an international investigation rather than addresses and lays them to rest. These demands are further augmented by the critique of the LLRC of the current state of governance and the rule of law, the need to delink the police force from the defence establishment and the need in effect to restore the Seventeenth Amendment and independent commissions for the police and public service amongst others. The state of governance and the rule of law described by the LLRC, begs the question as to how the investigations it recommends can be conducted nationally, given the erosion of the integrity of the institutions that will be involved in such investigations. Explicit guidelines from the LLRC for the “independent” and “proper” “investigations” it recommends, would have made these recommendations more robust and meaningful.

Our disappointment extends to the commission’s treatment of the issue of the number of civilians in the Vanni during the last phase of the war and the provision of food and medical supplies to them. In this regard we are concerned that information from actors in direct contact with civilians on the ground, may not have been sufficiently sourced. This concern includes the population data available from the civilian administration in the region. The “White Flag incident” involving the killing of surrendering LTTE officials, the legality of High Security Zones, the incarceration of almost 300,000 civilians in the Menik Farm and other sites in violation of their fundamental rights should have been dealt with, given their impact on reconciliation and the allegations of war crimes.

These reservations apart, we call on the GOSL to implement the LLRC recommendations without delay and with sincerity and commitment to the cherished goal of a truly plural and united Sri Lanka. We note that the LLLRC report is the initiation of a process of reconciliation; not the end of it. Furthermore, the LLRC clearly states that it is the GOSL that has to take the lead in the process and in particular, in arriving at a political and constitutional settlement based on devolution of “the ethnic problem as well as other serious problems that threaten democratic institutions”. In this regard as in all others, we also note that the implementation of the LLRC recommendations necessitate a major paradigm shift by the GOSL. We strongly urge that this be undertaken as a matter of national priority, and look forward to solid, demonstrable progress in reconciliation, accountability and human rights protection in 2012 and beyond. This is vital to the necessary transition from a post-war to post conflict situation and the enduring peace and unity the latter entails.

Release of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) Report

4 January 2011, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) welcomes the release of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) Report, its analysis of the root cause of the conflict, the cataloguing of the atrocities of the LTTE, recommendations in respect of governance – especially the de-politicization of existing institutions, the introduction of Right to Information legislation, militarization, attacks on the freedom of expression, language rights, reconciliation and the investigation of the allegations contained in the Channel Four documentary as well as the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for disappearances and civilian deaths. We also welcome the LLRC recommendation that named individuals and organizations associated with the government be investigated for human rights violations and para-military activity, and its recommendations in respect of the Northern Muslims evicted by the LTTE and the Up Country Tamil population. The attention accorded by the LLRC to the situation of these two communities strengthens the coherence of this report on the pivotal issue of reconciliation for the peoples of Sri Lanka. We strongly urge that the testimonies and record of the proceedings of the LLRC be preserved for posterity.

CPA did not go before the LLRC because of reservations about the mandate and composition of the commission, the past record of presidential commissions, specifically the non- release and non-implementation of their recommendations –a point also made in the LLRC Report. We note however that a number of the observations and recommendations made by the LLRC reiterate those made by CPA and other civil society actors regarding the state of governance, the culture of impunity and human rights protection in Sri Lanka, in particular. The endorsement of these views by a presidential commission reinforces this civil society critique and underscores the importance of the credible and effective implementation of the LLRC recommendations in the areas mentioned above as a matter of the utmost national priority. This in turn, as also highlighted by the LLRC, is underscored by the failure of the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) to implement in full the interim recommendations of the LLRC.

Following the release of the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Panel Report and the calls for international investigation of the allegations of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) made against the LTTE and the GOSL, the GOSL has maintained that the LLRC Report would answer its critics. Central to this is establishing what happened in the last phase of the conflict and the issue of accountability. The LLRC has concluded that in certain cases the truth is near impossible to ascertain given the information presented to the commission and more importantly, the information that at this point can be obtained. Notwithstanding the issue of the limitations of the information available to it, the LLRC categorically states that it was not the intention of the GOSL to target civilians at any point. The LLRC also concludes that in certain cases further investigations are warranted to establish the responsibility of members of the armed forces for civilian deaths, war crimes and violations of IHL, though it maintains, “this may not have been with an intent to cause harm”.

This is a conclusion that echoes the testimonies of senior officers and officials in the political and security establishment. It has been arrived at through a process in which there was no witness and victim protection mechanism to facilitate further civilian testimony and thereby, a comprehensive account of what happened in the last phase of the war. In this connection it is pertinent to note the hardship and subsequent harassment faced by civilians who testified before the commission and the insufficient time allocated to civilians to make oral submissions before it. Most importantly, that so many family members of the disappeared and killed came before the commission, regardless of the difficulties and dangers they faced, attests to the dire need for affected communities to be heard as well as to the urgent need for justice and accountability at the community level. CPA finds the conclusion about the intentions of the armed forces disappointing. We firmly believe that it reinforces the demands for an international investigation rather than addresses and lays them to rest. These demands are further augmented by the critique of the LLRC of the current state of governance and the rule of law, the need to delink the police force from the defence establishment and the need in effect to restore the Seventeenth Amendment and independent commissions for the police and public service amongst others. The state of governance and the rule of law described by the LLRC, begs the question as to how the investigations it recommends can be conducted nationally, given the erosion of the integrity of the institutions that will be involved in such investigations. Explicit guidelines from the LLRC for the “independent” and “proper” “investigations” it recommends, would have made these recommendations more robust and meaningful.

Our disappointment extends to the commission’s treatment of the issue of the number of civilians in the Vanni during the last phase of the war and the provision of food and medical supplies to them. In this regard we are concerned that information from actors in direct contact with civilians on the ground, may not have been sufficiently sourced. This concern includes the population data available from the civilian administration in the region. The “White Flag incident” involving the killing of surrendering LTTE officials, the legality of High Security Zones, the incarceration of almost 300,000 civilians in the Menik Farm and other sites in violation of their fundamental rights should have been dealt with, given their impact on reconciliation and the allegations of war crimes.

These reservations apart, we call on the GOSL to implement the LLRC recommendations without delay and with sincerity and commitment to the cherished goal of a truly plural and united Sri Lanka. We note that the LLLRC report is the initiation of a process of reconciliation; not the end of it. Furthermore, the LLRC clearly states that it is the GOSL that has to take the lead in the process and in particular, in arriving at a political and constitutional settlement based on devolution of “the ethnic problem as well as other serious problems that threaten democratic institutions”. In this regard as in all others, we also note that the implementation of the LLRC recommendations necessitate a major paradigm shift by the GOSL. We strongly urge that this be undertaken as a matter of national priority, and look forward to solid, demonstrable progress in reconciliation, accountability and human rights protection in 2012 and beyond. This is vital to the necessary transition from a post-war to post conflict situation and the enduring peace and unity the latter entails.

###

Download PDF of this press release here. Download in Sinhala here. Download in Tamil here.

Land Issues in the Northern Province: Post-War Politics, Policy and Practices

6 December 2011: Land Issues in the Northern Province: Post-War Politics, Policy and Practices by Senior Researchers Bhavani Fonseka and Mirak Raheem at the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) is the most recent endeavour by CPA to critique and provide alternatives to land and related issues in the post-war Northern Province in Sri Lanka.

Download the report as a PDF here.

The report examines the dynamic nature of land in the North, exploring issues such as governance, development and the role of marginal groups and their relevance to land in the area. The report also documents key trends such as militarisation, centralisation, politicisation and the ethnic dimension in relation to land. Beyond the war-affected areas, issues such as landlessness, competing claims and acquisition of land for development and public purposes all make clear that there is a need for policy reform which can define the post-conflict context in Sri Lanka.

The context in the North has dramatically changed over the last two and a half years since the war ended and the report attempts to capture some of these key changes. With the end of war, large areas are being demined and significant numbers of people have returned to their places of origin amidst high levels of militarisation, increased assistance and development programmes and significant political developments. As returnees and other war-affected communities attempt to rebuild, they have attempted to regain control over and claim ownership to their land. The Government has also made clear its interest in acquiring land for national security, development and other public purposes. The report highlights that land has re-surfaced as a central problem on the post-war agenda, especially given the situation regarding land ownership and control in the North, the high instances of lost documentation, mass displacement and secondary occupation, landless populations, and military occupation of land and involvement in land administration.

The report sets out key areas that need further attention and highlights ongoing processes for policy change. After a three-decade-old war, many changes have taken place where reform is needed to address present needs and grievances and avoid future disputes. The Government is engaged in an-ongoing initiative to address some of the key issues with respect to land in the North, the content and implications of which are discussed in this report. While welcoming moves for reform, CPA hopes such moves are done in a transparent and participatory manner, with the involvement of communities and local actors, and in keeping with principles such as equity and conflict sensitivity.

The report makes a strong case for reform, but the process through which such reform is introduced and implemented also needs consideration. CPA hopes the findings in the present report will inform stakeholders and the public of the issues in the area and create a constructive dialogue on resolving land and related issues in the North.

To obtain further information regarding the report and other initiatives related to the topic, the following persons can be contacted-

Bhavani Fonseka- [email protected]

Mirak Raheem- [email protected]