Font size: 
The goal was not a free and fair contest, but winning by any means. All political parties faced the election with that expectation, which is reflected even in the selection of leaders and candidates. It was a free-for-all boxing match with no regard for any rules.
The symbol of this particular election was the burning of the house of Dr. Rajah Johnpulle, the district organizer of the United National Party, the largest opposition party in the country. The estimated damage was around 50 million rupees (US$460,000). The incident was allegedly organized by leading politicians of the ruling regime in the area.
The burning of this house was discussed before the Anuradhapura Magistrate's Court a few days ago and the proceedings were reported in the Sri Lankan press.
When, on the day of the incident, the spokesperson for the Sri Lankan police was questioned by the BBC Sinhala Service, he stated that if the police were present at the place during this incident then they must be held responsible for allowing it to happen, as they had all the powers to disperse the crowd and to maintain peace.
At the Magistrate's Court proceedings Anuradhapura Police Headquarters Inspector M.R.P Sarath Prema admitted that the police were present at the scene when Johnpulle’s house was set on fire. The newspaper report on the proceedings in the Daily Mirror included this significant sentence:
“The HQI was silent when the magistrate asked him why he allowed the demonstrators to proceed to the scene of the incident in violation of election laws.”
It is not difficult to understand the reason for the headquarters inspector’s silence. He could not reveal that when the leading politicians of the ruling regime were mobilizing people for this act, it was politically unrealistic to expect the police to resist such actions.
This is not just the reality of this election, but a common experience in any dispute where there is political involvement. There is consensus that the country’s policing system is politicized. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution was based on that realization, but the amendment was made inoperative for the purpose, among other things, of keeping the police force politicized and completely subordinated to the regime in power.
More details of the arson came from the report of the HQI:
The HQI, in his report to court on the alleged assault on the UNP district organiser and the firing of his house, further stated that an unruly crowd had created a rowdy scene in front of Dr. Johnpulle’s house, in the course of which some shots had been fired.“I learnt that a clash was going on between a group of persons from the doctor’s house and some people outside, and that his house was on fire.
I attempted to save the victims of the clash. I immediately informed my senior officers, including the DIG. About 30 police officers were on duty at the scene, but they were unable to bring the situation under control as the police were short of manpower to match the massive crowed that ran amok. I called the Anti-Riot Squad, but their tear gas canisters were defective,” the HQI said.
Replying to a question put to him by the Anuradhapura Chief Magistrate Ruchira Weliwatta, he said that it was an arson attack and that senior police officers, including the DIG, were in close proximity to the scene.
At this stage the magistrate pointed out that the police should have brought the situation under control without fleeing the scene.
The comment by Dr. Johnpulle’s lawyer seems to be a fair representation of the events:
Attorney-at-Law Chandana Weerakoon, watching the interests of Dr. Johnpulle, told court that the police officers – including the DIG – merely looked on, without taking any action against the rioters or providing adequate protection to the victims: “The fire fighting vehicles were sent back purposely, leaving the house to be burned to ashes. The police neglected their duties at the instigation of politicians. The rioters were allowed passage through two police barriers in each direction,” he added.
Impunity is a basic way of life in Sri Lanka, despite the denials of the Sri Lankan state in local as well as in international forums. The talk of upholding the rule of law and ensuring credible inquiries by competent persons only evokes cynicism among Sri Lankans.
It reminds one of a story taught at primary school. There was a trader who sold juggery, a sweet made from hardened coconut honey, to the king’s palace. When asked by the king what instruments he used to make juggery, the trader replied, since he was making this for the king, he was doing it under the best of conditions, using gold and silver utensils. One day the king lost his way in the jungle while hunting and happened to enter a hut in which the trader lived. He found the trader using charcoal and unclean pots to make his juggery and the king questioned him about what he had said earlier. The trader replied, “Lord, saying is like that, but doing is like this.”
Perhaps that statement should be taken as the nation’s motto when it comes to its political, moral and ethical practices under the present circumstances.
The talk in Sri Lanka on the Constitution itself takes place in that manner – it is not meant to be taken seriously. You may say whatever you like and do the very opposite and no one will be scandalized. That is also the situation of free and fair elections in the country.
Such absolute distortion of all the basic norms and standards of civilized society is what makes the conditions of the Sri Lankan citizen wretched, dismal and pitiable. If elections were meant to provide the citizens with the ability to change oppressive circumstances, that possibility does not exist in Sri Lanka.
Next month local elections to the Legislative Council will be held in Hong Kong. They will be quiet and orderly and the people will exercise their vote for whoever they wish. Their votes will be counted purely on the laws of arithmetic and nothing else. Having elections in this manner is a far away dream for Sri Lankans now. That will be so as long as impunity remains the actual law and the laws of the country remain only in the books.
--
(Basil Fernando is director of the Asian Human Rights Commission based in Hong Kong. He is a Sri Lankan lawyer who has also been a senior U.N. human rights officer in Cambodia. He has published several books and written extensively on human rights issues in Asia.)
