1

Dravida Peravai
53 B, Calve Subburayar Street, Puducherry 605001 India
www.dravidaperavai.org.in ■■email: dravidaperavai@gmail.com
91-413-2221025

Appeal to Presidents/Prime Ministers of Member nations of European

Union to support Tamil Eelam Government in Exile

Hon’ble Mr. Gordon Brown. 12.03.2010

Prime Minister of Great Britain
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA

And

Hon’ble David Miliband

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
King Charles Street
LONDON SW1A 2AH

Respected Prime Minister

Respected Secretary of State

We from India on humanitarian grounds would be expressing our solidarity

with Tamils of Eelam living across the continents in various countries
including Britain. Britain has special responsibility to resolve the Tamil
question because it once ruled India and Ceylon and we now see a ray of
hope in your utterances that reveal your sympathies too are towards Tamils of
Eelam crushed by a genocidal war.

We would like you to revisit January 1994 in your memory lane: A Year that
led to the dissolution of three multinational federations namely Soviet Union,
Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia also gave birth to nineteen new states.
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan , Macedonia, Moldova , Russia,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Tajikistan , Turkmenistan , Ukraine ,Uzbekistan and
Yugoslavia [ Serbia and Montenegro ]. Three states namely Estonia, Latvia
and Lithuania regained their independence. Chechnya in Russia and Kosovo
in Serbia were engaged in struggle for independence.

European nations granted conditional recognition to these states. Therefore a

precedent exists. When Tamil Eelam was struggling for independence Tamil

2
Diaspora living in almost all of the European nations was in streets urging
these nations to step in to redeem Tamils of Eelam from a genocidal war.
Necessary alarm bells have been sounded and European nations which had
established norms to recognize new nation states, could have applied their
collective mind and proven their political will by extending the precedent to
Tamil Eelam. But alas! That historical opportunity was lost by the saviors of
civilized democracy whereas freedom aspiring people of Tamil Eelam failed to
win recognition for their homeland nation.

In December 1991 EC Council of Ministers chose to recognize Yugoslav and

[Soviet] Republics seeking independence. It was a conditional recognition.
What are those conditions? Let me quote in verbatim:

“The European Community and its member states confirm their attachment to
the principles of Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris, in particular the
principle of self determination. They affirm their readiness to recognize,
subject to the normal standards of international law, those states which
following the historic changes in the region, have constituted themselves on a
democratic basis, have accepted the international obligations and have
committed themselves in good faith to a peaceful process and to negotiations.
Therefore, they adopt a common position on the process of recognition of
these new states, which requires:

► respect for the provisions of the Charter of United Nations and the
commitment subscribed to the Final act of Helsinki and in the Charter of Paris,
especially with regard to rule of law, democracy and human rights.
► guarantees for the rights of ethnic and national groups and minorities in
accordance with the commitments subscribed in the framework of CSCE
► respect the inviolability of all frontiers which can only be changed by
peaceful means and by common agreements
► acceptance of all relevant commitments with regard to disarmament and
nuclear non-proliferation as well as to security and regional stability.
► commitment to settle by agreement, including where appropriate recourse
to arbitration, all questions concerning state succession and regional disputes.

Let me remind you humbly the above quoted, Declaration on Guidelines on

the Recognition of new states in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union and
the Declaration on Yugoslavia: Extraordinary EPC Ministerial meeting
[Brussels} / EPC Press Releases P 128 & 129 of 1991 dated 16th December
1991. Further the Congress of Berlin 1878 had spelt safeguards for minorities
in the post First World War Settlements. These documents would have given
the parameters to grant recognition for Tamil Eelam and Tamils in forefront of
freedom struggle would have declared independence and sought recognition
as laid in these precedents, but they lacked the initiative.

Let me also remind the precedent laid by British Prime Minister Winston
Churchill during the Second World War when he endorsed the setting up of
Free French Government in Exile headed by Charles De Gaulle in British soil.

3
Now that Tamil Eelam is under occupation by forces of aggression recognition
of Tamil Eelam Government after establishing it within Srilanka would not be
possible today, though it could be justified. As immediate step Britain which
once granted independence to Srilanka without resolving the ethnic question,
due to historical compulsions of the post-Second World War conditions, could
allow the setting up of Tamil Eelam Government in Exile. Such Government
must pledge to the parameters laid down as mentioned in earlier paragraphs
and collective recognition of that Tamil Eelam Government in Exile must
emanate from Member Nations of European Community. Britain must take the
lead to mobilize support for such initiative.

Perhaps India factor and Europe’s nobility to uphold Indian geo-political

interests would have made European community speechless at the height of
civil war in Srilanka. But now in the aftermath of the so-called ghost of
terrorism laid to rest, when in country after country Tamils of Eelam through
democratic process by way of referendums are expressing in favour of
Independent Tamil Eelam, it is high time for European Union to recall the
precedent laid and conditions spelt for recognition of states in last decade of
last century in Europe. India too houses the Tibetan Government in Exile and
it would not be an untouchable proposal if a democratic Government of Tamil
Eelam attains independence.

To enlighten European Union and to awaken the Indian Union it would be our
duty as responsible political party in India to recall the events that led to the
birth of Bangladesh before placing you our pleas for Tamil Eelam.
International law had not prohibited the creation of new states by way of
secession, the Singapore [1965], Bangladesh [1971] and Eritrea [1993]
precedents reveal. But here we wish to lay emphasis on Bangladesh
secession since India was supportive of that secession.

Let me quote from the International Commission of Jurists, “The events in

East Pakistan 1971’ [Geneva ICJ, 1972 page 69] “If one of the constituent
peoples of a State is denied equal rights and is discriminated against, it is
submitted that their full right of self determination will revive” It must be noted
that self determination here meant the right to independence. India’s use of
force in violation of jus cogens was mitigated by humanitarian concerns
caused by the Pakistan’s campaign of violence against Bangladeshi people.
We want to stress that India forgot its own precedent, forgot its own defense
as reported in the Security Council debate [UN Doc S/PV 1606 dated 4 th
December 1972] with regard to its justification for intervention in Bangladesh.
Much grave crimes against humanity had been unleashed in a genocidal war
against Tamils of Eelam. Yet India failed to follow its own Bangladesh
precedent, may be due to hatred for the group that led the freedom struggle.
Now that the much despised group had been eliminated, still Tamils of Eelam
are not getting any justice under the Neo-Nazi Leadership of Srilanka
President Mahinda Rajapakshe; time for introspection by India had arrived.

4
The Dublin Report of the People’s Tribunal which comes as annexure is one
more recent indictment against the Rajapakshe Government. Hence we urge
the nations of European Union collectively to recognize the right of self
determination of Tamils of Eelam, and allow the setting up of a Government in
Exile in their soil with their recognition.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as adopted and opened

for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution
2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 entry into force 23 March 1976, in
accordance with Article 49 , PART II ,Article 2 States: 1. Each State Party to
the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals
within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the
present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property,
birth or other status.

We are ready to prove that on each count Srilanka had miserably failed,
wantonly violated the provision, ever since it got independence. Tamils of
Eelam were never for independence nor for total dependence but were for
interdependence, and all democratic demands endorsed by Eelam Tamils in
elections and voiced through their elected Parliamentarians were never
fulfilled in past and in present too, even after claiming victory there seems to
be no magnanimity or maturity to meet an international obligation to Tamil
minorities, who first sought federalism and when failed to attain waged a civil
war, and having lost the war Tamils are treated like slaves in their own soil. It
is here we appeal to your conscience to consider other options for Tamils of
Eelam.

Srilanka: Ground Reality

As long as article 2 of Srilankan Constitution says “the Republic of Srilanka is
a unitary state” there is no room for federalism and all talk about political
solution leads only to dead end. This article blocks political devolution. It is
needless to say that political devolution means creation of states with
sovereign legislative power on subjects allocated or earmarked for that
provincial administration.

Then the other dangerous provision from the Tamils stand point is article 76
which states “Parliament shall not abdicate or in any manner alienate its
legislative power and shall not set up any authority with legislative power”. If
there is no political devolution or political decentralization, what the
Government of Srilanka plans to offer on platter to Tamils is nothing but
slavery.

Whoever headed or heads the Srilankan Government, they were never for
resolving the conflict satisfying the legitimate demands of the Eelam Tamils.
This has to be borne in mind. The past must be evaluated before accepting at

5
face value the verbal gymnastics of Srilankan President Mr.Mahinda
Rajapakshe.

Minimum Demands that were never met:

The following would have satisfied legitimate demands of Eelam Tamils, if
Srilankan Government had offered before launching the current genocidal war
against Eelam Tamils.

A] Repeal of the Article 2 of Srilankan Constitution to pave way for the

introduction of federal form of governance, or for a con-federal system of
government

B] Repeal of Article 76 to allow political devolution

C] Amending the Article 18 to declare that “the official languages of Srilanka

shall be Sinhala and Tamil, enforceable throughout the country without any
restrictions.

D] Amending Article 9 to delete “the foremost place” granted to Buddhism and

to declare Srilanka a secular state.

These could be termed as minimum demands that could have satiated the
Tamils of Eelam before current genocidal war. These were the demands
voiced from much before British left Ceylon, and were the theme of many
broken pacts and failed promises, in which Srilankan Governments remains
the unique country that adopted ethnic cleansing through genocide
successfully, while the conscience keepers of this world must rise up to the
occasion even though belatedly to support Tamil Eelam Government in Exile.

India too fails: The Indo-Srilankan Agreement of July 1987 paved way for the
temporary merger of Northern and Eastern provinces into a unified North-
Eastern Province. This merger was to be endorsed by a referendum before
the end of 1988. One Provincial Council was set up in North-Eastern Province
as well as 7 other provinces. In order to implement this accord Mr.Rajiv
Gandhi sent the Indian Peace Keeping Force in the first week of August 1987.
The pressure brought by Mr.Rajiv Gandhi also made LTTE agree to cessation
of hostilities. LTTE also started handing over weapons to IPKF. So far
everything went well. Then how this accord was sabotaged and who
torpedoed it? A general amnesty was granted under the accord to “political
and other prisoners now held in custody under the Prevention of Terrorism
Act and other Emergency laws, and to combatants, as well as those persons
accused, charged and or convicted under these laws.”

Government of Srilanka, known for treachery which current breed of

politicians may have erased from memory withheld amnesty to 1250 Tamil
political prisoners. This was done by twisting the amnesty clause to say that it

6
applied only to NEP and not offences committed outside North Eastern
Province. LTTE retaliated by suspending surrender of arms.

Now, to trust Mr.Rajapakshe that after eliminating terrorism, he has a peace

formula under his red towel, which he will wave along with olive branch, would
amount to total ignorance of the history of betrayals, for which many
Sinhalese rulers till now are held accountable before the conscience of the
world.

Racial Riots in 1883 hit Christians in 1902 Dalits, in 1915 Muslims, in 1930
Malayalees, then Plantation Tamils and from 1983 Eelam Tamils:

Nazism is not dead, and just because it thrives in a tiny island, it need not be
condoned or ignored. The problem with Sinhalese is not Tamil-phobia. They
are against everybody. The seeds of hatred are ingrained in their brains. A
scholar Kumari Jayewardene, a Sinhalese herself, had chronicled the history
of clashes and communal unrest in Srilanka. The starting point of Tamil
Sinhala ethnic clashes are considered to be 1983. But hundred years before
that, in 1883 the Sinhalese turned their ire against Catholics. The Buddhist
religious firebrand Anagarika Dharmapala criticizes the British for their
religion.

“When the ancestors of the present holders of our beloved land were running
naked in the forests of Britain with their bodies painted and later on when their
ancestors had gone under the imperial rule of Rome and some of them were
being sold as slaves in the market place of Rome, our ancestors were already
enjoying the fruits of glorious and peaceful civilization. Buddhism was the
religion of the state in Ceylon like the Church in England in the British isles”
proclaims Anagarika Dharmapala, forgetting what the sacred book of the
Sinhalese, known as Mahavamsam says about the first originator of the
Sinhalese race.

Born to parents who are cross breed between a Lion and a Princess that too
born to a brother and sister incest couple, the unruly Vijayan driven by his
father with such credentials, landed in Srilanka and married local women, i.e.
Tamil, even a Pandyan princess. Then how come Sinhalese can claim racial
superiority or purity. Like Anglo Indians, they are half Tamil, half foreign. So
assuming they are racially superior, the Sinhalese called Christians
barbarians and launched attacks in 1883. Then in 1915, Sinhalese wanted to
drive away the North Indian and South Indian Muslims.

“The Mohammedans, an alien people, who in the early part of the nineteenth
century were common traders, by Shylockan methods became prosperous
like the Jews. The alien South Indian Mohammedan comes to Ceylon, sees
the neglected illiterate villagers without any experience in trade, without any
knowledge of any kind of technical industry and isolated from whole of Asia on
account of his language, religion and race, and the result the Mohammedan

7
thrives and the son of the soil goes to the wall……..What the German is to the
British that the Mohammedan is to the Sinhalese by religion, race and
language. He traces his origin to Arabia” incited the same Anagarika
Dharmapala. Violent attacks, arson, looting were unleashed against the
Muslim traders in 1915.

Readers of both the quotes from a Sinhala firebrand who planted seeds of
hatred between communities and who is one among those who ignited
communal clashes must take note of a contradiction in his statement. While
speaking about British in 1883 he claims Sinhalese were enjoying the fruits of
glorious and peaceful civilization. But in 1915, he admits that Sinhalese have
no experience in trade and are without any kind of knowledge. Then how
could they be the architects of the glorious and peaceful civilization. And that
civilization must be of the Tamils, who can establish the fact with historical
and archaeological evidences right up to Indus valley.

In between 1883 and 1915, other unfortunate riots hit the dalits from India,
who had gone to Ceylon as plantation labour. The arrogant Sinhalese refused
to drink tea plucked by untouchables. Later in 1930 the Sinhalese turned their
ire against the 30,000 Malayalees, who had gone to Ceylon from Travancore-
Cochin state. A trade union leader A.E.Kunasesinghe launched the racial fire
against them by his fiery speeches.

Between 1871-1881 when coffee, tea plantations came up in large numbers in

Ceylon, lots of Tamils from India went there seeking work. They constituted
nearly 10 % of the then population of Ceylon. Donoughmore Commission
constituted before independence said out of these roughly 50 percent labour
were permanently residing in Ceylon. Jackson Report of 1928 said they were
around 60 percent. The Soulbury Commission of 1946 stated 80 percent of
these labour were permanent residents of Ceylon.

Donoughmore Commission had recommended that for all those who had lived
for 5 years and above citizenship rights must be conferred. Ceylonese
Government did not accept that recommendation, thus the crisis started. In
1940 both India and Ceylon discussed this issue. Again in 1941 September
there was a bi party conference between India and Ceylon. The agreed joint
declaration which emanated in this meeting was not implemented.

The irony is that in 1942 Ceylonese Government itself had written to Indian
Government requesting India to permit labour to come and work in its rubber
plantations. In the first General Elections of 1947 plantation labour had voting
rights. They backed the Ceylon Indian Congress and elected 7 members to
Parliament. They were the deciding factor in another 20 Parliamentary
constituencies.

D.S.Senanayaka, first Prime Minister of Ceylon amended the 8 th article of

the Citizenship Act and disenfranchised plantation Tamils called as Malayaga
Tamils. He passed in Parliament the amendment by the year 1949 and

8
removed people of Indian origin from the voters list. That is how the voting
rights of plantation Tamils who chose 7 Members to Parliament were deprived
from them. Then Indian origin people were asked to apply for citizenship. 8,
25,000 people applied for citizenship. Only to 1, 00,000 people Ceylonese
citizenship was granted. To resolve this deadlock at London both Indian Prime
Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Ceylon Prime Minister Dudley Senanaiyaka
talked but could not resolve. In 1954 a pact was signed between Jawaharlal
Nehru and Sir John Kotewala, Ceylon Premier. It was never implemented. By
1964, Srilankan Prime Minster Srimavo Bandaranaike and Indian Prime
Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri signed a pact, wherein Srilanka agreed to give
citizenship to 3, 00,000 persons. India admitted to take back 5,25,000
persons.

"All American people were once migrants from Europe. Yet no European
country foolishly signed a pact with America to take back its citizens. Even
after signing such a pact India had left more than 2, 00.000 people of Indian
origin in Srilanka.

Sinhala Racism in Parliament:

Mr.D.M.Chandrapala, Sinhalese Buddhist Member of Parliament from
Kundasale spoke the following words in Srilankan Parliament on July 1981.
“Now Sir… what should we do to this so called leader of the Tamils? If I were
given the power, I would tie him to the nearest concrete post in this building
and horses whip him till I rise to his wits. Thereafter let anybody do anything
he likes, throw him into the Beire [lake] or into the sea, because he will be so
mutilated that I do not think there will be life in him. That is war.”

Can anyone in civilized world in any of the democracies of the world, could
have heard such a speech. That speech too is against democratically elected
Tamil leaders demanding federalism and not independent state at that
juncture. There was no terrorist in Parliament yet if Sinhala Parliamentarian
spits such venom, how could Tamils live within unitary Srilanka,

Mr.G.V.Punchinilame M.P from Ratnapura spoke in Srilankan Parliament in

July 1981. “Since yesterday morning, we have heard in this Honorable House
about the various types of punishment that should be meted out to them
{Tamil Parliamentary Members}. The M.P from Panadura Dr.Neville Fernando
said there was a punishment during the time of Sinhalese kings, namely, two
areca nut posts are erected, these two posts are then drawn toward each
other with a rope, then tie each of the feet of the offender to each post and
then cut the rope which will result in tearing apart the body. These people
should also be punished in the same way.

…………..some Members suggested that they should be put to death on the

stake, some other Members said that their passports should be confiscated,
still other Members said they should be made to stand at the Galle Face

9
Green and shot at. The people of this country want and this government is
prepared to inflict these punishments on these people.”

If in Srilankan Parliament such barbarian punishments are sought against duly

elected Tamil Members of Parliament even in 1981 much before the birth of
militant movements, how can Tamils live under unitary Srilankan state? It is
time to read the speech of the cunning fox Mr.J.R.Jayawardane, President of
Srilanka, which appeared in Daily Telegraph of 11th July 1983. “I am not
worried about the opinion of the Tamil people…… now we cannot think of
them, not about their lives or their opinion….. the more you put pressure on
the North, the happier the Sinhala people will be here… Really if I starve the
Tamils out, the Sinhala people will be happy.” Mr.Mahinda Rajapakshe used
starvation as weapon to make Tamils slaves and even now he handles that
same weapon, a weapon much sought by Srilankan President of 1983 is still
in use till 2010.

TAMIL MASSACRES: ROLE OF SINHALESE LEADERS

Ceylon’s First Prime Minister D.S.Senanaike while addressing the new

Sinhalese settlers in Tamil areas of Padaviya spoke: “Today you are brought
here and given a plot of land. You have been uprooted from your village. You
are like a piece of driftwood in the Ocean, but remember that one day the
whole country will look up to you. The final battles for the Sinhala people will
be fought on the plains of Padaviya .You are the men who will carry this
island’s destiny on your shoulders.” So as he wanted after decades of
colonizing Tamil homeland current successor to him, Mr.Mahinda Rajapakshe
had eliminated physically using chemical weapons of destruction unnumbered
thousands of Tamils and is hastening complete take over by Government
sponsored colonization, while uprooted Tamils are languishing in
concentration camps, watched helplessly by UN and world nations.

Soon after the racial riots of 1983 Oxford educated Sinhala Minister Gamini
Dissanayake spoke: “Who attacked you? Sinhalese… Who saved you?
Sinhalese. It is we who attacked and protected you. They are bringing an
army from India. It will take 14 hours to come from India. In 14 minutes the
blood of every Tamil in the country can be sacrifice to the land by us. Yes this
in 1983. In 2009 Mr.Mahinda Rajapakshe inflicted a blood bath, may be he
offered Tamil blood as sacrifice to his soil.

With due thanks to North East Secretariat on Human Rights of Srilanka

we are listing out Tamil massacres since independence of Ceylon, to
justify our argument that only Tamil Eelam will end this genocide.

1. Inginiyakala massacre [05.06.1956],

2. 1958 pogrom,
3. Tamil research conference massacre ‐10.01.1974,

10
4. 1977 communal pogrom
5. 1981 communal pogrom
6. Burning of the Jaffna library ‐01.06.1981
7. 1983 communal pogrom
8. Thirunelveli massacre ‐ 24, 25.07.1983
9. Sampalthoddam massacre ‐ 1984
10. Chunnakam Police station massacre ‐08.01.1984
11. Chunnakam market massacre ‐ 28.03.1984
12. Mathawachchi – Rampawa ‐ September 1984
13. Point Pedro – Thikkam massacre ‐ 16.09.1984
14. Othiyamalai massacre ‐ 01.12.1984
15. Kumulamunai massacre ‐ 02.12.1984
16. Cheddikulam massacre ‐ 02.12.1984
17. Manalaru massacre ‐ 03.12.1984
18. Blood soaked Mannar ‐ 04.12.1984
19. Kokkilai‐Kokkuthoduvai massacre ‐ 15.12.1984
20. Vankalai church massacre ‐ 06.01.1986
21. Mulliyavalai massacre ‐ 16.01.1985
22. Vaddakandal massacre ‐ 30.01.1985 .
23. Puthukkidiyiruppu Iyankovilady massacre 21.04.1985
24. Trincomalee massacres in 1985
25. Valvai‐85 massacre 10.05.1985
26. Kumuthini Boat massacre 15.05.1985
27. Kiliveddi massacre in 1985
28. Thiriyai massacre ‐ 08.06.1985
29. Sampaltivu ‐ 04 to 09.08.1985
30. Veeramunai massacre ‐ 20.06.1990
31. Nilaveli massacre 16.09.1985
32. Piramanthanaru massacre ‐ 02.10.1985
33. Kanthalai‐85 massacre ‐ 09.11.1985
34. Muthur Kadatkaraichenai ‐ 08, 09, 10.11.1985
35. Periyapullumalai massacre in 1986
36. Kilinochchi Railway Station massacre ‐ 25.01.1986
37. Udumbankulam massacre ‐ 19.02.1985
38. Vayaloor massacre ‐ 24.08.1985
39. Eeddimurinchan massacre ‐ 19, 20.03.1986
40. Anandapuram shelling ‐ 04.06.1986
41. Kanthalai‐86 massacre ‐ 04, 05.06. 1986
42. Mandaithivu sea massacre ‐ 10.06.1986
43. Seruvila massacre ‐ 12.06.1986
44. Thambalakamam massacres ‐ 1985, 1986
45. Paranthan farmer’s massacre ‐ 28.06.1986
46. Peruveli refugee camp massacre ‐ 15.07.1986
47. Thanduvan bus massacre ‐ 17.07.1986
48. Mutur Manalchenai massacre ‐ 18.07. 1986
49. Adampan massacre ‐ 12.10.1986
50. Periyapandivrichchan massacre ‐ 15.10.1986
51. Kokkadichcholai‐87 massacre ‐ 28.01.1987

11
52. Paddithidal massacre ‐ 26.04.1987
53. Thonithiddamadu massacre ‐ 27.05.1987
54. Alvai temple shelling ‐ 29.05.1987
55. Eastern University massacre ‐ 23.05.1990
56. Sammanthurai massacre ‐ 10.06.1990
57. Xavierpuram massacre ‐ 07.08.1990
58. Siththandy massacre ‐ 20, 27.07.1990
59. Paranthan junction massacre ‐ 24.07.1990
60. Poththuvil massacre ‐ 30.07.1990
61. Tiraikerny massacre ‐ 06.08.1990
62. Kalmunai massacre ‐ 11.08.1990
63. Thuranilavani massacre ‐ 12.08.1990
64. Eravur hospital massacre ‐ 12.08.1990
65. Koraveli massacre 14.08.1990
66. Nelliyadi market bombing ‐ 29.08.1990
67. Eravur massacre ‐ 10.10.1990
68. Saththurukkondan massacre ‐ 09.09.1990
69. Natpiddymunai massacre ‐ 10.09.1990
70. Vantharamullai‐90 massacre ‐ 05, 23,09,1990
71. Mandaithivu disappearances ‐ 23.08.1990, 25.09.1990
72. Oddisuddan bombing ‐ 27.11.1990
73. Puthukkudiyiruppu junction bombing
74. Vankalai massacre ‐ 17.02.1991
75. Vaddakkachchi bombing ‐ 28.02.1991
76. Vantharumoolai ‐ 09.06.1991
77. Kokkadichcholai‐91 massacre ‐ 12.06.1991
78. Pullumalai massacre ‐ 1983‐1990
79. Kinniyadi massacre ‐ 12.07.1991
80. Akkarayan hospital massacre ‐ 15.07.1997
81. Uruthrapuram bombing ‐ 04.02.1991
82. Karapolla‐Muthgalla massacre ‐ 29.04.1992
83. Vattrapalai shelling ‐ 18.05.1992
84. Thellipalai temple bombing ‐ 30.05.1992
85. Mailanthai massacre ‐ 09.08.1992
86. Kilali massacre ‐1992, 1993
87. Maaththalan bombing ‐ 18.09.1993
88. Chavakachcheri‐Sangaththanai bombing ‐ 28.09.1993
89. Kokuvil temple massacre & bombing ‐ 29.09.1993
90. Kurunagar church bombing ‐ 13.11.1993
91. Chundikulam‐94 massacre ‐ 18.02.1994
92. Navali church massacre ‐ 09.07.1995
93. Nagarkovil bombing ‐ 22.05.1995
94. Chemmani mass graves in 1996
95. Kilinochchi town massacre ‐ 1996‐1998
96. Kumarapuram massacre ‐ 11.02.1996
97. Nachchikuda strafing ‐ 16.03.1996
98. Thambirai market bombing ‐ 17.05.1996
99. Mallavi bombing ‐ 24.07.1996

12
100. Pannankandy massacre ‐ 05.07.1997
101. Kaithady Krishanthi massacre ‐ 07.09.1996
102. Vavunikulam massacre ‐ 26‐09‐1996, 15‐08‐1997
103. Konavil bombing ‐ 27.09.1996
104. Mullivaikal bombing ‐ 13.05.1997
105. Mankulam shelling ‐ 08.06.1997
106. Thampalakamam massacre ‐ 01.02.1998
107. Old Vaddakachchi bombing ‐ 26.03.1998
108. Suthanthirapuram massacre ‐ 10.06.1998
109. Visuvamadhu shelling ‐ 25.11.1998
110. Chundikulam‐98 bombing 02.12.1998
111. Manthuvil bombing ‐ 15.09.1999
112. Palinagar bombing and shelling ‐ 03.09.1999
113. Madhu church massacre ‐ 20.11.1999
114. Bindunuwewa massacre
115. Mirusuvil massacre ‐ 19.12.2000

The North East Secretariat for Human Rights had documented updating up to
2008 which is in the book :Massacres of Tamils 1956-2008 - (Paperback Rs.
400, Hard Bound Rs. 500), which is an attempt to document 61 years of
Tamil Massacres in Sri Lanka. This book painstakingly records massacres
that occurred since 1956 – 2008 from first hand information. We would urge
upon Britain and nations of the European Union to take note of continuing
genocide. If all war crimes of 2009 could be compiled it will excel and exceed
Adolph Hitler’s genocide in statistics.

Naked Facts about broken Pacts:

Having traced the thorny issues now let us look at the various peace
proposals which Srilanka aborted in the past.

1. The Bhandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact of 1957 signed between

Srilankan Prime Minister SWRD Bhandaranaike and Federal Party leader SVJ
Chelvanayagam reached in July 1957 was abrogated in May 1958.

2. The Senanaike-Chelvanayagam Pact of 1965 was not implemented even

though the pact led to a coalition between Federal Party.

3. Federal Party’s model constitution of 1972, submitted to the Constituent

Assembly to create a Federal Republic of Ceylon was rejected by the steering
committee of the Constituent Assembly.

4. Dr.Neelam Tiruchelvam’s report to the Presidential Commission on

Development Councils in 1979 also was sent to cold storage.

5. Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Initiative of 1983 resulted in bilateral

talks between India and Srilanka, as well as between India and TULF, yielded
Annexure C proposals due to the efforts of India’s emissary G.Parthasarathy,

13
which was also thrown into dustbin by Srilankan President
Mr.J.R.Jayawardane.

6. Draft Bill for Provincial Councils which was endorsed by the All Party
Conference in 1984 met the same fate under President J.R.Jayawardane’s
governance.

7. Thimpu Talks in 1985: TULF and LTTE, TELO, PLOTE, EROS and EPRLF
participated in Thimpu talks initiated by Government of India. In that
conference all the Tamil parties submitted four cardinal principles as
conditions for accepting conflict resolution. A] Recognition of the Tamils of
Srilanka as a distinct nationality. B] Recognition of an identified Tamil
homeland and guarantee for its territorial integrity. C] Recognition of the
inalienable right of self determination of the Tamil nation. D] Recognition of
the right to full citizenship and other fundamental rights to all Tamils of
Srilanka. All Party Conference proposals formed the basis of Srilankan side.
Though talks were aborted a Draft Framework evolved which should have
been placed before Cabinet for approval before it could be adopted. But
President J.R.Jayawardane did not do that, and it met its end.

8. TULF presented new proposals to Indian Prime Minister Mr.Rajiv Gandhi in

December 1985.The Government of Srilanka submitted its views on that
proposals in January 1986. In nutshell the Srilankan Government rejected
TULF proposals.

9. Indian Minister Chidambaram Proposals: Srilankan Government discussed

with the delegation headed by Mr.P.Chidambaram and in May 1986 sent its
own proposals to Government of India. Then the Government of Srilanka
formulated the Draft Amendment to the constitution of Srilanka to provide
legal frame work to Chidambaram proposals.

10. Government of India prepared a working paper on the discussions held at

Bangalore on 18th November 1986 between Indian Prime Minister Mr.Rajiv
Gandhi and Srilankan President Mr.J.R.Jayawardane. The Government of
Srilanka submitted its observations on the working paper on 20th November
1986. Then on December 19th of 1986 talks took place between two Indian
Ministers and Srilankan President. All such exercises led to the India-Srilanka
Accord of July 1987 known as Rajiv Gandhi-Jayewardene accord.

11. The fate of that Indo-Srilankan accord puts Srilankan Government in dock
for breaking this accord.

12. Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Srilanka was effected in

November 1987, and first time provincial councils were set up.

13. The Democratic People’s Alliance led by SLFP in its election manifesto for
1988 Presidential and Parliamentary elections offered promises to resolve the

14
ethnic problem, but that alliance failed to capture power, so promises
remained promises.

14. Tamil political parties ACTC, DPLF, ENDLF, EPRLF and TELO submitted
proposals to the drafting committee for the All Party Conference of 1990.

15. Srilankan Minister Thondaman’s Proposals: This attracted the LTTE which
invited Mr.Thondaman to visit Jaffna to further discuss the proposals but
Sinhalese opposition especially by a newly floated Sinhalese Defense
Organization paralyzed the proposals.

16. Liberal Party proposals to the Committee on Constitutional Reform in

1992 to resolve the ethnic conflict.

17. UNP Presidential candidate for the November 1994 elections Mr.Gamini
Dissanayake presented his Vision for the 21st century, but since Mr.Gamini
Dissanayake was assassinated in October 1994; his own political party UNP
buried the proposals along with him.

18. The up-country Tamils, people of Indian origin, branded as stateless

people, submitted their proposals to the Parliamentary Select Committee on
Constitutional Reforms in December 1994. The Up country People’s Front
sought separate autonomous territory for up-country Tamils. This has nothing
to do with the North Eastern Province seeking traditional homeland of Eelam
Tamils, the original indigenous people of Srilanka. Up country Tamils are not
in anyway branded as terrorists, in fact their parties had been part of ruling
coalitions till date. The unfortunate people of India made as stateless
overnight thoughtlessly by signing a pact also failed to get justice.

19. Basic Ideas of Chandrika Kumaratunga made in 1995 when she promised
peace at all costs before winning Parliamentary elections but changed her
tune to peace but not at all cost, after she won Presidential election.

20. Without elaborating the recent sugar coated words after winning the War
and also Presidential Elections of 2010 till date Mahinda Rajapakshe had
neither given thought to resolving Tamils issue nor are prepared to permit
their resettlement but are keen only to hide the war crimes by bullying tactics.

SO WHAT NEXT: ………ARBITRATION COMMISSION

Is the West contemplating for Alto/Adige/ South Tyrol model of special status?
Autonomy arrangements were negotiated for the Alto/Adige/South Tyrol area
of northern Italy in the aftermath of Second World War. “The territory had
been ceded by Austria to Italy after the First World War but because of large
German speaking population there it has to be a seat of unrest and source of
tension between the countries for years to come. As early as 1946 Italy had
pledged to grant autonomy to the area but Austria objected that Italy was
attempting to dilute the majority German presence first by amalgamating the

15
largely Italian province of Trentino and the predominantly German province of
Bolzano to create a single region [Trentino-Alto Adige] and later by promoting
influx of Italian speakers from other parts of the country. Frustrated by what it
viewed as obstructionism on Italy’s part, the Austrian Government took its
case to UN General Assembly, which on 31 October 1960 unanimously
adopted a resolution calling on Italy and Austria to seek bi lateral solution or
failing that to seek recourse to other peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms
such as arbitration...

There are similarities between Sinhala colonization of Tamil lands, and since
bi-lateral talks over half a century had failed, Britain in view of the legacy of
conflict it left when hurriedly independence was granted to Srilanka, must
seek appointment of Arbitration Commission to resolve the dispute, other wise
recognize the Tamil Eelam Government in Exile, which it should recognize
and allow to be set up in its soil. Only a nincompoop will believe that bi-
laterally Tamils and Srilanka can resolve their problems. If this word bi-lateral
and no arbitrator is logical, reasonable and resolves disputes, in Court rooms
across globe without Judges the petitioner and respondent can resolve the
crisis. India has failed, and it should not stand in the way of European Union
initiative, if it emanates towards formation of Arbitration Commission to
resolve Tamil Eelam conflict.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Part 1 (Article

1) recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination, including the right
to "freely determine their political status", [8] pursue their economic, social and
cultural goals, and manage and dispose of their own resources. It recognizes
a negative right of a people not to be deprived of its means of subsistence, [9]
and imposes an obligation on those parties still responsible for non-self
governing and trust territories (colonies) to encourage and respect their self-
determination.

In accordance with this Germany, became the first Nation state among the
European Community to advocate the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia.
Germany too behaved like India in those days supporting the unity of
Yugoslavia, as India now supports the unity of Srilanka. On 19th June 1991
Germany voted in favor of a statement by the Conference on Security and Co-
operation in Europe upholding the unity and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia.
“Even after Slovenia and Croatia made unilateral declaration of
Independence, Germany supported the Western European Union declaration
of June 27 that expressed regret at the recent unilateral decisions of the two
republics and urged all political authorities to resume dialogue with a view to
secure the unity of the state.

India sponsored Chief Minister of North and East Provinces of Srilanka

Mr.Varadaraja Perumal before he fled Srilanka had unilaterally declared
independence.

16
India gave him political asylum which continues more than two decades till
date. India unlike Germany did not resent the unilateral declaration of
independence. Like Germany it too pleads for upholding the unity of Srilanka.
But at a summit of the European community heads of State on 29 th June,
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl declared that “The unity of Yugoslavia
cannot be maintained with force of arms.” Yes those same words have to be
repeated with regard to Srilanka. Then British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd
stated that integrity of Yugoslavia should not be accomplished by use of force.

Time has come for Hon’ble British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Foreign
Minister Miliband to have a rethink on their policy towards Tamil Eelam. And
this appeal seeks their intervention. They should take into account the
democratic expression of people of Tamil Eelam expressed through
referendums in various countries. There is no terrorism at sight. If through
peaceful means people of Srilanka uprooted from there due to ethnic strife
express support for Tamil Eelam, Britian must take steps to allow the
establishment of Tamil Eelam Government in Exile as first step making it
compulsory for Srilanka to negotiate with that Government for accepting the
self determination of Tamils of Eelam.

BRITAIN: REFERENDUM FOR TAMIL EELAM

Tamil Net, Monday, 01 February 2010, 01:09 GMT reports that 99.33 percent
British Tamils aspire Tamil Eelam. In an unprecedented turnout that brought
64,692 Eelam Tamils to vote in the referendum held last weekend in UK,
64,256 (99.33%) Tamils endorsed the formation of independent and
sovereign state of Tamil Eelam in the contiguous north and east of the island
of Sri Lanka. 185 (0.29%) voted against and 251 (0.39%) votes were spoilt.
Polling took place in sixty-five booths across London and in major towns and
cities throughout UK. Barry Gardner, MP Brent North Siobhan Mc Donagh,
MP [Mitcham and Morden ]Professor Bryan Woodruff, Chairman of the
overseeing body of the referendum Labour party activist and trade unionist
Mike Griffiths were present.

The referendum was initiated by an independent group of British Tamils, who

formed a body called Tamil National Council (TNC) a few months ago for this
purpose. All main stakeholders of Eelam Tamil nationalism in UK, Tamil Youth
Organization (TYO), British Tamils Forum (BTF), Tamil Eelam Activists and
the Country Working Group - UK for the formation of Transnational
Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE) joined in making the endeavor a
success.

"British-based Tamils have voted overwhelmingly in favor of the creation of an

independent sovereign state in Sri Lanka, days after the man credited with
crushing the Tamil Tiger’s 26-year rebellion won a second term as the island's
president," reported leading British newspaper Guardian on Monday.
Meanwhile, BBC reported that an overwhelming majority among the Tamil
Diaspora in UK has endorsed the call for a separate country for the Tamils in

17
Sri Lanka. "The results of last week's poll demonstrate the gulf between Sri
Lanka's Sinhalese majority and Tamil minority. Despite a resounding victory
across much of the country Rajapaksa lost in areas hit hard by war and where
Tamils are in the majority," the newspaper said. BBC, in its report said that
people have been discussing the results in restaurants and community
centers in London suburbs where Sri Lankan Tamils form considerable
communities, such as East Ham and Wembley. On Sunday, Times Online
carried an article by Stuart Cosgrove, saying Tamils are the undisputed world
champions of Diaspora politics, who defy a new world order on the epic stage
of global politics.

GERMANY

Tamil Net, Sunday, 24 January 2010, 23:00 GMT reported Overwhelming

turnout of voters in Germany, 99.2 percent of voters said yes to Tamil Eelam
in an impressive turn out of more than 90% of eligible Eelam Tamil voters for
the referendum in Germany on Sunday. International Human Rights
Association in Bremen conducted the referendum on the question of forming
an independent and sovereign state of Tamil Eelam in the North and East of
the island of Sri Lanka. 23,089 voters participated in the poll in 110 centers
across the country and 22,904 of them said yes. 136 voters said no and 49
votes were invalid.

NORWAY

[Tamil Net, Monday, 11 May 2009, 10:51 GMT] reported that in a secret
ballot of universal suffrage, conducted by a Norwegian media simultaneously
in 14 centers in the length and breath of the country among Eelam Tamils,
98.95 percent of the voters said that they aspire for the formation of an
independent and sovereign Tamil Eelam in the North and East of the island of
Sri Lanka. The voter turn out was a high 89.8 percent in the capital city of
Oslo and an average 80 percent for the country, Strop biweekly that
conducted the ballot said. The ballot gains significance not only in
democratically and concretely revealing what the Tamils want, but also in
telling that the so-called Oslo Declaration that speaks about internal self-
determination is not up to their expectations, Tamil circles said. A couple of
days before the ballot, Norwegian Minister Erik Solheim advocated a federal
solution to the crisis.

DENMARK

[Tamil Net, Friday, 26 February 2010, 20:06 GMT] Denmark went for Tamil
referendum and Eelam Tamils in Denmark cast their ballot in 32 centers
across the country in a referendum on the question of independent and
sovereign Tamil Eelam in the North and East of the island of Sri Lanka. The
referendum conducted by a professional institute TNS Gallup, specialized in
sociological and public opinion research services, deploying electronic system
for confidential voting, said Dr. Remmon Washington, the spokesperson of the

18
Denmark Tamils Forum formation committee, which has initiated the poll. The
total number of eligible Eelam Tamil voters in Denmark is estimated to be
ranging around 6,500.

RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION

These referendums are an indication affirming the Tamils of Eelam are for
the right of Self-determination and the world cannot deny that right only to
Tamil people of Eelam.

“All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they
freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social
and cultural development. Essentially, the right to self-determination is the
right of a people to determine its own destiny. In particular, the principle
allows a people to choose its own political status and to determine its own
form of economic, cultural and social development. Exercise of this right can
result in a variety of different outcomes ranging from political independence
through to full integration within a state. The importance lies in the right of
choice, so that the outcome of a people's choice should not affect the
existence of the right to make a choice. In practice, however, the possible
outcome of an exercise of self-determination will often determine the attitude
of governments towards the actual claim by a people or nation. Thus, while
claims to cultural autonomy may be more readily recognized by states, claims
to independence are more likely to be rejected by them. Nevertheless, the
right to self-determination is recognized in international law as a right of
process (not of outcome) belonging to peoples and not to states or
governments.” As put by UNPO.

UNREPRESENTED NATIONS AND PEOPLES ORGANIZATION.

You may be pondering on various options to resolve Tamil Eelam issue.

Please keep the geopolitical interests at bay. With open heart please recall
how Western nations acted in similar circumstances. Britain had faced Irish
problem. Canada had met Quebec issue. India too faces Kashmir question.
Why not Britain and Canada look for comparisons between their past
problems and present problem of Tamil Eelam.? India has a special
constitutional provision for Kashmir i.e. article 370, why India fails to
understand that for sixty years Srilanka is not even willing to emulate Indian
constitutional provision for Tamil Eelam?

Self-determination in International Law

The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the
Charter of the United Nations. Earlier it was explicitly embraced by US
President Woodrow Wilson, by Lenin and others, and became the
guiding principle for the reconstruction of Europe following World War I.
The principle was incorporated into the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the
Dumbarton Oaks proposals which evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its

19
inclusion in the UN Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle as
fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among states.
It is recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into
force in 1976. 1 Paragraph 1 of this Article provides:

All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right

they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development.

The right to self-determination of peoples is recognized in many other

international and regional instruments, including

►the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly

Relations and Co-operation among States adopted b the UN General
Assembly in 1970,
► 2, the Helsinki Final Act adopted by the Conference on Security and Co-
operation in Europe (CSCE) in 1975,
►3, the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights of 1981,
► 4, the CSCE Charter of Paris for a New Europe adopted in 1990,
► 5, and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of 1993.
►6, It has been affirmed by the International Court of Justice in the Namibia
case
►7, the Western Sahara case
► 8, and the East Timor case
►9, in which its erga omnes character was confirmed. Furthermore, the
scope and content of the right to self-determination has been elaborated upon
by the UN Human Rights Committee
►10, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
►11 and numerous leading international jurists. That the right to self-
determination is part of so called hard law has been affirmed also by the
International Meeting of Experts for the Elucidation of the Concepts of Rights
of Peoples brought together by UNESCO from 1985 to 1991,
► 12, it came to the conclusion that (1) peoples' rights are recognized in
international law; (2) the list of such rights is not very clear, but also that (3)
hard law does in any event include the right to self-determination and the right
to existence, in the sense of the Genocide Convention.

“The inclusion of the right to self-determination in the International Covenants

on Human Rights and in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action,
referred to above, emphasizes that self-determination is an integral part of
human rights law which has a universal application. At the same time, it is
recognized that compliance with the right of self-determination is a
fundamental condition for the enjoyment of other human rights and
fundamental freedoms, be they civil, political, economic, social or cultural.”

20
“The concept of self-determination is a very powerful one. As Wolfgang
Danspeckgruber put it: "No other concept is as powerful, visceral, emotional,
unruly, as steep in creating aspirations and hopes as self-determination." It
evokes emotions, expectations and fears which often lead to conflict and
bloodshed. Some experts argued that the title holders should be or are limited
in international law. Others believed in the need to limit the possible outcome
for all or categories of title holders. Ultimately, the best approach is to view the
right to self-determination in its broad sense, as a process providing a wide
range of possible outcomes dependent on the situations, needs, interests and
conditions of concerned parties. The principle and fundamental right to self-
determination of all peoples is firmly established in international law.”

Hence under International Law, Tamils have this right, if you include Tamils in
human race. If Tamils are living human beings on Earth, they can have this
right by virtue of their existence. Srilankan President Rajapakshe who
committed genocide by killing 50000 Tamils in War must continue to kill every
Tamil in Eelam and all in Tamil Diaspora and every Tamil of Tamilnadu before
he can proclaim to the Member Nations of the United Nations, that since he
has erased the existence of all Tamils on Earth, the right to self determination
cannot be claimed by dead souls. Only living humans have such right, he
must thunder before the world. Until such thing happens, as leaders of
democracies and civilized world, we hope all leaders of member nations of
United Nations will not snatch the right to self determination from the hands of
Tamils of Eelam.

UN General Assembly adopts the Declaration in September 2007

With an overwhelming majority of 143 votes in favour, only 4 negative votes

cast (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States) and 11 abstentions, the
United Nations General Assembly (GA) adopted the Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples on September 13, 2007. The Declaration
has been negotiated through more than 20 years between nation-states and
Indigenous Peoples. Les Malezer, Chair of the International Indigenous
Peoples' Caucus, welcomed the adoption of the Declaration in a statement to
the General Assembly: "The Declaration does not represent solely the
viewpoint of the United Nations, nor does it represent solely the viewpoint of
the Indigenous Peoples. It is a Declaration which combines our views and
interests and which set the framework for the future. It is a tool for peace and
justice, based upon mutual recognition and mutual respect." Tamils are
indigenous people of Srilanka. As told by the sacred book of Sinhalese
Mahavamsam, the first Sinhalese king set his foot on Ceylon where Tamils
lived much before his advent.

UNPO members :Abkhazia , Aboriginals of Australia ,Afrikaner ,Ahwazi

,Assyria ,Balochistan ,Batwa ,Burma ,Buryatia ,Cabinda ,Chechen Republic of
Ichkeria ,Chin Chittagong Hill Tracts ,Circassia ,Cordillera ,Crimean Tatars
,East Turkestan ,Gilgit Baltistan ,Greek Minority in Albania , Hmong
,Hungarian Minority in Romania ,Inkeri ,Inner Mongolia, Iranian Kurdistan

21
,Iraqi Kurdistan ,Iraqi Turkmen ,Kalahui Hawaii ,Karenni State ,Khmer Krom
,Kosova ,Maasai ,Mapuche, Mon ,Montagnards – Degar, Nagalim ,Ogaden ,
Ogoni , Oromo ,Rehoboth Basters ,Sanjak ,Scania ,Sindh ,Somaliland ,South
Moluccas ,Southern Azerbaijan ,Southern Cameroons ,Taiwan ,Tibet
,Tsimshian ,Tuva ,Udmurt ,Vhavenda ,West Balochistan ,Zanzibar .

TAMILS OF EELAM must be included in the Unrepresented Nations and

Peoples Organization. Tamils are most civilized among the indigenous
people possessing a classical language, which had a hoary past.

In an article that appeared in the International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics,

Deputy Election Commissioner of the Election Commission of India Mr.
R.Balakrishnan’s research paper titled Tamil: A Toponymical Probe had
given a long list of place names that bear the “Tam” prefixes. In a state wise
alphabetical list of Tam prefixed place names in India, he states that in
Andhra Pradesh [29], Arunachal Pradesh [11], Assam [38], Bihar [53], Gujarat
[5), Goa [1], Haryana [3], Himachal Pradesh [34], Karnataka [24], Maharastra
[120], Meghalaya [5], Manipur [14], Madya Pradesh [60], Nagaland [4], Orissa
[84], Punjab [4], Rajasthan [26], Tamil Nadu [10], Uttar Pradesh [64], West
Bengal [24] with a grand total of 612 places names resembling Tamil and
Tamil influences do occur.

“In the Godda District of Bihar there is a village named Tamilgoda. In that
District alone there are 12 place names, which end goda Tamilgoda is one of
them. In the Puri District of Orissa a place name called Tamilikudi draws our
immediate attention. There is no need to establish the Dravidian etymology of
the suffix kudi. Tamilikudi is not an isolate case of occurrence as there are 37
place names with kudi suffix within the administrative boundary of Orissa. “In
the process of locating Tamil related place names the entire list of India was
scrutinized and I found a name called Tamia in Chindwara District of Madya
Pradesh. Having come across Tamilgoda and Tamilkudi is not surprising to
me. However when this name was noticed in the surprising company of such
typical Tamil place names Palani, Tekadi, Theni, Bodi and many other
geographical names that are in currency in the Madurai region of Tamilnadu
and its adjoining upcountry neighbor Idukki, its significance and implications
could be understood,” says Balakrishnan. Throughout India Tamils lived,
spread, and ruled, it is history. The Indus Valley Civilization places Tamils in
high pedestal.

If I could present facts quoting the Father of Indian Constitution

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar it would establish the Tamil as mother tongue of Nagas,
who are Dravidians. Nagalim is admitted as member in the UNPO. Now the
Nagas may speak different dialect but they were Tamils in pre historic period.
Let us look at the conclusions Dr.B.R.Ambedkar had reached in his scientific
enquiry.

“It is clear that the Nagas and Dravidians are one and the same people. Even
with much proof, people may not be found ready to accept this thesis. The

22
chief difficulty in the way of accepting it lies in the designation of the people of
South India by the name Dravidian. It is natural for them to ask why the term
Dravidian has come to be restricted to the people of South India if they are
really Nagas. Critics are bound to ask: If the Dravidians and Nagas are the
same people, why the name Nagas not used to designate people of South
India also. This is no doubt a puzzle. But it is a puzzle which is not beyond
solution. It can be solved if certain facts are borne in mind. The first thing to
be borne in mind is the situation regarding language. Today the language of
Southern India differs from that of the people of North India.”

“The second thing to be borne into mind is that the word Dravida is not an
original word. It is the Sanskrit zed form of the word Tamil. The original word
Tamil when imported into Sanskrit became Damita and later on Damila
became Dravida. The word Dravida is the name of the language of the people
and does not denote the race of the people.” “The third thing to remember is
that Tamil or Dravida was not merely the language of South India but before
the Aryans came it was the language of the whole of India and was spoken
from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. In fact it was the language of the Nagas
throughout India.” “The next thing to note is the contact between Aryan and
the Nagas and the effect it produced on Nagas and their language. Strange
as it may appear the effect of this contact on the Nagas of North India was
quite different from the effect it produced on the Nagas of South India. The
Nagas in North India gave up Tamil which was their mother tongue and
adopted Sanskrit in its place. The Nagas in South India retained Tamil as their
mother tongue and did not adopt the Sanskrit language of the Aryans.”

If this difference is borne in mind it will help to explain why the name Dravida
came to be applied only for the people of South India. The necessity for the
application of the name Dravida to the Nagas of North India had ceased
because they had ceased to speak the Dravida Language. The special
application of the use of the word Dravida for the people of South India must
not therefore obscure the fact that the Nagas and Dravidas are one and the
same people. They are only two different names for the same people. Nagas
was a racial or cultural name and Dravida was their linguistic name”
concluded Dr.B.R.Ambedkar.

Similarly there is no race on Earth called Sinhalese. Race itself is a myth,

culture oriented, proven in our days when all humans have common genes.
Yet under the illusion they are Aryans, a barbaric tribe claimed separate
status for them, in spite of their own mythology tracing their root to a marriage
between a Lion and Human Princess. The superiority complex leads
Sinhalese to work overtime to ethnic cleansing, hence genocide in Srilanka
starts from 1956 itself. The failure of the British to resolve many issues before
granting independence to Ceylon had left Tamils at receiving end of genocide.
Hence, Dravida Peravai urges Great Britain to play an active role in view of its
association with India and Ceylon and its moral duty to clear the garbage
accumulated in civilized governance of Ceylon.

23
The Indian sub continent was ruled by Tamils, their Empires disintegrated,
deluge and other natural calamities struck at the Tamil land. Later in British
period on their eve of departure there were 11 Presidencies and 562 princely
states, which when the winds of nationalism blew over Indian sub constituent
were welded together as Indian Union under a Constitution of India. The
problems left over by colonialism, be it border dispute with China or Kashmir
still bleeds India. Same problems galore haunt Ceylon. As head of
Commonwealth too Britain has locus standi to intervene to correct past
mistakes.

Let me recollect a tiny problem between India and Bangladesh which got its
independence with India’s help. “The rulers of two princely states of Kooch
Bihar and Rangpur within the Old Bengal Presidency during British rule in
India lost their territories to each other playing the gambling by cards. There
are till date 111 Indian enclaves in Bangladesh and 51 Bangladesh
enclaves within India, as a result of this gamble by 2 princely states.’ Yet
no one had the moral courage to resolve even this issue which every
government keeps in cold storage. Hence it would not be prudent for all
Member Nations of UN or of Commonwealth or of European Union to pin
hopes on India alone to redeem Tamils of Eelam from slavery and to
recognize their right to self determination.

TAMIL EELAM GOVERNMENT IN EXILE MUST BE RECOGNIZED BY

GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN AND ALLOWED TO FUNCTION FROM
BRITISH SOIL.

TAMILS OF EELAM MUST ELECT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH

REFERENDUMS IN THE COUNTRIES THEY LIVE NOW, AND SUCH
REPRESENTATIVES MUST CONSTITUTE THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL
EELAM IN EXILE.

ALL TAMILS WITHIN SRILANKA MUST BE SUPORTED TO FORM A

TAMIL EELAM IN THAT SOIL. TOWARDS THAT GOAL WORLD
GOVERNMENTS MUST BACK TAMIL EELAM GOVERNMENT IN EXILE.

BRITAIN AND EUROPEAN UNION CAN TAKE THE FIRST INITIATIVE…..

With Regards
Yours fraternally

N.Nandhivarman
General Secretary Dravida Peravai [Indian political party]

24
25
Permanent People’s Tribunal
Tribunal on Sri Lanka
Fondazione Leile Basso Sezione Internazionale, Via della Dogana Vecchia, 5
- 00186 Roma, Italia
Tel/Fax: 0039 066877774
E-mail:pptribunal@internazionaleleliobasso.it
tribunale@internazionaleleliobasso.it filb@iol.it
Web: http://www.internazionaleleliobasso.it

Founder
Lelio Basso (Italy)
President
Salvatore Senese (Italy)
General Secretary
Gianni Tognoni (Italy)
Permanent People’s Tribunal Tribunal
On Sri Lanka

14-16 January 2010

HOSTED BY
The Irish School of Economics, Trinity College Dublin
The School of Law and Government, Dublin City University
ORGANIZED BY
Irish Forum for Peace in Sri Lanka
C/o Church town Meeting House
82 Church town Road
Dublin 14, Ireland
irishpeaceforum@gmail.com

Members of the Panel

Feierstein, Daniel

Director of the Centre for Genocide Studies at the Universidad

Nacional de Tres de Febrero, Professor in the Faculty of Genocide at
the University of Buenos Aires and a member of CONICET (Consejo
Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas, (The Argentine
National Center for Scholars).

Halliday, Denis

Former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations. He resigned from

his 34 year old career in the UN because of the economic sanctions imposed

26
on Iraq by the Security Council. Laureate of the Gandhi International Peace
Award.

Houtart, François (Chairperson)

Prof. Emeritus of Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium), a member of the

UN Commission on Reform of the Financial and Monetary System, Founding
Member of the World Social Forum, Honorary Member of the Academy of
Sciences of Vietnam and Cuba, Dr. h.c. of Notre Dame University (USA) and
of the University of Havana (Cuba) and UNESCO-Madanjeet Singh Prize
Awardee for the Promotion of Tolerance and Non-Violence

Lawlor, Mary

Director, Front Line, The International Foundation for the Protection of Human
Rights Defenders, Dublin.

Martone, Francesco

An ex-Senator in Italy, a leading activist in the non-governmental sector and

an ecologist.

Saadawi, Nawal al

Egyptian writer, trained as a medical doctor, known for her outstanding work
for women’s rights in Egypt and in the region. She has been imprisoned for
her activities and writings in Egypt. She has also been United Nation’s Advisor
for the Women’s Programme in Africa (ECA) and Middle East (ECWA) from
1979 to 1980. She is a prolific author.

Sachar, Rajindar

Former Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi and the Chairperson of the Indian
Prime Minister’s High Committee on the social, economic and educational
status of the Muslim community in India. Former President, Peoples Union for
Civil Liberties in India.

Sivaraksa, Sulak

Thai Buddhist peace campaigner and writer, initiator of a number of social,

humanitarian, ecological and spiritual movements and organizations in
Thailand and a laureate of the Alternative Nobel Prize (Right Livelihood
Award).

Tognoni, Gianni

Secretary General, Permanent People’s Tribunal, Rome.

27
Tveter, Øystein

A scholar of International Law and member of the People’s Tribunal on extra-

judicial killings and violations of human rights in the Philippines.

The Competence of the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal

The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT) is an international opinion tribunal,

independent from any State authority. It examines cases regarding violations
of human rights and the rights of peoples. Promoted by the Lelio Basso
International Foundation for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, the PPT
was founded in June 1979, in Bologna, Italy, by a broad spectrum of legal
experts, writers, and other cultural and community leaders (including five
Nobel Prize laureates) from 31 countries.

The PPT is rooted in the historical experiences of the Russell Tribunals on

Vietnam (1966-67) and the dictatorships in Latin America (1974-1976). The
importance and strength of decisions by the PPT rest on the moral weight of
the causes and arguments to which they give credibility, as well as the
integrity and capability to judge of the Tribunal members. Complaints heard by
the Tribunal are submitted by the victims, or by groups or individuals
representing them. The PPT calls together all parties concerned and offers
the defendants the possibility to make their own arguments heard. The Jury is
selected for each case by combining members who belong to a permanent list
of jurors, and individuals who are recognized for their competence and
integrity. From June 1979 to the present date the PPT has held some 40
sessions whose results and judgments are available at
www.internazionaleleliobasso.it.

For this Session on Sri Lanka, the Secretariat of the PPT was first
approached by representatives of a broad spectrum of NGOs, as early as July
2009. The government of Sri Lanka had declared the war over two months
prior, following months of bloody massacre which had made headlines
worldwide. The urgency of the matter was recognized. Additionally, the
specific competence of the PPT was considered in response to the substantial
disregard of the matter by international institutions which accompanied the
“disappearance” of the massacre of the Tamils from the attention of the
international media. The documents supporting the request to convene a
session of the PPT with the primary objective of focusing on “the last phase of
the war, the period after the collapse of the peace process, and especially the
last months” were received and accepted on November 19, 2009.

The notification of the procedures and the invitation to participate in the

session of the PPT in Dublin were submitted to the representative of the
Government of Sri Lanka in London, H.E. Justice Nihal Jayasinghe, on
December 1, 2009.According to the Statutes of the PPT, and as specified in
the notification, in the absence of a positive response to the request for formal

28
representation of their positions, the PPT mandated a rapporteur to present
the views of the Government of Sri Lanka in the Public Session.
The work of the PPT took place in the facilities of Trinity College (c.f. program
attached in Annex 1).Due to security reasons, the members of the panel of
the PPT heard the highly detailed eye-witness accounts of the events related
to the last months of war, and to the concentration camps during, “in camera”
sessions. The PPT certifies that the resources which have covered the
organizational and financial needs of the sessions correspond mainly to the
voluntary work of the members of the NGOs supporting the initiative, and that
no economic contribution has been derived from sources directly or indirectly
related to Tamil organizations, nor to states involved in the events considered
in this session. The written and visual documentation presented and
examined by the PPT aside from the oral hearings and cross-examinations, is
listed in Annex II and available on the PPT and IFPSL websites. A new
website - www.pptsrilanka.org - will make the findings and other relevant
material available to the public in several languages.

2. The Complaints: The request to conduct a Peoples’ Tribunal came from the
Irish Forum for Peace in Sri Lanka, in a letter dated 19.11.09. The Forum
claimed that from the time that the war began in July 2006 through April 2009,
according to United Nations internal documents, air raids and the use of
heavy weaponry resulted in the death of 116 people per day. British and
French mainstream media reported that during the final few weeks 20,000
Tamil people were killed. There were numerous accusations that Sri Lankan
security forces were guilty of violating the Geneva Conventions on warfare
and of having committed gross war crimes and crimes against humanity,
particularly during the last five months of the war, between January and May
2009. The charges included the bombing of civilian habitations, hospitals, and
government-proclaimed ‘safety zones’ or ‘no fire zones’ by security forces,
causing innumerable deaths of civilians, doctors and aid workers. Additionally,
the charges also included depriving the population of essential services such
as food, water, and health facilities in war zones, and other grave crimes
against humanity. Even before the war ended, UN agencies had been voicing
their concern to the Sri Lankan Government over the level of impunity
surrounding human rights abuses, the continued attacks on civilians by its
armed forces, and the denial of aid to the local population residing in areas
formerly administered by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
Nonetheless, Sri Lankan security forces completely ignored these warnings
and continued their deadly assault. In the immediate months after the war
attention shifted to the plight of over 280,000 Sri Lankan Tamils forced to live
in internment camps in the Vanni region. Densely packed in camps, with
inadequate infrastructure to provide safe food, water, sanitation and health
facilities, the Government announced that the internally displaced people
(IDPs) would be kept there until they had been ‘screened’ for possible LTTE
sympathies.

In subsequent weeks, reports poured in of scores of Tamil youths

disappearing from the camps, having been taken away by security forces and

29
government-sponsored paramilitary groups. Hundreds are feared to have
died. Following the international outcry resulting from the forcible detention of
Tamil people in these camps for more than 5 months, the Government
announced that a significant number of them would be resettled. However, it
has been reported in the BBC and other news media that a considerable
number of those released were simply moved to new satellite camps in
remote areas. The Sri Lankan Government has always vehemently denied all
wrongdoing on the part of its forces and has dismissed all accusations as
attacks on Sri Lanka’s sovereignty. It has steadfastly refused to permit the
media and other organizations, both national and international, including UN
bodies, to enter and to ascertain the facts by interacting with local people. In
the Sri Lankan south, any call to critically examine the conduct of the war and
the action of the Sri Lankan security forces in terms of internationally
accepted war conventions and human rights standards, is regarded as
treason.

Against this background the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal was asked to

examine the following:
1) Did widespread or systematic attacks directed against the Tamil civilian
population take place in the sense that has been described by the ‘Rome
Statute’ of the International Criminal Court as ‘crimes against humanity’?

2) Was there an intentional infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring

about the destruction of part of the Tamil population, inter alia the deprivation
of access to food and medicine, consistent with the definition of
‘extermination’ elaborated under ‘crimes against humanity’ within the Rome
Statute?

3) Have Sri Lankan government forces violated the international law of war by
executing war prisoners who surrendered themselves to the Sri Lankan
Army? Have Sri Lankan armed forces subjected Tamils that they have
captured, or those who have surrendered, to torture? Have there been
outrages committed against the personal dignity of prisoners, or humiliating
and degrading treatment inflicted upon them?

4) Have sexual assault and rape been used as weapons of war?

5) Have murder and disappearance of Tamil people in contravention of the

Rome Statute on ‘Enforced disappearances of persons’ taken place?

6) Has there been mass deportation and detention of Tamil people in

contravention of international law?
7) Have Sri Lankan armed forces committed war crimes by indiscriminately
using heavy weaponry and air power in densely populated areas? Have they
utilized weapons forbidden by international law, such as cluster munitions and
weapons of chemical nature?

30
8) Have Sri Lankan government forces committed war crimes by desecrating
the dead?

This Tribunal is dealing with the crimes committed by the Sri Lankan
government, but not with the crimes committed by the LTTE forces in the war.
The reason for this is that humanitarian law was created to protect citizens
from the State. Any crime committed by individuals or groups can be judged
and punished by the State. However, crimes committed by the State usually
result in impunity, as the State is not willing to judge and punish its own
actions. The category of human rights violations in international law applies
specifically to the State. The action of this Tribunal is a mechanism to ratify
this principle.

3. The 2002 CFA and the Breakdown of Peace Talks

On the 22nd of February 2002, the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) and the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) signed a permanent Ceasefire
Agreement (CFA), formalizing the unilateral truce declared by the Tigers. The
Norwegian peace envoys who facilitated the signing of the agreement were
backed by the Co-chairs of the donor countries who were overseeing the Sri
Lankan peace process, namely the EU, USA, Japan and Norway. The overall
objective was to “find a negotiated solution to the ongoing conflict in Sri
Lanka.” The CFA was
intended to be “a means of establishing a positive atmosphere upon which
further steps towards negotiations on a lasting solution can be taken.” A
separate body, the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM), was created to
monitor ceasefire violations. Its members were drawn primarily from Norway,
Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland. The war-weary people on the Island,
both Tamils, as well as Sinhalese, were supportive of the CFA, as was the Sri
Lanka business community and their external partners. There were certain
initial benefits following the signing of the CFA. The ceasefire paved the way
for six rounds of direct peace talks between the GoSL and the LTTE. Mutual
confidence was rebuilt on the basis of the CFA and new political and social
spaces were opened up allowing all communities to mutually interact with
each other and to initiate a long delayed inter- ethnic dialogue. The ceasefire
also facilitated the opening of the A-9 highway – the only land route linking the
Jaffna peninsula with the rest of the Island – re-linking the North and the
South. Despite the historical significance of the ceasefire, its benefits were
short lived as the CFA gradually fell apart. Even though the six rounds of talks
achieved considerable success, the overall significance soon started to fade
away. Limited hostilities recommenced in late 2005, and the conflict escalated
after July 2006. Through massive military offensives, the GoSL drove the
LTTE out of the entire Eastern Province and extended operations to the north
of the country. By 2007, five years after the CFA was signed, the situation
was described as “undeclared war” characterized by high casualties,
humanitarian strife and large- scale displacement. Following the completion of
the eastern offensives, the GoSL announced that its troops would be moved
to the northern areas, in order to regain the “guerrilla- administered territory”.

31
On the 2nd of January 2008, the GoSL officially revealed its withdrawal from
the CFA. Both parties accused each other of violating the CFA and thus
weakening the mutual confidence that had been achieved. The failure of the
CFA has been attributed to a number of causes. While the GoSL accused the
LTTE of repeatedly violating the ceasefire, the LTTE accused the state and its
armed troops of undermining confidence- building measures and of not
delivering peace dividends to Tamil people living in war affected areas. In
addition, both parties traded accusations regarding targeted assassinations of
high profile individuals belonging to the opposing party. Furthermore, the
delayed response of the GoSL in beginning reconstruction and rehabilitation
work in the war-ravaged areas, and in failing to ensure the social and
economic well- being of the people, contributed significantly to eroding mutual
confidence.

Especially after the Indian Ocean Tsunami, Tamils felt neglected,

marginalized and discriminated against, increasing their distrust. Moreover,
hard-line Sinhalese nationalists put all their efforts into blocking any positive
development which would guarantee the rights of the Tamil people and
improve their living conditions. They had opposed the CFA since its inception,
and used every possible means to
undermine and weaken it. It has also been pointed out that international
actors did not intervene in a productive and evenhanded
manner to strengthen the CFA and to uphold the achievements already
realized. In particular, the USA, UK and others have been accused of
undermining the LTTE and its commitment to peace by repeatedly calling for
a complete renunciation of violence “in word and deed”. The European
Union’s decision to ban the LTTE even before the war started has also been
seen as a grave error that destroyed the parity of status necessary for the
continuation of the peace process.

Furthermore, it has been asserted that the “Washington episode” led the
LTTE to withdraw from direct talks after they were excluded from talks in
Washington. In addition, the USA has been accused of being instrumental in
undermining the Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure (P-
TOMS), which was put in place as a unified mechanism to carry out joint
rehabilitation and relief work in the Tsunami-affected Tamil areas, by insisting
that it would not direct money to any joint fund other than the Government
treasury. A further setback came in 2006, when the European Union added
the LTTE to its list of terrorist organizations, while even the GoSL remained
reluctant to ban the Tigers in Sri Lanka. Throughout the six years that the
CFA was in place, the SLMM, which was an autonomous and impartial body
established to monitor the truce, accused both parties of violating the
ceasefire agreement. Until its operation ceased in January 2008, following the
GoSL’s unilateral abrogation of the CFA, the SLMM conducted verification
and monitoring operations in the conflict areas. It had two main objectives: to
assist the GoSL and the LTTE in implementing the CFA properly, and to
inquire into and report on violations of the CFA. In the period that followed the
signing of the CFA, the SLMM observed a “considerable and notable

32
reduction of violence”. In spite of minor setbacks, the initial period after the
CFA marked a clear step forward with regard to decreasing acts of hostilities
and achieving important breakthroughs in the direct talks. However, this
success depended on the equal status of the two parties, and once this was
breached, mainly as a result of the Washington episode, the CFA started to
lose effectiveness. As a result, new hostilities emerged, which eventually
evolved into a full scale war, and pushed Sri Lanka back into a becoming a
killing-field once again.

4. The Atrocities of the Last Weeks of the War

This part of the report of the Tribunal is focused on the terrible consequences
of the collapse of the ceasefire agreement (CFA), and in particular the military
and other actions taken by the Government of Sri Lanka in respect to the
LTTE forces, and the civilians associated with them. The tribunal listened to
several presentations by NGOs, experts on the recent and current “civil war”
situation in Sri Lanka, in front of a public audience. The Tribunal listened to a
larger number of
witnesses, victims, human rights defenders, journalists and Tamils from the
Diaspora in ‘in camera sessions’ in order to protect their identity. In its work
the Tribunal was reminded several times that this civil war was a “war without
witnesses” because the GoSL had prevented either national or international
media coverage. In fact, some of the early victims were the many journalists
that were murdered by unknown assassins, something which appeared to
serve the agenda of the Government by silencing critical opinion. The
impression held by most experts and witnesses is that this was a civil war,
and an exercise in ethnic cleansing, perhaps even genocide, and that the
Government did not wish to share this with the media. Instead, significant
misinformation as to the policies, the fighting, and the numbers and overall
well-being of civilians in LTTE-controlled areas was provided by Colombo.
This misinformation frequently underestimated the number of Tamil civilians
within LTTE-controlled
areas who were trapped by the military, and exposed to attack by aircraft and
artillery. It was only when the final exodus from the much diminished LTTE-
held territory began, and the internally displaced persons (IDPs) were counted
that it was seen that the government had misinformed both the national and
the international public. The atrocities carried out by the military relate
particularly to civilians, and there is evidence of cluster munitions being
dropped by warplanes. Some witnesses reported that white phosphorous was
used in violation of international law. Several witnesses had seen burn marks
on wounded civilians. Others believed that indications of napalm were
apparent, and evidence of other incendiary devices has been confirmed by
doctors who had cared for hundreds of Tamil civilians wounded in this
manner. The sight of hundreds of dead bodies was reported by a number of
witnesses. This indicates that in addition to the many wounded and the heavy
loss of civilian life, the destruction of civilian infrastructure essential for human
wellbeing was common (with women and children among those targeted) in

33
the diminishing areas controlled by the LTTE. The frequent use of heavy
artillery by the military against LTTE forces in civilian areas, including on
public buildings such as hospitals and schools as indicated above, constitutes
a violation of the Geneva Conventions. The populace suffered from the lack of
potable water, lack of access to essential medical care and continuing lack of
access to educational facilities. Virtually all their basic human rights were
violated. Further, loss of civilian life under these conditions was very high. By
April 2009, according to internal documents of the United Nations, use of
heavy weapons, combined with air-raids caused the death of some 116
persons each day. Further, British and French media indicated that during the
final weeks of fighting some 20.000 Tamils were killed. The attempt to
annihilate the Tamil population with or without the use of illegal weapons
certainly constitutes one form of war crime. The question remains if the
government intended genocide in respect of the Tamil people in brutally
suppressing armed and political resistance. From expert and eye-witness
testimony, it would seem certain that the military attacked targets of a purely
civilian nature, such as hospitals, fleeing IDPs and many villages. Further,
evidence that the military executed both Tamil civilians and LTTE prisoners of
war, who in some cases had voluntarily surrendered, further support charges
of ethnic cleansing and violations of international law.

Before drawing any conclusions, other atrocities and abuses of Tamil civilians
need to be considered. Witness testimony on IDP “camps”, or perhaps
“concentration camps” as suggested by testimony, demands attention.
Portrayed by the government as temporary residential facilities pending the
return home or resettlement of those detained within them, the camps were
designated as “welfare villages” by the government. Fifteen such IDP camps
were so designated. These camps continue to be in gross violation of the
Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many
tragedies within the camps were reported to the Tribunal members. Living
space was very modest, cover was of galvanized tin which in hot conditions
became a health hazard, often resulting in poor skin conditions.
Many children in particular, but also women and the aged, died from diseases
such as cholera and malnutrition. Water supply was a significant problem,
with five litres per day for all the needs of a family being totally inadequate
and threatening to health. Sufficient water for simple hygiene, toilet use and
the washing of clothes (most IDPs had only the clothes on their backs) was
simply unavailable. Garbage remained in place, and toilets pits constructed
without cement often collapsed leading to flooding, and, in some cases, the
drowning of children. Many children had lost both parents and become
orphans, or only had the protection of a single parent, and were thus
vulnerable to the many dangers lurking in the camps. Another unacceptable
government policy was the withholding of food, and the use of this tactic as a
tool to coerce and torture Tamil civilians. The blockade of food supplies and
deliberate underestimation of the numbers of civilians within the LTTE-
controlled areas also led to dangerous food shortages. The additional
withholding of medical supplies to Tamil civilians is equally unacceptable and
a violation of humanitarian law.

34
Sexual abuse and the rape of women by government troops was yet another
atrocity repeated throughout the civil war by government military in destroyed
villages and in the “welfare villages”. This practice, which is in violation of the
Rome Statute as a crime against humanity, led to tragedies such as abortions
and suicide on the part of victims unable to live with family shame and mental
trauma. This policy of targeting also applied to Tamils living outside the
conflict zone. Apart from mass deportations, selective terror campaigns were
carried out by means of abductions, assassinations, arbitrary arrests,
detention, sexual assault and torture.

The information provided in the paragraphs above can be found in the reports
of Human Rights Watch (28.07.09 and 24.11.09), of Amnesty International
(10.08.09), and of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (September 2009).
Specific assassinations of Tamil leaders are yet another atrocity, and
highlighting this occurrence is the targeted killing of members of Parliament,
including Joseph Pararajasingham, Nadarasa Raviraj and T.Maheshwaran,
who had protested the military massacres.

One aspect of government policy that facilitated a variety of atrocities was the
Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) of 1979 which designated the LTTE forces
as “terrorists.” It further undermined some of the safeguards in the justice and
military legal systems, leading to significant abuse. Evidence shows that
maltreatment of the dead also took place. In summary, in pursuing its
ambitions to remove the threat that LTTE forces presented and to control the
Tamil civilian population, the Government of Sri Lanka pursued military
actions in violation of international law, including the Geneva Conventions and
the Declaration of Human Rights. The resulting atrocities of rape, torture,
assassinations, “disappearances,” and withholding of food, water and medical
supplies brutalized and threatened the survival of the Tamil community. The
use of artillery and illegal weapons such as white phosphorus and cluster
munitions places the government outside accepted international legal
standards. It is not surprising that charges of atrocities, ethnic cleansing and
indeed genocide have been leveled at Colombo. War crimes and crimes
against humanity clearly appear to have been committed.

5. On the Qualifications of the Facts

Summing up the facts established before this Tribunal by reports from NGOs,
victims’ testimony, eye-witnesses accounts, expert testimony and journalistic
reports, we are able to distinguish three different kinds of human rights
violations committed by the Sri Lankan Government from 2002 (the beginning
of the CFA) to the present:

• Forced “disappearances” of targeted individuals from the Tamil population;

• Crimes committed in the re-starting of the war (2006-2009), particularly
during the last months of the war:

35
• Bombing civilian objectives like hospitals, schools and other non-military
targets;
• Bombing government-proclaimed ‘safety zones’ or ‘no fire zones’;
• Withholding of food, water, and health facilities in war zones;
• Use of heavy weaponry, banned weapons and air-raids;
• Using food and medicine as a weapon of war;
• The mistreatment, torture and execution of captured or surrendered LTTE
combatants, officials and supporters;
• Torture;
• Rape and sexual violence against women;
• Deportations and forcible transfer of individuals and families;
• Desecrating the dead;
• Human rights violations in the IDP camps during and after the end of the
war:
• Shooting of Tamil citizens and LTTE supporters;
• Forced disappearances;
• Rape;
• Malnutrition; and
• Lack of medical supplies.

5.1 War Crimes

The actions included under the second point above clearly constitute “war
crimes” committed by the Sri Lankan Government, its security forces and
aligned paramilitary forces, as defined under the Geneva Conventions and in
the Rome Statute, with regard to the following sections of Article 8.

If this conflict is recognized as international in nature, the following charges

would apply: (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable
in international armed conflict, within the established framework of
international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or
against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which
are not military objectives;
(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will
cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects
or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment
which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall
military advantage anticipated;
(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having
no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion,
education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals
and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not
military objectives;
(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading treatment;

36
(xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced
pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f),enforced sterilization, or
any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the
Geneva Conventions;
(xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by
depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully
impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

If the conflict is of a domestic character, the following charges would apply:

(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious

violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no
active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid
down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds,
detention or any other cause:
(i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture;
(ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading treatment;
(iii) Taking of hostages;
(iv) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all
judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.

(e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed
conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of
international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or
against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion,
education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals
and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not
military objectives;
(vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy,
as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other
form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3
common to the four Geneva Conventions.

So, if we analyze the conflict as either an international conflict or as an

internal armed conflict, we have clearly found that war crimes were committed
by the Government of Sri Lanka.

5.2 Crimes against humanity

The actions included under the points 1 (forced disappearances) and 3

(violations committed in the IDP camps during and after the war) clearly

37
constitute “crimes against humanity”, as defined in the Rome Statute, Article
7, specifically in the following sections:

Any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or

systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of
the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual
violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial,
national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other
grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international
law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime
within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great
suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

5.3 The possible commission of the crime of genocide

Although the charge of genocide was not included in the inquiry requested of
the Tribunal, some of the organizations and persons that gave testimony
insisted that it be recognized that genocide occurred, or may have occurred,
against the Tamil population in Sri Lanka. There was not enough evidence
presented before the Tribunal to determine that the crime of genocide be
added to the charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Some of the
facts presented should be investigated thoroughly, as possible acts of
genocide. Such facts include the following:

- A possible pattern of forced “disappearances” of Tamil individuals carried out

by the Sri Lankan armed forces and by paramilitary forces with the
acquiescence of the State, directed against crucial members of the Tamil
community (journalists, physicians, politicians) to destroy, as Lemkin said,
“the grounds for the continuity of the life of the group” (in this case, the Tamil
group); and

- The persistence of the situation of the Tamil population in the IDP camps;
the continuity of shootings, systematic rape and forced “disappearances;” the
widespread destruction of infrastructure in those parts of the country where
there is a concentration of Tamils; and the lack of food, medicine and other
fundamental needs for the continuity of life of the Tamil people. Although the

38
facts listed above are current, we have not received enough evidence to
include them as
charges. However, the Tribunal acknowledges the importance of continuing
investigation into the possibility of genocide.

5.4 The right of any human being to be under the protection of humanitarian
law

The so-called “global war on terror” has produced the idea that any act
committed in such a war should be allowed as the best means to defeat a
most dangerous enemy. This kind of new security paradigm has led to the
justification of human rights violations against those members of the
population labeled “terrorists”. It is fundamental for the verdict of this Tribunal
that even considering crimes committed by the LTTE forces, the alleged
“terrorists” are under the protection of humanitarian law.

Neither war crimes, nor crimes against humanity (the charges that have been
recognized by this Tribunal) would be justified by any act committed by the
victims.
The importance of highlighting this question is that, within this new security
paradigm, members of the population labeled as “terrorists”, or any other
extreme qualification, would be excluded from the rest of humanity and
therefore would not enjoy any protections ensured by human rights law. This
assumption would deny the existence of human rights law as such.

5.5 The alleged commission of “crimes against the peace”

The last crime submitted to the Tribunal deals with the charge of “crimes
against the peace”. Allegedly, the Government of Sri Lanka and some
“external forces” conspired to commit a “war of aggression”.

Crimes against the peace were defined in the Nuremberg Tribunal as: (i)
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in
violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances
and/or (ii) participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the
accomplishment of any of such acts. The problem for this Tribunal regarding
this part of the accusation is not only with the evidence provided to the
Tribunal to support the charge, but also (and mainly) with the consequences
of accepting such a concept as part of humanitarian law. The idea of a crime
against the peace supposes that peace exists and that one side of the conflict
breaks this peaceful situation through a war of aggression. However, in the
majority of the armed conflicts that humanity have suffered, the situation can
be analyzed from a more subtle and complex perspective. The definition of
the first offender in an armed conflict is difficult to determine and subjective.
The manner in which years of oppression accumulate to a critical level may
easily become the first act in a “war of aggression.”

39
That is the case of the years of war within Sri Lanka. The perspective through
which the conflict is analyzed defines who may be charged with “crimes
against the peace”. That is the reason the Tribunal will not endorse specific
charges in regards to such a crime. Nevertheless, on the basis of the
evidence obtained and the testimonies heard, the Tribunal acknowledges the
responsibilities of the international community, inasmuch it did not take
concrete steps to prevent violations of the human rights of the Tamil people,
and subsequently omitted the pursuit of war crimes and crimes against
humanity.

The Tribunal stresses the responsibility of the Member States of the United
Nations that have not complied with their moral obligation to seek justice for
the violations of human rights committed during the last period of war. After
repeated pleas, and in spite of the appalling conditions experienced by
Tamils, the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council failed to
establish an independent commission of inquiry to investigate those
responsible for the atrocities committed due to political pressure exerted by
certain Members. It also highlights the conduct of the European Union in
undermining the CFA of 2002. In spite of being aware of the detrimental
consequences to a peace process in the making, the EU decided – under
pressure from the United States and the United Kingdom - to list the TRM
(Tamil Resistance Movement, which included the LTTE) as a terrorist
organization in 2006. This decision allowed the Sri Lankan Government to
breach the ceasefire agreement and re-start military operations leading to the
massive violations listed above. It also points to the full responsibility of those
governments, led by the United States, that are conducting the so-called
“Global War on Terror” (GWOT) in providing political endorsement of the
conduct of the Sri Lankan Government and armed forces in a war that is
primarily targeted against the Tamil people.

The Tribunal also points to the direct responsibility of various countries in

providing the Sri Lankan Government with weapons. Some of these weapons
are banned by conventions such as the Convention on Certain Conventional
Weapons (CCW), and others. In addition, some of those countries also
trained Sri Lankan military forces during the ceasefire period.

6. Recommendations

6.1 To the Government of Sri Lanka

The PPT recommends that the government of Sri Lanka: – Establish as a

matter of urgency an independent and authoritative Truth and Justice
Commission, to investigate crimes against humanity and war crimes
committed by parties to the conflict in the course of the last phases of the war
after the collapse of the 2002 ceasefire, and ensure the prosecution of those
responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity;

40
– Immediately re-establish fundamental freedoms and political rights for the
Tamil people, by withdrawing the state of emergency and repealing the
Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979;

– Assure the safety and dignity of the 12,000 plus political prisoners, allowing
access to International Committee of the Red Cross and legal representation
according to international norms;

– Promptly ensure the protection and integrity of national and international

journalists and human rights defenders, and guarantee their legitimate human
rights;

– Disband all paramilitary forces and progressively reduce the presence of

military forces in the Tamil areas;

– Implement a political power-sharing solution that gives the Tamil people a

proactive and legitimate role in the administration and management of the
Northeast, while upholding their rights to equal citizenship, participation and
representation at all levels, and ensuring a free, fair, and peaceful electoral
process in regard to Parliamentary elections scheduled for May 2010; and

– Sign, ratify and implement the Treaty of Rome establishing the International
Criminal Court.

As far as the current situation in the camps and for Internally Displaced
Persons, the PPT recommends:
– Allow free and unlimited access to humanitarian organizations, such as the
International Committee of the Red Cross, human rights defenders and media
to the refugee camps;
– Hand control of the camps from military to civilian authorities, and ensure
the resettlement of Tamils in their native lands, managed by civilian
authorities and overseen by international organizations with the full and active
participation of the affected people;
– Ensure implementation of standards for safe returns, such as the UN
Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, and allow independent
international monitoring of returnees, rehabilitation, and reconstruction
activities;
– Carry out impact assessments and human audits, and set up a mechanism
of accountability and compensation after a proper assessment of damages
suffered by the Tamil people; and
– Address the particular condition of women, children, and separated families,
allowing access to basic services, post-war rehabilitation, education, and
health and psychological care, including treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD).

6.2 To the International Community,

Donor Governments and the United Nations

41
The Panel urges to the above that they:
• Appoint a UN special rapporteur for Sri Lanka to investigate and identify
responsibilities for human rights violations, violations of humanitarian law and
war crimes committed by all parties in conflict;
• Support the establishment of an independent group of eminent persons to
investigate the responsibilities of the international community in the disruption
of the ceasefire agreement and subsequent war crimes and crimes against
humanity and provision of the Sri Lankan Government with weapons during
the ceasefire;
• Establish a field office of the UNHRC to allow for independent monitoring of
the human rights situation of the Tamil people, and the implementation of
Tamil rehabilitation and resettlement programmes, as well as measures
aimed at reinstating fundamental rights, freedoms and the rule of law;
• Create an inter-governmental and inter-agency task force to coordinate
donor agencies’ activities to support peace and reconciliation processes,
landmine clearance, rehabilitation and post-war reconstruction, subject to the
rights and wishes of the Tamils;
• Provide the Tamil people with means to ensure their sustainable livelihoods
and meet basic human needs, and support confidence-building programs to
enable inter-cultural and inter-ethnic dialogue between the Sinhala and Tamil
peoples;
• Investigate the final use and proper redistribution of international emergency
and development aid to Sri Lanka for tsunami relief and post-disaster
reconstruction;
• Appoint a special international electoral monitoring mission for the upcoming
Parliamentary elections, scheduled for 2010; and
• Demand that the right to a fair and transparent trial be recognized for the
12,000 plus political prisoners currently detained in Sri Lankan prisons.

6.3 Concluding Remarks

The PPT cannot conclude its work without specifically recognizing the
fundamental contribution of those eyewitnesses who had the courage to come
forward to testify on facts that have touched their lives profoundly and forever.
They are the most qualified representatives of the victims, whose numbers will
never be known and whose suffering could never be described in full. The
recognition and protection of their rights are the reasons for the existence and
activities of the PPT.

The PPT is also well aware that in the current situation the rights of those that
witnessed the atrocities committed in the country are vulnerable to further
violations, both directly against their personal freedom and life, and through
the persecution of their families. Therefore, the PPT declares that any harm
that might happen to those that testified or to their families should be
considered as the exclusive responsibility of those authorities and actors
addressed within our judgment. We commit ourselves to maintain a sharp
attention to the

42
safety of the witnesses who have courageously contributed to the fact-finding
task of the tribunal. If anything would happen to any of them, we will hold the
government of Sri Lanka responsible for that.

The PPT furthermore declares its readiness and commitment to take an active
role in monitoring and promptly acting on any consequence that the witnesses
might suffer due to the fact of having contributed
to our work and deliberations.

Francois Houtart - Chairperson

People’s Tribunal on Sri Lanka
Gianni Tognoni - Secretary General
Permanent People’s Tribunal - Rome
Permanent People’s Tribunal Tribunal on Sri Lanka

43