Sri Lanka's Rescue Story

by Peter Ratnadurai, June 2, 2009

An ill of modern communication is that one is able to view a scene from a rooftop, via the lens of a camera attached to an aerial vehicle, while being totally detached from the thought process of people on the ground. The result is a view from near interpreted by thoughts from afar.

During the final phase of the Sri Lanka's bloody conventional civil war, a video clip published by the Ministry of Defence, showing thousands of civilians wading through a lagoon of water, became a symbol of what was termed the “world's largest rescue operation.”

Yes, we have all seen the carefully cropped clippings of “terrified” men and women fleeing Tamil administered areas into the hand of the Sri Lankan military. Yes, I've also reflected on what was happening on that day.

The usual interpretation churned out by Colombo and parroted by the international media, particularly Indian ones, is that the people were fleeing from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), whom they disliked, towards the Sinhala rescuers of the Sri Lankan army.

I had extended family members amongst the “rescued”; now that they have managed to contact us , albeit for a few minutes, from the internment camps, an already held personal view has been cemented.

Setting the Scene

The final tragedy unfolded in the ironically named “safety zone” that stretched along a ten kilometre long sandy beach. A place I would otherwise promote as “paradise of earth”, which I last visited in 2005, was turned into “hell of earth” during the first five months of this year.

Sri Lanka's military, egged on by an Indian administration weary of elections, made a determined effort to defeat the LTTE by military means, kill or capture all Tamils who remained in areas administered by that organisation, and gain control over the entire territory of the island.

As a prelude to the “final war”, Sri Lanka had already blocked independent media, aid agencies and the UN from Tamil administered areas. By the beginning of the year, even foreign staff of the International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) were ordered out.

As the stage was set, Colombo was in a position to dictate the storyline to the international community. Anyone who questioned Colombo's “facts” was obviously a “terrorist sympathiser”, if not “on terrorist payroll.”

Starved

In early 2009, Sri Lanka declared that around 70, 000 Tamil civilians were being “held hostage” by the LTTE. It wanted to “rescue” them by military means. That number and stance was approved, some say even scripted, by New Delhi. India's Minister of External Affairs, Pranab Mukherjee, confirmed Colombo's figures and plans to his country's parliament on 17th February.

The sinister use of the 70, 000 figure, an apparent estimate based on intelligence and government records, didn't take too long to be exposed. At the time, the LTTE and local civil officials reported that more then 300, 000 people remained in the area; UN put the number at 200, 000, based on its own numbers; Colombo and New Delhi insisted that there were only 70, 000.

Subsequently, the World Food Programme (WFP) was authorised by Colombo to deliver food for 70, 000 people. Even that was hampered at every opportunity. For months, food enough for only around 40, 000 people was delivered to the area.

All reports of people dying of starvation and families of six sharing a single meal were dismissed as “propaganda.” Food, we were told, was not being used as a weapon of war.

Now, we know that more than 280, 000 people left the “safe zone” since Mr Mukherjee's statement. We also know that more than 20, 000 people were killed since February. Indeed, more than 300, 000 people were only provided with a sixth of their nutritional requirements.

The number floated by New Delhi and Colombo was not a mere victim of one of many cons of estimation. At a quarter of actual, the estimation itself was a con in a collusion to starve people into surrender.

Shelled

Artillery bombardment of the “safe zone” has been extensively covered elsewhere. It is now common knowledge that the area was barraged with shells and multi-barrel rockets, day and night.

People were reduced to spending several consecutive days inside makeshift bunkers. Some who ventured out for sanitary needs died within seconds, according to those who managed to survive. They, the lucky ones, had to defecate in the same bunkers where they lived and slept.

Surrendered

Yes, people were “terrified”; of the continued shelling to which they had been subjected. They were weak after weeks of starvation. They had to wade a lagoon to surrender, unable to bear the torment.

On this issue, a localised comparative example is perhaps best suited. Imagine that, tonight, an arsonist throws a petrol bomb at a house on your street. What would the inhabitants do? I guess they would run out in terror and panic.

The next day, in court, the arsonist claims he “rescued” the inhabitants from the house they hated, and the “terror” of their neighbours. He uses a video clip showing the “terrified” family “fleeing” from their home. He says they obviously “hated” their house. He asks, why else would they run out in such panic?

Would your local court praise the arsonist for “rescuing” the family from the house they hated? I guess not. But there are plenty singing for the Sri Lankan military.

Thought From Near

Were Tamil civilians “rescued”? Or were they forced to surrender by starvation and shelling? One's stance is obviously skewed by their spot on the political spectrum. But that should not hinder the telling of the story. This is where Sri Lanka differs: it does not want the story to be told.

Emergence of truth is imminent. Arm twisting at the UN and harnessing support from big brother, Colombo hopes, will delay the truth for long enough for the region, and events, to be off the 'hot spot' of international agendas. That's one reason why the Tamil Diaspora, and humane nations, must emphasise the urgency of truth: for justice delayed is justice denied.