‘Stories of Mullivaikkal’ & ‘Yet Whom Do They Destroy’

Book Launch: Colombo, 6 November 2024

The Adayaalam Centre for Policy Research (ACPR) has released two books that focus on two of the most turbulent periods in contemporary Tamil polity. The ‘Stories of Mullivaikkal’ records the lived experience and resilience of the survivors of the final phase of the armed conflict, while ‘Yet Whom Do They Destroy’ illustrates, through three characters, the 1983 pogrom and their impact. Having previously launched ‘Stories of Mullivaikkal’ in Jaffna to mark the 15th anniversary of May 18, the ACPR conducted a launch event in Colombo to release it again along with ‘Yet Whom Do They Destroy’ in all three languages – English, Sinhala, and Tamil. 

Each of the launch events focused on different themes. The event in Jaffna centred on preserving memory, survivors and how they tell their stories. The event in Colombo centred around where the Tamil polity’s demand for justice and accountability falls in the evolving political dynamics and change and the crucial role of documentation in accountability. 

Launch in Colombo

The event in Colombo started with the ACPR’s executive director, Anushani Alagarajah, introducing the publications, explaining the work that went into the publications, what documentation means to the Tamil victim-survivor communities and what role the civil societies in the South could play in extending their solidarity. This was followed up by reading excerpts from the books in three languages. 

Ms Kamaleswary Letchumanan (Projects Manager, Centre for Equality and Justice) did commentary on both the books. She started by acknowledging that the experience of the war and the Black July riot are different to those who experienced them directly and the stories in the two books will be new to the people in the south and among Malaiyaha Tamils. She brought up two scenarios as how her own family was affected by the 1983 riot and her own experience of seeing her friends in the university suffer during the last phase of the war. 

She said the books are notable in multiple ways:

• These are not simply the stories of victim-survivors of war, but also stories of their resilience.
• The stories reiterate the important roles played by women during the war as safeguarding their family members, providing for them, and appearing in front of all the investigations etc.
• These are documentations that would help the next generation to understand the past. The history will be passed on to the next generation. The important element here is the history is told by the actual victims/survivors and not by the third parties.
• The women and the other victims do not just share their stories but they also call for actions
• The books can be also considered as a conflict prevention tool as the stories share the warning signs, when things could escalate etc. 

She continued to explain how both books bring to the forefront the sidelined issues women faced during the war, while the mainstream big peacemaking actors limit their conversations to reconciliation, peacebuilding, rehabilitation, resettlement, transitional justice and other vague themes, omitting women’s specific issues and their contribution to peacebuilding. Some of such unidentified issues brought out in the stories include: Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights, including period poverty during the war, women and right to water and the need for psycho-social support are some such issues.

Kamaleshwary stressed the fact that these are stories of victims and survivors told through their own voices, sharing their side of the story about what happened. As such, we do not have the right to ask them why they did not share the other side of the story. She said that these stories are to be understood but not to be judged.

Following this, a panel discussion was held, moderated by Ms Esther Hoole (Lawyer and Human Rights Practitioner), featuring Ambika Satkunanathan (Former Commissioner, Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka), Anushani Alagarajah (Executive Director, ACPR), Mathurabhasini Thamilmaran (National Legal Advisor, International Commission of Jurists), and Kaushalya Perera (Senior Lecturer, University of Colombo). 

Panel Discussion

1. The Victim-Centred Approaches to Documentation & Advocacy 

Speaking of the victim-centred approach, Anushani pointed out that ‘victim-centeredness’ is over-used as a term but under-practised as an ethic. There is a tendency to focus mainly on child soldiers and rape victims when it comes to the Tamil community’s experiences during the war, because they neatly fall into the category of ‘victims’ lacking agency. Other groups of people who the State and the military have violated are often overlooked. Crucially, victimhood is emphasised but how victims survived and their resilience are sidelined, denying them of their stories of resilience and agency to tell their story the way they want to tell it. Sharing her experience as a translator, she pointed out that researchers from abroad and many civil societies from the South that interviewed victims in the North-East, treated them as no more than sources of information. Little to nothing has been done to give the victim-survivors platforms. Although the brief government change in 2015 gave some room for victim-survivors to participate in consultations, no sustainable actions have been implemented to build trust amongst victims and to follow a genuine victim-centred approach. The civil space and civil societies mostly remain extractive. 

Dr Kaushalya, discussing the narrative setting, explained that not only whose voice is recorded but also who does the recording matters. Prospective interviewers who want to interview people in the North-East lack knowledge of the perspectives people living there hold. When the victim-survivor is not given a voice, the narrator appropriates their stories. Both books, particularly their Sinhala versions, are valuable because they amplify the voices of the victim-survivors, focusing not only on the events but also on the experience and details.

2. Tamil Rights and Political Shift

Ms. Mathuri Thamilmaran answered the question about the continued impact of past experiences, particularly human rights violations, on the Tamil polity’s engagement with the state. She points out that Tamil voters fall under five broader camps:

1. Voters discontented with Tamil politicians who they believe have bartered away their rights for material benefits;
2. Those who think no progress has been made by Tamil politicians vis-à-vis autonomy and justice; 
3. Those who look for economic stability and rebuilding. Given that more than 40 years of struggle have set them back economically, they want some kind of progress that addresses the corruption and economy;
4. A new generation of voters who did not experience war. For them, the economic crisis is the prevailing and pressing crisis; 
5. Issue-based voters and voters who do not generally vote for Tamil nationalistic parties. 

Despite this divergence, Tamil political aspirations are still linked to self-determination, autonomy and accountability, and as long as Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism exists, Tamil nationalism will also continue to exist in one form or another as a counter.

Ms. Ambika Satkunanathan spoke of the perceived change in the government and what it means for human rights. She pointed out that although the narrative is to paint the National People’s Power (NPP) as progressive, the NPP is dominated by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), which is comprised of many Sinhala-Buddhist hardliners. She listed the actions that JVP took in the past based on ethnic lines, such as opposing the peace process of 2002, spreading misinformation about the peace process amongst the rural populations (saying it would divide the country), being part of the Rajapaksa government during the war and voicing against war crime accountability. The perception that JVP has progressed is belied by the following actions: trying to shoe-horn accountability into mere truth, using the same tactics the previous governments used in the name of public security, dodging the question of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and clearly saying no federal solution will be on the table. In truth, the current government too panders to racism and bigotry instead of addressing them. She called upon civil societies to be critical instead of passively praising the government.

3. Transitional Justice: Suspended Process & Future Prospects

The question then shifted to the future prospects of the transitional justice mechanisms and how the current government will approach them. Anushani shared that given the past experience and loss of trust – in government but also in civil societies for not building inclusive platforms – most victim-survivor communities in the North-East do not want the proposed Commission on Truth, Unity and Reconciliation. She said it was callous to ask communities that have continued to face failure, have been ignored and oppressed, to continue to trust the domestic process, and the call for participation from the Southern civil societies demonstrates that they are disconnected from the ground realities in the North-East. She said building trust has to come first, which can be done by fulfilling the Tamil polity’s basic demands, such as releasing occupied lands, refraining from appropriating more land, giving answers to families of the disappeared, and releasing political prisoners. She closed off by saying that Tamil victim-survivors are aware that accountability at international fora such as the ICC is not realistic, but they persist in their demands because they have no other option as neither the government nor civil societies listen to them. 

Ms Ambika, echoing the sentiments of Anushani, said the perceived political shift is not real as far as transitional justice is concerned. For a Southern political party to address accountability meaningfully would mean committing political suicide. Still, the pressure has to be mounted.

4. Justice in a Shifting Global Human Rights Space

Ms Ambika answered the final question on justice at the international level that Tamils demand. Impunity prevails, and the international order is crumbling before our own eyes. The impunity that prevails in relation to atrocities being committed in Gaza is strengthening the ‘Asian’ value argument to human rights that emphasises socio-economic rights over civil and political rights, and that the West is hypocritical in advocating for human rights. Despite this, boycotting or non-engagement tactics at the international level is a privilege – a privilege that the Tamils do not have. The feasible option for the time being is advocating for the UN member states to invoke universal jurisdiction. For that, documenting evidence under the auspices of the UN would be helpful. Civil societies can play a proactive role in gathering and preserving documents and testimonies.

Remnants of Mullivaikkal: Exhibit

15 years on the Mullivaikkal landscape has, shattered throughout it, remnants of belongings Tamil communities held onto until the end; artefacts that suspend Tamil community’s collective trauma in a place and time, their endurance cutting through attempts to use the passage of time to erase Tamil community’s histories and lived experiences. Some of such remnants collected from Mullivaikkal were exhibited.