Font size: 
The ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka took a sharp turn for the worse with the police forcibly transporting these Tamil people out of the city, citing security reasons. Those evicted included many women and children who had been temporarily residing in Colombo.
Government spokespersons gave a mix of reasons to explain what was happening. The most frank admission was that the evictions were wrong, but necessary in war. The argument was made that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam had infiltrated the city to carry out terrorist attacks, and most of the LTTE suspects lived in the type of lodges that were raided. Therefore, temporary residents who were Tamil and could not give an adequate reason for being in Colombo needed to be sent away. But other government spokespersons claimed that the Tamil people who were loaded onto buses and driven out of the city were leaving voluntarily, and the government had given them the benefit of free transport.
Although the number of people directly affected by the evictions was relatively small, the fact that it could occur at all highlights the ominous possibility that it could be followed up with subsequent waves of evictions. The fate of an estimated 15-20,000 Tamil people residing in lodges in Colombo hung in the balance as an immediate consequence of the eviction order. As a result the feelings of anguish, alienation and anger within the Tamil community, both in Sri Lanka and internationally, reached fever pitch.
It soon appeared that the government had no clear idea where to send the evicted people, except to the north and east. In doing so, the government was inadvertently legitimizing the notion of a Tamil homeland in the north and east. Ironically, when anti-Tamil riots broke out in Colombo and other parts of the country in 1983, the government decided to send the victims to the north and east, regardless of the ties those people had with those areas. It is doubly ironic that the Rajapaksa government, which is resolutely opposed to the Tamil homeland concept, should thus acknowledge the divided nature of the polity and confirm the argument of Tamil nationalists that the north and east of Sri Lanka is the only place that Tamils can call home.
The first evidence of active public opposition to the eviction of Tamil residents of Colombo came from public demonstrations organized by small but influential civil society groups. The demonstrations were bigger than usual, with those from private sector establishments and international organizations joining in.
The Supreme Court accepted a petition filed by one group, the Center for Policy Alternatives. In recent years, the Supreme Court's role in protecting minority rights and human rights alike has seemed to diminish. But in a decision that gives a new lease of life to those who believe in constitutional government and the role of the judiciary in checking governmental abuse of power, the Supreme Court granted interim relief, and ordered a halt to the evictions.
There have been periods in the recent violence-ridden history of the country when the Supreme Court has given people the hope that the cause of justice would be upheld even in the face of powerful and ruthless governments. The period of terror of 1988-89, when the Sinhalese nationalist group Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna launched its insurrection against the state, was one in which the majority Sinhalese population lived with the same degree of uncertainty and fear that members of the Tamil minority live with today, in the context of abductions, killings and bland denials of responsibility by all concerned. But during those very dark days there was a sense among the people and human rights defenders that the Supreme Court was on their side, even if there was not much it could do to reverse the tide of human rights abuses.
In light of the positive direction taken by the Supreme Court in its decision on the eviction of Tamils, there seems to be a new possibility for restraining the abuse of power by the government. Within hours of the Supreme Court's decision, the government announced that the evicted Tamils would be brought back from wherever they had been abandoned in the north and east. The prime minister went before the media and admitted that a big mistake had been made and expressed the government's regret to the Tamil people.
In a parallel development, President Mahinda Rajapaksa disclaimed all knowledge of the forced eviction of Tamil people from Colombo and called on the police chief, who appears to have been made the scapegoat, to submit a report on the incident. These unbelievable reversals on the part of high government authorities are an indication of the power of the judiciary to direct the government on a new path of justice and respect for human rights. They may also indicate a shift in the balance of political power.
Keeping Colombo safe from terrorist attacks, however, calls for more than treating the Tamil population in Colombo with justice and dignity. The government will need to put human rights first in other parts of the country as well, most notably in the north and east where major battles are being fought. Likewise, if the LTTE wishes to serve as the representative of the Tamil people and be treated on par with the government for purposes of negotiation, it too should adopt that same principle and refrain from acts that harm the civilian population.
--
(Jehan Perera is executive director of the National Peace Council of Sri Lanka, an independent advocacy organization. He studied economics at Harvard College and holds a doctorate in law from Harvard Law School.)
