ISSUES

Peace process in rough seas

By Frederica Jansz

Speaking 24 hours after the Sri Lanka navy killed 11 LTTE cadres and destroyed a ship belonging to the LTTE, the Tiger Chief Negotiator Anton Balasingham lashed out bitterly at President Chandrika Kumaratunga.

Speaking at the LTTE's Peace Secretariat in Wanni, he told The Sunday Leader that this incident would justify the LTTE going back to war. He said however, "we are determined to prove that we are fully committed to this peace process."

Angry reaction

Exactly a week before the sixth round of peace negotiations, the incident once more provoked an angry reaction from the LTTE as they plan a form of protest and insist the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) take the government to task.

Having said this, Balasingham maintains however that if Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had authority over Navy Commander, Daya Sandagiri this incident would have been prevented. Sandagiri, Balasingham charged is scared  of President Chandrika Kumaratunga who is commander in chief of the armed forces. He accused the President of deliberately destabilising the peace process for petty political gain.

The fact of the matter however is that President Chandrika Kumaratunga on this occasion at least,  herself was totally unaware of this incident until two and a half hours after the vessel had been destroyed. Hearing about the incident only at 12.45 p.m. on the afternoon news broadcast, the President had telephoned Daya Sandagiri who was at Prof. G. L. Peiris's residence at the time,  together with Defence Secretary, Austin Fernando, giving them a brief on what had happened. Explaining to the President what had led to the navy opening fire on the LTTE vessel, Kumaratunga has responded requesting the naval chief to submit a detailed report to her on the incident.

The navy last Monday, March 10, at around 7.45 a.m. began trailing a ship which they had received information was carrying arms and ammunition.  When the vessel was 195 miles off the northeast coast of Sri Lanka the navy had requested the ship to halt and demanded to board the vessel.  Members from the LTTE Sea Tiger  unit  were on board and had refused permission. 

According to Anton Balasingham the Sea Tigers  had by this time radioed LTTE headquarters in Kilinochchi and explained their position.  Balasingham charges that the ship at the time of the incident was in international waters, 220 nautical miles off the northeast coast. He claims the ship was a merchant vessel.  

The navy however states the incident took place some 195 miles off the northeast coast and within Sri Lanka's exclusive economic zone. Naval intelligence had initially received information that a ship loaded with arms and ammunition was headed towards Mullaitivu. A senior naval officer who requested anonymity said usually such information is transmitted via Interpol. He added that LTTE merchant vessels never dock at Mullaitivu and the Tigers are known to bring in to Mullaitivu only vessels carrying weapons for the movement.

Inevitable

Defence Secretary Austin Fernando said the exact quantity of weapons on board is not known as after having fired at the ship the vessel had exploded and sunk.  At 10.30 a.m. on Monday the 10th, Navy Commander Daya Sandagiri in writing informed the government of the incident, saying the LTTE vessel had sunk and 11 of its cadres had been killed.  Sandagiri in his report asserts the incident was inevitable after the Tigers on board the vessel has opened fire at the naval gun boat. 

Balasingham meanwhile angrily asserted that if the government can continue to modernise its military forces by purchasing arms, ammunition and vehicles then the LTTE too should be allowed to do so.  He argued that according to the ceasefire agreement it is specifically stated that an equal balance of power between the two sides must be maintained at all times during negotiations.

A government official however pointed out that while this maybe Balasingham's interpretation of the agreement, Clause 1.7 states very specifically that any side found to be carrying arms, ammunition and explosives in the other's territory will be in clear violation of the agreement.  He pointed out that the ship when halted, was undoubtedly in Sri Lanka's territorial waters.

  Asked why representatives from the SLMM had not been taken to the scene of confrontation he said, since the navy did not know when it received its information that the vessel concerned belonged to the LTTE, the SLMM had not been informed.  The navy's information in the beginning only said a vessel loaded with arms and ammunition was headed towards Mullaitivu.  The information did not specify if the vessel belonged to the LTTE, he said.

Balasingham meanwhile asserts the ship does belong to the Tigers  but was only a merchant vessel.  A senior legal expert in the government countered that every merchant vessel observing maritime law would carry a flag, a call sign and would not be armed. This vessel had neither a flag stating its country of ownership or a call sign. The fact that the mystery ship had fired at the naval gun boat proves the vessel did carry some quantity of weapons on board.  There is no official record of this ship having made a declaration of arms and ammunition at its point of origin.

The government says it is unaware as to the point of origin of the ship or the exact quantity of weapons and ammunition it might have carried on board.  Balasingham too told The Sunday Leader he does not know where the ship came from or what items it carried. Naval intelligence however had information there was  equipment for four light aircraft 133mm guns on board this vessel.

The government meanwhile says since the incident took place nearly 200 miles off the northeast coast it would have taken over 24 hours to get representatives from the SLMM to the location.  Before any arrangements could be made to bring international monitors to the scene, within a time frame of less than three  hours the incident was over following an exchange of gun fire between the navy and the LTTE cadres on board the mystery ship.

The government is of the view the navy has not contravened regulations of the ceasefire agreement but were forced to open fire when the Tiger ship refused to allow the navy to board the ship for a search but had instead shot at the naval gun boat.  The navy had full permission from Navy Commander Daya Sandagiri to open fire at the LTTE ship.

Eight days before peace talks were to begin in Japan, the incident has once more rocked the negotiations. Frantic attempts by Norwegian facilitators to maintain the negotiations by Friday, had only a tentative response from the LTTE, that they would participate in the sixth round of negotiations.

Strongly worded letter

Norway's Deputy Foreign Minister Vidar Helgessen met with Balasingham and the LTTE's Political Wing Leader, S. P. Thamilchelvan in Kilinochchi last Thursday to discuss the situation and pleaded with the LTTE not to pull out of negotiations with the government.  The Norwegians insisted that such matters can be resolved only through discussion.

In a strongly worded letter to Defence Minister Tilak Marapone, Thamilchelvan meanwhile condemned the attack in which another 11 LTTE cadres were killed as "a grave violation of the ceasefire agreement."

He warned that this incident would have far reaching implications for the peace process and asked Marapone to convey the LTTE's deep displeasure to the government.

New twists to 'catchers' drama

By Dilrukshi Handunnetti

The shame of the Ministers' Private Secretaries Association (MPSA) continues to plague the government, despite all the rhetoric, having failed to initiate the promised audit inquiry into the accounts of the association while the missing millions still remain a mystery.

An angry Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe having called for the dissolution of the corrupt body which in his own words has "shamed a government committed to transparency," had his cup brimming in late February when his former Personal Security Officer (PSO) turned Private Secretary, Sudath Chandrasekara got embroiled in the sordid saga as the president of the controversial association. As the controversy grew, Chandrasekara resigned three weeks ago claiming he had completed his term of office as president.

Trouble began when the accounts of the Polonnaruwa carnival organised by Navoda Lanka, an offshoot of the MPSA became highly questionable. According to the four- paged balance sheet that did not disclose detailed accounts, the total expenditure amounted to Rs. 6,088,790.24 while the income amounted to Rs. 5,623,700.75

While Chandrasekera's role is being questioned as the person who authorised a series of cheques while the accounts showed a glaring lack of funds, the saga seems to continue with attempts being made to befriend the media to block further reporting.

But this is one scandal that may not completely die off ever. Authoritative UNF sources confirmed that a top businessman cum casino owner had written to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe on March 7, disclaiming that he had received a cheque amounting to Rs. 395,000 for furniture provided to the MPSA headquarters at Bauddhaloka Mawatha.

(Our repeated attempts to contact the person concerned on the telephone failed) 

The businessman cum casino king, who is known to be a friend to both the ruling UNF and the PA, has reportedly donated the furniture to the MPSA several months ago. It has recently transpired that the association has drawn a cheque in favour of Chandrasekera for a sum of Rs. 400,000 for furniture purchased for the headquarters.

Never received money

A key UNF official told The Sunday Leader that the letter handed over to the Premier stated that the furniture was a gift and as such, the businessman had no wish to accept money as settlement, and that he had never received money.

A senior UNP official disclosed that the donor was embarrassed to learn that his name too has transpired in the episode and that money had been released in his name, whereas his was a gift and at no time was he offered money for the furniture provided.

Another issue that has emerged is the purchasing of a dental chair to be donated during the Navoda Lanka carnival held last year. It is alleged that a cheque worth Rs. 250,000 had been issued for the dental chair worth Rs. 50,000.

When contacted, MPSA Treasurer P. Samarasinghe said that he was unable to furnish details over the telephone, but cheques were issued only on the instructions of the president of the association.

As the plot thickened, the Prime Minister has instructed that the bungalow that housed the MPSA be handed over immediately. The luxury bus used by Wickremesinghe for election campaigns and temporarily used by the MPSA has also been recalled and Finance Minister K.N. Choksy has been instructed to cancel the liquor permit issued to the association. The MPSA operated a fully equipped bar at the Bauddhaloka Mawatha headquarters until its dissolution. 

The key allegation when the controversy broke out was the strange disappearance of Rs. 9 million, raised at a fund raising exhibition and carnival held in Polonnaruwa last December. Deepening the controversy, Chandrasekera asserted that the profit yielded was only a modest Rs. 2.2 million. As the missing millions began making headlines, Chandrasekera swiftly removed himself from the office of president, blaming the special committee handling finances and the treasurer for the controversy.

Rising criticism

While Chandrasekera claims that Polonnaruwa made a net profit of Rs.2.2 million, there are those who allege that Rs. 11 million was raised: which leads to the vital question of the missing millions, nine to be exact. And new twists are being added to the tale every moment.

And there is rising criticism of the role of the Prime Minister himself. JVP spokesman Wimal Weerawansa told The Sunday Leader that he would like to make a prediction. "The MPSA was dissolved and that is the end of the story. No audit inquiry will be held, and the culprits will go scot free as they are close confidants of the Premier." His contention is that this is a classic case of "horage ammagen pena ahanawa."

"The Prime Minister cannot afford to take action against Chandrasekera, who has been more powerful than most government politicians. At one time, he decided on portfolios, party programmes, selected participants for talk shows and rehearsed their speeches. He has always been the invisible hand behind Wickremesinghe," observes Weerawansa who predicts that like other areas of non-action despite lofty pledges, the Chandrasekera saga too would be swept under the carpet

However it was the Prime Minister who initiated action in this issue and called for an audit query in addition to cancelling the liquor licence as well as taking over the official bungalow and the bus. But for a hungry opposition the conduct of the Secretaries' Association will be grist to their anti Wickremesinghe campaign mill and will seek to pin the blame on him, ignoring the fact that it was the Prime Minister who initiated action into the whole ugly episode. Therefore it is in the interest of the Prime Minister and the government to ensure a speedy investigation into this incident and to ensure that heads roll.

However, Chandrasekera sympathisers claim that the association was doing well which made many people vie for the top post, hence the tragic end of the movement.

Some were even bold enough to state that the media is attempting to discredit the government and its officials in a covert attempt to assist the People's Alliance to come into power.

If this be the trend with inaction as the hallmark, who says anyone needs to assist others to come into power? What the UNF does to itself is good enough to bring the regime crashing down and pave the way for another. It is no longer a simple question of missing millions, scandals involving dental chairs and furniture, but one that involves the credibility and transparency of the government. Over to you Mr. Ranil 'Clean.' Wickremesinghe to put your house in order.

* * *

Convergent insult to our collective intelligence

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple. Modern life would be very tedious if it were either, and modern literature a complete impossibility"

- Oscar Wilde

By D.B.S. Jeyaraj

Last week's maritime incident off the north - eastern coast of Mullaitivu - Trincomalee has once again highlighted the polarisation prevalent on either side of the ethnic divide. The overwhelming belief as far as the majority community is concerned is that the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN) had acted well within its rights in destroying a Tiger ship allegedly transporting arms.

With important ministers of the United National Front government proclaiming justification and endorsement of the naval action and sections of the southern media going 'jaya wewa' lustily the 'official' version trotted out directly and indirectly seems to be the accepted one.

On the other hand it is the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) perspective of the incident that is being projected to the Tamil speaking people. Given the powerful grip of the Tigers on the Tamil media scene there is very little room for a differing viewpoint, however miniscule.

Against that backdrop both sides provide versions of the controversial incident at sea that are contradictory to each other. Each side is primarily interested in catering to its own constituency and convincing it. The secondary focus is on that fluid and often over rated commodity known as international opinion.

The objective therefore is to 'spin' the story to derive particular advantage rather than furnish the truth. This goal in a perverse way unites both sides. There is a convergence of interests here namely to obfuscate the whole truth. In that process a convergent insult is delivered to the collective intelligence of the nation. We, the people of this island are being short changed, but accept everything unquestioningly because of the pervasive 'us - them' syndrome that colours our judgement.

Let us begin with the various explanations provided by, and at times on behalf of, the navy. This comprises direct narratives and indirect 'leaks' planted systematically in the media. The essence of this viewpoint is that the navy received information about a Tiger ship smuggling in arms and accosted it.The ship in question was not flying any flag and failing to ascertain its identity the navy attacked and destroyed it.There were no survivors

As each day passed fresh pieces of information were made available in the 'patriotic' media. This was not merely a case of the media working hard and uncovering further information but a very deliberate exercise with a specific goal. It was aimed at whitewashing the navy of any faults and providing ample justification for the destruction. Each additional piece of information sought to cover up loopholes in earlier versions and fortify the case for the navy.A minute point by point analysis of this 'information' campaign would be space consuming. A brief examination of some salient aspects would suffice to illustrate this pattern.

Shifting locations

The earlier reports said that the incident occurred 240 nautical miles away from the coast. A second report said it was 220. Finally a third one said it was 185 miles. Now given the state of the art equipment available in naval vessels and the much flaunted "expertise" of our marine lions it is hard to believe that the navy could not gauge the exact position of where the incident took place. Even vessels plying the oceans in the 19th century could maintain log books with minimal margin of error despite the comparatively primitive instruments available then.

If the navy was indeed genuine in requiring at least three vastly differing estimates to specify its exact operational position then the hard truth is that the SLN personnel involved are numbskulls. Vessels ignorant of their bearings on such a colossal scale can hardly be expected to sail the turbulent seas safely.But then we all know that our navy is an efficient outfit. Not only are they masters of the sea but also of the land. The navy's competence has been regarded so highly that they are deployed on land too in areas like Trincomalee and the off shore islands to supplement and often supplant the army.

Besides, the track record of the navy has been so good that its Commander Daya Sandagiri's tenure of service received an unprecedented three year extension. Although President Chandrika Kumaratunga was responsible for this the government of Ranil Wickremesinghe accepted it without protest.

A navy with such an impressive progress chart does not make elementary mistakes about maritime locations. While a margin of error is always there it can certainly never have been on a large scale. If this premise that our navy does not comprise inefficient landlubbers is accepted, the corollary that follows is that the locational variants provided were deliberate.  In that context what seems plausible is that belated advice of a legal nature has been provided and it is that which is causing all this. When it was first anounced that the incident had occurred 240 nautical miles away a Sri Lanka Monitoring  Mission (SLMM) spokesperson interviewed by the BBC opined that if it were so the incident would have occurred in international waters and that the navy would have been at fault.

The updated version therefore that the incident occurred 185 nautical miles away places the navy in a better light. This figure places the incident within the 200 mile economic zone limit of Sri Lanka. This provides some legitimacy to the navy's action although it would have been best from the naval viewpoint for everything to have happened within our territorial waters. But then everything is not perfect and the 'locational revision' provides some legality at least.

One is not sure of how the Sri Lankan judiciary would react but in countries like India, the action of the navy in destroying an alien ship suspected of ferrying arms would not be tolerated. The best example for it is the fate of "Ahat" the ship in which former LTTE Jaffna Commander Sathasivampillai Krishnakumar alias Kittu was travelling. After protracted legalities the Indian courts ruled that the Indian Navy had acted "illegally" in trying to seize a ship in international waters.

International waters

Against that backdrop, the navy destroying a ship in international waters would have been a serious illegality. Moreover it would be further compounded by the on going ceasefire between The government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE. It is reasonable to surmise then that the confrontation did really take place in international waters and that the navy had violated both international law and the ceasefire.

A telling clue in this regard is the conduct of the navy in not taking the international monitors to the scene after detecting the 'offending' ship. Even if the monitors did not board the ship they could have at least confirmed that the vessel was in Lanka's economic zone. The navy that usually ferries monitors to pinpoint LTTE transgressions was conspicuously lax in this case. Why?

Furthermore there is growing suspicion that the navy attacked and destroyed the Tiger ship before the monitors arrived on the scene. The LTTE in the Wanni had communicated with the SLMM and had been reassured that the monitors would be visiting the scene and that there was nothing to worry if the ship was indeed in international waters.The destruction therefore has eliminated that. Also the navy is refusing to specify the exact location of the ship and deploy divers to recover the massive arsenal the vessel was supposedly carrying. Why? Is it because the navy would be proven to be at definite fault then?

Question of indentification

There were other troubling questions too. Was not the navy rash and perhaps foolhardily brave in taking on at mid sea an unidentified ship purportedly carrying "warlike materials" ? Given the times we are living in such a ship could have been anybody's, ranging from the al Qaeda to a member state of the "evil axis." Attacking and destroying such an unknown ship was even more brave. Nevertheless pointedly embarassing questions could have been raised later.More importantly some innocent ship too could have been attacked.

This possibility too got eliminated as subsequent pieces of information were posted in friendly media organs. Apparently the SLN "Sayura" nee "Sarayu" had Tamil fluent personnel on board and there had been communication with the unknown ship in Tamil. It was even known that the ship commander was Lt. Col Vijayan of the LTTE. This conveniently publicised information removed the likelihood of the navy being asked about how sure they were that the ship they attacked was a Tiger ship? The navy had conversed and ascertained that it was indeed a Tiger ship. Of course this weakened the earlier assertion that the attacked ship was unidentifiable. But then a known devil is always better ain't it?

With the issues of location and identity being removed temporarily at least through courtesy of friendly media let us go to the third factor. How sure was the navy of warlike material being in the ship? After all even a 23 mm gun had been dismantled into three pieces and concealed cleverly by the Tigers in a fishing trawler earlier. How on earth did the navy know that the ship in question had arms and ammunition?

Again the friendly media came to the rescue. The intelligence of our navy was truly mind boggling. They had precise details. Who knows, in the next few days we may even see copies of the manifest retrieved from Davy Jones locker.With such exact details, almost everyone this side of Vavuniya were convinced that it was a Tiger ship carrying arms.

If that was not enough we had some more details throwing fresh light on the issue. Apparently the earlier version of the navy stumbling on the ship and challenging it was all wrong. The navy had prior information of such a ship's movement and had targetted it in a well coordinated manoeuvre. In fact this was the "mystery" ship about which we heard a lot earlier. The phantom vessel had been well and truly destroyed. So now the case was complete.Location, identity and content of the ship was complete lock, stock and barrel. The trial by media is over and the people can now swallow the verdict hook, line and sinker.

Assuming that all these reports were correct and that the ship had indeed been an acknowledged Tiger vessel carrying arms in Lankan waters a question arises as to why the navy did not capitalise on the situation in a different way. If there was prior information of location and cargo then the navy could have apprehended the ship and taken the monitors there? This would have indicted the LTTE conclusively. In the absence of a conclusive answer one is constrained to suspect that much of the self - serving reports being dished out to the patriotically friendly media is patently false.

The other side

If this is the state of the 'official' version the 'unofficial' version of the LTTE too lacks credibility and conviction. While it may be correct that the ship was actually in international waters the Tiger contention that it was only a cargo ship carrying fuel seems hollow. Even though the glib details of arms and ammunition supposedly in the ship as provided by sections of the patriotic media seem too good to be true, the explanation provided by the Tigers too appears unreal.No one could be definite about the cargo but it certainly was not what the LTTE claims it to have been.

The pointed gesture of LTTE Leader Velupillai Prabhakaran boycotting the meeting with Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister Vidar Helgessen is an indicator of the Tiger chief's mood. The Tamil grapevine is humming with news that Lt. Col Vijayan was a personal favourite of the supremo. Also some of the 11 men on board were cadres returning from abroad after getting specialised training in the aeronautical sphere. Interestingly the LTTE up to the morning of March 14, had not released the names of those killed although elaborate functions bemoaning their loss were being staged in the north. It is felt that the cargo in the ship was not arms or ammunition but aeronautical equipment and spareparts.

Indian connection?

In the absence of tangible and credible information rumours were circulating at high speed. One such related to India. Despite media reports that the navy had obtained information about the ship from "local" sources it is an open secret that the tip off, like in many earlier instances, was from our big neighbour whose utter dislike of the LTTE is universally acknowledged. Rumour however had it that the Indian role was much greater. It was being stated in Tamil circles that it was the Indian navy that had destroyed the ship. A parallel cited was the Tiger ship "Comex Vous" in 1996 that was allegedly destroyed by the Indian navy stationed at Visakhapatnam.

While these improbable rumours testified to the depth of Tamil emotions, LTTE theoretician Anton Balasingham charged India publicly of providing information to Sri Lankan authorities about the ship. He made these comments at the ceremonial opening of a Tiger "appeal court" in Kilinochchi in the presence of an impressive array of LTTE key figures.

Balasingham and political wing chief Thamilchelvan took up the issue in meetings with the Norwegians. Balasingham pointed out that the ceasefire agreement debarred offensive operations by the navy. He argued that the navy's role in protecting Sri Lanka's sovereignity during the ceasefire was not to attack but only to enlist the SLMM in preventing such threats. He also claimed that the ship was a merchant vessel carrying inoffensive cargo and travelling in international waters.

Balasingham also denied that the ship was unlicensed , nameless and not flying a flag. He claimed it was a duly registered vessel. The Tiger ideologue could not say what the cargo was and the exact destination. Balasingham however made a very valid point by citing Colombo media reports about the navy having prior information. "if so the navy should have alerted the monitors" he said. Balasingham contended that the navy having knowledge of an LTTE run merchant vessel had deliberately destroyed it. This was unacceptable during a ceasefire and constituted a grave violation he charged.

While the LTTE is indignant about the episode and adopts an air of aggrieved innocence there are reasonable grounds to doubt its bona fides on this issue.The LTTE may be correct in saying that the ship was in international waters and that the naval action was high handed. It's credibility however is somewhat eroded in saying the ship was only a merchant vessel. The Tigers would do themselves and the Tamil cause immense good if they divulge in detail all particulars about the ship. This will enhance its reputation and deliver a body blow to its detractors.

A fragile ceasefire

What is saddening after more than a year of the ceasefire is the knowledge of its fragility. Instead of mutual confidence being established the warring sides are as estranged as ever. The focus is on scoring brownie points about the letter of the ceasefire agreement being violated or not violated while its spirit has been irredeemably harmed.Contributing to this deplorable state of affairs is the convergence of interests on both sides to present a distorted picture of developments that insults the collective intelligence of the people.

Meanwhile as pointed out ad nauseam in these columns the sea remains an area of potential conflict because the original ceasefire agreement draft failed to incorporate specific guidelines in this respect.The compromise arrived at was to let the general provision about the Sri Lankan armed forces having the right to "perform their legitimate task of safeguarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka from external aggression" remain in the agreement. These columns spotlighted this danger and observed on February 24, 2002 that the "Achilles heel" of the ceasefire agreement was the sea. The need of the hour is to draw up satisfactory procedures governing maritime movement in the future. Only this could prevent a collapse of the ceasefire.

      Right of reply         

Prof. Goonesekere on
'A university's shame'

A fortnight ago we carried an article by Frederica Jansz entitled "A University's Shame." Today we carry in full the response by Prof. Savithri Goonesekere, former Vice Chancellor, Colombo University

The Editor

The Sunday Leader

Dear Sir,

I am writing with reference to the feature article titled "A University's Shame," by Frederica Jansz in The Sunday Leader of March 2, 2003.

This article, which contains some accurate facts does not mention other facts which are as important. Jansz concludes with an attack on the former council of the Colombo University and me personally, as the former vice chancellor of the university.

I respect Frederica Jansz as a journalist  and appreciate her commitment to investigative journalism. However, I am surprised that she has obtained the views of the two professors concerned, but did not trouble to verify with me events that she purports to describe so authoritatively in her article. I shall be grateful if your newspaper will, even at this late stage, publish my account of a conflict between two professors over an appointment to an advertised post of Professor of Demography in the University of Colombo. I would like you to publish relevant facts, since Jansz's article is based only on some of them.

(1) The conflict between Prof. Sidhisena and Prof. de Silva over this appointment began even before I became Vice Chancellor. I might add that I did not and do not know either of them personally. There were allegations and counter allegations by the then Dean Dr. Arjuna Parakrama and Prof. Sidhisena on the one hand and Prof. de Silva on the other, regarding the advertisement for the post. My predecessor  Prof. W. D. Lakshman had decided to readvertise the post. I looked into the matter and decided to stand by Prof. Lakshman's decision, made in the interests of ensuring that all qualified applicants had an opportunity to apply for the chair.

(2) Prof. Sidhisena was on sabbatical leave when the process of evaluation of publications was completed. He requested a deferment of the interview for the post, and this was done.

The selection committee, which consisted of persons duly appointed by the University Senate and Council, followed the usual procedure and interviewed the candidates and considered their credentials. The selection committee decided that Prof. de Silva was the best candidate for the advertised post. The University of Colombo also follows a practice of recommending to the council the promotion of a person to a chair, if it is found that he/she has reached the appropriate standard, since 'merit promotions' to chairs are also allowed.

Consequently, the selection committee decided that Prof. Sidhisena be recommended for a chair on merit, personal to the holder.

(3) Shortly before this recommendation was confirmed by the council, Prof. Sidhisena sent a letter to me, alleging that Prof. de Silva had 'raped' a post-graduate student, whose thesis he had supervised. Prof. Sidhisena annexed what purported to be a letter from the former student, in which she implied sexual misconduct by Prof. de Silva. I had not, upto that time received any complaint of rape of a student, though the incident was said to have taken place in the Faculty of Arts many months before. Dr. Parakrama also wrote to me, criticising the selection committee decision, and alleging plagiarism in respect of some articles submitted by Prof. de Silva in support of his appointment.

(4) I discussed these developments with the Dean/Arts Prof. S. Hettige, and we reported these matters to the council. Several council members remarked that the very serious allegation of rape of a student  in the Arts Faculty, several months ago, had been made against Prof. de Silva only after the selection committee's decision. However, it was agreed that we should conduct inquiries into these matters, and defer confirmation of the professorial appointments. It was decided to refer Dr. Parakrama's comments on some of the publications of Prof. de Silva to a subject expert in demography. It was also decided to have an inquiry into the allegation of 'rape' or sexual misconduct made by the student. An allegation of rape or sexual harassment, if true, was considered grave enough to warrant termination.

(5) A preliminary inquiry into the allegation of  sexual misconduct was held by two very senior academics, one, from outside the university. The former student, though  requested to appear before the committee, failed to do so. She however wrote a letter, which I forwarded to the committee, alleging that she had been harassed and intimidated by certain persons and forced to make false allegations implicating Prof. de Silva. The inquiry committee considered these matters and reported that there was no evidence to establish sexual misconduct, or rape against Prof. de Silva. Meanwhile, the expert opinion on the articles was also sent to me. There was a finding that some publications impugned were independent contributions of Prof. de Silva. However, one publication was said to contain material very close to that of a research student of Prof. de Silva. It was suggested that even if Dr. de Silva was the supervisor, and this student had benefited from this research collaboration, as Prof. de Silva claimed, there should have been an acknowledgment of the contribution of the research student.

(6) I placed both these reports before the council.  After a lengthy discussion, the council decided that the failure to make an acknowledgment in this publication in the circumstances did not justify a refusal to confirm the selection committee's recommendation on the ground of plagiarism. The allegation of sexual misconduct was not accepted in view of the committee's report. The council therefore (as I recall, one Dean dissenting on the issue of publications) decided to confirm the appointments of Prof. de Silva as Professor of Demography, and Prof. Sidhisena's merit professorship. It was also decided to refer the non-acknowledgment of sources in the publication to the Ethics Committee of the university which is a standing committee of the senate that considers issues of violation of ethics in research.

(7) The Ethics Committee which I chaired as vice chancellor considered the matter as well as a separate allegation of a violation by Prof. de Silva of ethics in research supervision. The post-graduate research student who had made the allegation of sexual misconduct had been found to have violated examination standards by copying Prof. de Silva's published work, and it was alleged that he had not acted appropriately as a supervisor. We decided to appoint a committee of outsiders chaired by Prof. Swarna Jayaweera as stated in Jansz's article. The student was once again requested to come before the committee, but did not do so.

(8) The Swarna Jayaweera committee report that Jansz refers to was considered and discussed in the senate and the council. The finding was not one of plagiarism, but not acknowledging a research student's work in a publication, and permitting use of his own work by a research student without acknowledgment. It is correct that as Jansz reports, two senior deans dissented, but the council by a majority took the view that plagiarism that warranted a review of the appointment had not been established. They majority however, found fault with Prof. de Silva's conduct in supervision of research and in failing to acknowledge another research student's work in a publication by him. Accordingly, a letter conveying the council's decision was sent to him and recorded in his personal file.

(9) Some time later, the research student who had alleged  sexual misconduct by Prof. de Silva once again made these allegations and sent some letters to me. I was prepared to go into this matter again, though she had left the university. A senior dean was requested to scrutinise these letters, which were hand written in a scrawl and very difficult to decipher. She reported to me and the Dean's Committee that the correspondence suggested a consensual relationship that despite the writer's expectation, had not culminated in marriage. Almost simultaneously, I received another letter from this student requesting that I should disregard her second complaint, and giving reasons that prompted her to write the last letter.

(10) The council considered whether to have a further inquiry into the student's allegation of intimidation. In view of the fact that the student concerned had repeatedly failed to attend inquiries and made inconsistent allegations, it was decided that nothing would be achieved by having a further inquiry. However, I was requested by the council to inform Prof. Sidhisena that the allegation of rape had not been established, and the council's views in this regard. Accordingly a letter was sent to Prof. Sidhisena.

(11) These incidents took place almost one and a half years ago. I am reliably informed that the vice chancellor has recently appointed Prof. Sidhisena as Acting Head of Department.

If allegations of sexual misconduct against Prof. de Silva have been made, I am sure the present vice chancellor will take suitable action. The University Council and Senate adopted a code on sexual harassment during my tenure. It also adopted a code of ethics in research to address current problems of poor and unethical research supervision and acknowledgment of research work. The codes follow norms of due process and also encourage and support students and staff to act with honesty and courage in making complaints, and in obtaining redress, particularly on sexual harassment.

In conclusion, I would like to say that all the actions taken on this matter were transparent within the university fora, and the connected documents are available. Jansz and the public should know that management decisions in a university are never easy, and there are occasions when they are made by a majority, after debate and careful deliberation. It is incorrect to allege sinister motives to me, and the council of eminent men and women that I had the privilege of chairing as vice chancellor. I indicated this to Dr. Arjuna Parakrama in my reply to his letter of resignation, which I accepted with regret, after several unsuccessful efforts to persuade him not to resign. I maintained that respect for differences in view point on management decisions is an important dimension of our work in a university's administrative and academic bodies.

It is in this spirit that I acknowledge that Jansz may disagree with the decisions taken by the former Council of the University of Colombo which I chaired. She is wrong, as a responsible, journalist, to make damaging statements on 'a shameful cover up' of grave misconduct, and what she describes as 'rot within the University of Colombo.'

Professor S. Goonesekere

The Sunday Leader replies:

We reiterate our position that the fact Prof. Savitri Goonesekere went ahead with appointing Prof. Indralal de Silva to the Chair of the Demography Department is indeed a shameful cover up of grave misconduct.  As pointed out in our article, which is amply complemented with documentary proof, two independent reports on this issue found Prof. de Silva guilty of plagiarism.  Under any circumstances an allegation of plagiarism is extremely serious, but it is all the more so in a university context where academic integrity and respect for intellectual property are among the cornerstones of the profession. Prof. Goonesekere in her capacity as vice chancellor at the time decided together with the University Council that even though there was evidence of unacknowledged borrowing or plagiarism in this case, this was not unacceptable and did not deter the appointment of a senior academic to be appointed to the highest position of academic merit within the university system. This is deplorable to say the least. In addition, Prof. Goonesekere failed in her duty not only as vice chancellor but as a champion for women's rights to address with sincerity and compassion a serious allegation of rape involving a female student and Prof. Indralal de Silva. We once more reiterate our view that in this context it would appear that global good governance, international gender sensitivity and the end of discrimination against women are all much easier to articulate than plain old decency and fairness at one's own workplace.  Surely, summoning a suspected rape victim before an inquiry board is not the way in which to handle an alleged rape.