Following Dr Neelan Thiruchelvam’s assassination several writers have expressed their opinion regarding its rights and wrongs (under the assumption that the perpetrators are the LTTE). I would also like to chip in with my two cents worth (I have lived outside of Sri Lanka since I was one; I am in my late twenties now.)

I will not attempt to discuss the specifics of the impact Dr Thiruchelvam’s work over the past few years has had on the lives of those in the North and East. This is for the simple reason that I do not possess sufficient knowledge from which to base any comment. Rather, I will give my overall views of the incident and my reasons for them, and by implication discuss why my views are not directly in line with those espoused by some others. In particular, much has been made of Dr Thiruchelvam’s status as an intellectual and politician. I would like to raise two points in regard to this:

Firstly, it is not his status per se which is the issue, or his views for that matter, but rather his actions. This (probably) comes down to his involvement in the development of the 'devolution' package with the PA government.

Because that process has involved so much backroom politicking, and because the process has involved an insufficient amount of consultation with the parties and peoples involved, there is certainly a question as to whether that process has put certain group's interests ahead of others. Whether his actions in this regard warrant criticism, let alone a cold blooded killing, is a vexed question (does not recent history show that 'respected' states are not averse to assassinations along these lines?). Certainly any explanation in this respect would require a very careful and detailed argument. By the same token, any call for an unthinking condemnation of the killing is as intellectually and morally vacuous as the out of hand condemnation of any and all acts of 'terrorism'. In both cases and rights and wrongs must be set against the rights and wrongs of the wider political and military situation. Without this conceptualization (both locally and globally), statements should be viewed with suspicion. I have not seen convincing arguments that the assassination is acceptable (morally or strategically), or that it requires condemnation.

Secondly, there is the question as to whether Dr Thiruchelvam’s killing should provoke a stronger moral outrage than that for others who are killed during the conflict in Sri Lanka. I think not.

Dr Thiruchelvam sought to change the course of events in the conflict in the directions he thought best. This does not by any means make him necessarily guilty, but it does require his actions and motivations to be placed under the same scrutiny as any other player in the political/military arena.

On the other hand, the civilians in the North and East have been herded, starved, raped, tortured and murdered with a singular impunity for many years. All of which has occurred without any ability on their part to decide their own political destiny. Thus, it is beyond question that the civilians of the North and East are innocent and that the treatment they have received is wrong, whereas the case of Dr Thiruchelvam’s assassination is less clear cut. It is for this reason I believe the human rights abuses against the civilians of the North and East should provoke greater moral outrage.

The high profile nature of Dr Thiruchelvam’s assassination may result, in the short term, in a higher volume of comment, but this should not obscure questions of its relative morality. The only exception would be the case where if Dr Thiruchelvam were a tireless fighter for a just peace and the rights of the down-trodden (as perceived by those in the North and East). This does not appear to be the case (although I reiterate that I am not  particularly qualified to be passing such judgments).

Finally, it is perhaps worth recalling the wisdom that when questions of human rights abuses arise, silence is not a valid option. The assassination of Dr Thiruchelvam raises such questions. I therefore must state my position: It is not clear to me that I should defend or condemn the assassination. All that I can do, and have done, is explain the reasons for my ambivalence/ignorance.

Thanks,