-
Chair of the other Easter attacks report speaks on what his committee aimed to achieve
"After 1990, terrorism has changed. As described in this report, new terrorism has five main characteristics: no borders, no clear political ideology, no clear organisational structure or leader, there are no clear demands which can be met at a negotiation table, and the terrorism is motivated by a religious ideology and is usually carried out by individuals or small groups" SOC Chair and former MP Malith Jayathilake[/caption]
Why was the SOC tasked with compiling this Easter Sunday report?
In that Parliament, they introduced the oversight committee system. The current Government has removed it again. In many modern countries, oversight committees are there. There were 16 such committees in the old Government, and all of the ministries were divided into them. One committee was that of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on National Security and I was selected as the Chairman for it. The Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Law and Order, and the Ministry of Prison Reforms was monitored by us. We initiated this report on 14 May, approximately one month after the Easter Sunday attacks in 2019.
At the time, just after the attacks occurred, the environment was very different. Back then, society was focused on the special laws governing the Muslim society. Two years have passed since then. Do you remember how madrasas, burqas, and the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA) were talked about back then? During that period, since they couldn't find those responsible for the attacks, the media and society focused on these things. First was the burqa, second was the madrasas, and third was foreigners who came to do sermons in the madrasas. We spoke about 14 sectors in this report.
What is the main finding of this report?
At the outset, this report disagrees with the concept of “One Country, One Law”. That concept is quite an extreme one. We cannot implement it here because there are a number of special laws already – for example the Kandyan law and the Thesavalamai law in Jaffna. This report would have been popularised if I had put that there. Instead of that, I introduced this new term called “new terrorism”. Sri Lanka is a country that has fought traditional terrorism and won. But Sri Lanka does not know the difference between traditional and new terrorism. In this committee report, we described the difference between traditional terrorism and new terrorism. After 1990, terrorism has changed. As described in this report, new terrorism has five main characteristics: no borders, no clear political ideology, no clear organisational structure or leader, there are no clear demands which can be met at a negotiation table, and the terrorism is motivated by a religious ideology and is usually carried out by individuals or small groups.
Only I have spoken about this difference in this report. Prabhakaran had borders, new terrorism does not. Prabhakaran had a clear political goal of Tamil Eelam, Zaharan and his team didn't have one. Prabhakaran had a huge organisational structure – military wing, international wing, recruitment wing – and this doesn't have these. Prabhakaran also had negotiations with the government – he had the capacity to present his problems and ask for solutions. But what would Zahran have requested at a negotiation table? He doesn't have anything to bring to the negotiation table. Most often, they won't have a leader either.
Also important to note in new terrorism is that leaders are comfortable with dying – they don’t care about their lives. The pioneers communicate with God – they go to God first. Then followers are motivated through that. That’s another characteristic of new terrorism. New terrorism is usually done by a small group or individuals. It is important that Sri Lanka takes a new point of view.
Whom did you consult for this report?
We have all these committee members. To complete the legal process and to get the quorum, sometimes it was difficult to get even three ministers. We had 25 committee meetings for this. There was no staff to write this report even – the Chairman had to write this.
Back then, after all the negativity following Easter Sunday towards the Muslim committee, there was a big group of moderate, Colombo-educated Muslims who reached out to me. They invited me and talked to me. These moderate Muslims believe that the solution is to live peacefully with the Sinhalese and they’ve faced death threats for that belief too. They are educated and knowledgeable.
We are all Sinhalese in this committee and we don't understand the actual problem here. We may be able to debate the legal problems but the real information and the deep-rooted big problems were made clear to me by those moderate Muslims after hours and days of discussions which went for almost seven or eight months. I took personal responsibility for this committee report. This is a sensitive problem.
What are the main differences you see in the SOC report and the recently released report by the PCoI?
I presented this in February 2020 to Parliament. I asked why this was not implemented. But in the President’s Independence Day speech he asked for both reports. The President has given due recognition to this. But the media and people demand the PCoI’s report. I won't be rushed to comment on the other report.
But for example, they have asked for political parties with religious names to be banned. In our report, we suggested a time frame for already existing political parties who have religious names to change their name. But the new report also has this and there is an overlap that I see. They did an investigation; we looked at the Muslim community and wrote recommendations. We can even say that they studied this report to some extent. For that committee, they even summoned people who gave one-sentence comments for small newspaper articles. They may have not summoned me because they kept this report as a basic document.
Immediately in the aftermath of Easter Sunday, the narrative was extreme. This report doesn’t use the terms Islamic terrorism or extremism because we can’t find modern solutions there. That’s why we put the term “new terrorism”. We also spoke to moderate Muslims because they volunteered information to us. They were not forcefully brought before a commission for an investigation.
The PCoI report has also said that (Galagoda Aththe) Gnanasara Thera must be held responsible for inciting racial tensions. However, the report does not look at the discrimination that the Muslim community faced and faces and how that could lead to extremism. Why is that so?
The fundamental solution is not there. Gnanasara Thera’s approach might be questionable. But we are also talking about how to combat extremism. India has the best de-radicalisation programme and our recommendations are based on that model.
Have you had any communication from the Ministerial Committee appointed to look into both reports?
No communication from the Committee so far.
Do you think the attention given to the PCoI report will be maintained?
Yes. The media can drag this issue for maybe two or even three weeks. Then the Opposition will go down and the media will push this back to the news belt and then it will die a natural death. But since the President has also considered it, I am glad. But recommendations are almost the same – how did two committees get the same idea at the same time? This was the first one. Did it influence the other?
How do you define extremism in this report?
I think that’s in this chapter about establishing religious schools. We can't ban Wahhabism – that’s a global problem and a Sri Lankan law won't stop that. Pakistan faces the most problems due to Wahhabism these days. There is no value to the statement “ban Wahhabism”. There is no depth to such a statement or recommendation.
A better way to do it is to combat the problem of madrasas. Our recommendation is that madrasas should not function at all – and if it needs to function, then only for children above the age of 16. Many children who suffer due to the MMDA are gathered at madrasas. That’s why our recommendation is to educate every child from the age of five – to enter the school system like in the English Government back then. Eleven years of compulsory school education and after O/Ls (Ordinary Levels), if they wish, they can go to a madrasa to be a religious teacher. That is how extremism can be minimised. There are also Muslim-only international schools in urban areas. Terrorists who died on Easter Sunday all went to national schools, so our argument sort of falls there. But the richest ones go to Muslim-only international schools and that is very harmful too. They don't even know Sinhala.
New terrorism, extremism, and new media are integrally connected. As soon as racial tensions occurred back then, the former President (Maithripala Sirisena) would bring representatives down and lockdown or go to the TRCSL (Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka). At the Christchurch Call to Action Conference held in France on 15 May, they recognised that new media also has certain responsibilities to combat new terrorism. The Government has responsibilities. New media companies have a non-binding agreement. Governments and companies must work together for this. Our recommendations on new media are based on this.
The SOC functioned prior to the Easter Sunday attacks as well. Why was no such report about potential threats formulated then?
This report was a response to the social demand at the time, after the attacks.