sri lanka's commissions of inquiry - Law & Society Trust

In examining events, Sansoni was careful, even where the facts
demanded it, to avoid any implication that would point to serious
culpability on the part of the State,” 14 despite the fact that he
“could easily have answered the question in his mandate about
who was responsible for the communal violence of 1977. 15
Although Sansoni picked through the evidence and chose, in some
cases, to ignore or minimize the significance of some evidence, the
Report nonetheless presents a clear picture – albeit at times muddled
– that the violence “was organized by the Police at the behest of their
new political bosses – the UNP.” 16
The facts, however, are obscured by the politics. The findings reflect
the premise that the Tamil political leadership was to blame for the
violence committed against the Tamil people. Sansoni devotes the first
two chapters of the report, a total of eighty two pages, to establishing
the culpability of the TULF leadership. “[T]he communal violence was
retaliation for a section of the Tamil leadership asking for a separate
state and fostering a militant movement.” 17 This sentiment is repeated
throughout the report and recommendations.
I want to make it quite clear, that what is objectionable and
worthy of condemnation in the speeches from which I have
quoted, is the expression of views which encourage and instigate
the use of violence and weapons in the bid to obtain a separate
state. So far as the population of the whole Island is concerned,
the claim to a separate state is unpopular and will be resisted by
the majority community. 18
14.
Hoole, 21.
15.
Hoole, 34.
16.
Hoole, 34.
17.
Hoole, 21.
18.
Sansoni Report, p. 54
12