Sri Lanka: The Need to Introduce Studies In Killology -- Part Two
Newspapers have published discussions between the president and the representatives from the Rathupaswela, Weliweriya
incident. A possible settlement was mentioned by way of the removal of the factory, Venigross Ltd., a subsidiary of
Dipped Products PLC, from its present location. However, the reports do not mention a word about the killings of at
least three persons and the injuries caused to many others by the assaults of the soldiers.
Surely the killings of the three persons should have been the main issue of concern to the president during this
important meeting with the representatives, who are grieving their losses. It would be abnormal if the president himself
was not grieving about the loss of the lives of these three innocent persons, two of whom, Akila Dinesh and Ravishan
Perera, were 16 and 18 year-old boys. Further, the circumstances of their deaths are now well publicized. Akila Dinesh
was far away from the actual protest and was merely watching out of curiosity about the event in which the villagers,
who would have been known to him, were involved. Ravishan Perera was on his way to fetch his mother after work. They
were not killed by accidental fire and their injuries, such as the shot to the head that killed Ravishan Perera, show
deliberate shooting done at close range.
The question of these killings and the other injuries caused by the assaults is a matter that concerns not only the
villages in the area but the entire nation. Such killings and the infliction of injuries by the security forces are, in
fact, of primary concern of any nation where such things happen.
Soldiers and combatants do kill each other in combat. However, what happened in Weliweriya was not killing in combat by
any stretch of the imagination.
The question of vital concern to the people as a whole is as to how these soldiers killed outside combat. Many reports
and research work clearly demonstrates that the soldiers of any nation do not find it easy to kill, even in combat. More
soldiers avoid having to kill than those who, in fact, deliberately shoot to kill, even in the midst of intense warfare,
as shown by research.
'Prior to World War II it has always been assumed that the average soldier would kill in combat simply because his
country and his leaders have told him to do so and because it is essential to defend his own life and the lives of his
friends. When the point came that he didn't kill, it was assumed that he would panic and run.
During World War II U.S. Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall asked these average soldiers what it was that they did
in battle. His singularly unexpected discovery was that, of every hundred men along the line of fire during the period
of an encounter, an average of only 15 to 20 "would take any part with their weapons." This was consistently true
"whether the action was spread over a day, or two days or three."'
On Killing - The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society
However, the problem that we have in Sri Lanka in the recent killings at Rathupaswela, Weliweriya and other instances of
large scale killings is that such killings have been done outside of a combat situation. This is a matter that should be
deeply probed by everyone who looks at this problem from whatever point of view. For example, Sri Lanka's Human Rights
Commission is supposed to be investigating the incident that took place last week at Rathupaswela, Weliweriya. The
Commission should ask, above all other questions, the question about how soldiers could kill outside a combat situation.
Surely the president should have asked this question himself. Any responsible statesman would have been seriously
bothered by the action of the nation's soldiers engaging in such killings outside combat.
What is even more perplexing is that all the information so far available to the public clearly shows that the soldiers
were not acting on a sudden spur of emotions but following a well thought out plan. When the soldiers arrived, one of
the first things they did was to shoot out the street lights and then disconnect the power for the area. Even the attack
on the nearby church is supposed to have happened because there were lights on in the church due to it having its own
generator.
The soldiers could have wanted to conduct their actions in darkness for two reasons. One obvious reason is that they did
not want their actions to be seen by others and did not want to be identified. They would also not want to have their
photographs taken as the taking of photographs has become quite easy these days with mobile telephones and pocket
cameras. There were also reports of attacks on journalists and cameramen.
However, there may have been a further reason why they preferred darkness. It may have been because they would not have
to see the faces and expressions of their victims. In killings or any other acts of violence, seeing the victim's face
works as a deterrent.
Added to this is the fact that the task of dispersing the crowd was taken out of the hands of the police and assigned to
the soldiers. This indicates a design to commit deliberate acts of violence under the pretext of dispersing the crowd.
If the police were to do such an exercise they have their own rules to follow and their own superior officers to give
them orders. By taking it out of the hands of the police, those who sent the soldiers there took the situation under
their control and wanted to do it in their own way.
Therefore, the issue of killing outside combat raises questions, not only about the soldiers who, in fact, carried out
the actions, but also those who were directing them. The aim of those who were directing the action was to cause the
killings and other kinds of injuries.
The question that the Commander-in-Chief should have asked himself was: How has this kind of thing become possible under
his command?
However, finding answers to these questions is essential if people are to have an explanation about what took place at
Rathupaswela, Weliweriya. That issue is much more vital than the relocation of the factory.
For the first part of this statement, please see here.
# # #
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia,
documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these
rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
ENDS