Easter Sunday carnage and conspiracies

Thursday 20th April, 2023

The government has risen from a long slumber and ordered a probe into a claim Dappula de Livera made, as the Attorney General, in May 2021, that there had been a ‘grand conspiracy’ behind the Easter Sunday carnage (2019). He was summoned to the Terrorism Investigation Division (TID) following Justice Minister Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakse’s recent call for an investigation. He did not turn up, but a lawyer representing him visited the TID yesterday, and handed over a document. The government has given in to pressure from the Catholic Church, which has been calling for a probe into de Livera’s allegation. It should not have let the grass grow under its feet, but better late than never.

As for the Easter Sunday attacks, there are two major conspiracy theories. It is being argued in some quarters that the terrorist bombings were the outcome of a conspiracy to catapult national security to the centre stage of politics again and thereby shore up the image of wartime Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who was planning to run for President in 2019. Gotabaya announced his candidature a few days after the carnage. The proponents of this theory aver that national security being Gotabaya’s long suit, those who were promoting him as the SLPP’s presidential candidate orchestrated the terror attacks. The other theory is that there was a foreign hand in the Easter Sunday carnage and the conspirators sought to destabilise Sri Lanka.

The PCoI (Presidential Commission of Inquiry), which probed the Easter Sunday attacks, has dealt with the alleged foreign involvement albeit perfunctorily. Only an eight-page chapter in its bulky report has been devoted to the claim of a foreign hand in the attacks. The witnesses who expressly testified that there was ‘an external hand or conspiracy behind the attacks’, according to the PCoI, are Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith, former President Maithripala Sirisena, former Minister Rauf Hakeem, former Minister Rishad Bathiudeen, former Governor Azath Salley, SJB MP Mujibur Rahman, former SIS Director SDIG Nilantha Jayawardena, former STF Commandant M. R. Lateef, former Chief of Defence Staff Ravindra Wijegunaratne, former SDIG CID Ravi Seneviratne and former CID Director Shani Abeysekera. Dismissing their statements as mere ipse dixits (assertions made but not proven), the PCoI has said, in its report, that it did not find any such foreign link. It has, however, recommended that certain identified parties be further investigated. This recommendation has gone unimplemented.

Factors such as the indoctrination of children, the stockpiling of arms and explosives, and the establishment of a terror network complete with training centres suggest that the National Thowheed Jamath and/or its handlers had a long-term strategy, as we have pointed out in a previous editorial comment. The PCoI sought to have the public believe that it was the circumstances that had made Zahran advance the terror attacks. It has said, “The original plan of Zahran was to attack the Kandy Perahera. But it was advanced due to the recovery of explosives from Wanathawilluwa and international factors. IS was losing ground in Syria and Iraq and called on its faithful to launch attacks. He was also concerned that the law enforcement authorities may apprehend him soon.” But would Zahran have made such elaborate preparations for a one-off attack on the Kandy Perahera or any other target?

We argued, in this column, prior to the release of the PCoI report that it was possible that Zahran and his gang had taken orders from a fake IS created by a foreign spy agency. The PCoI has quoted SDIG Jayawardena as saying that an Indian named Abu Hind ‘may have triggered the attacks’: “He [Jayawardena] went on to imply that the intelligence agencies that provided him with the intelligence on 4th, 20th and 21st April 2019 may have had a hand in the attack.” According to the PCoI report an ‘international expert on terrorism, who testified in camera, said, “Abu Hind was a character created by a section of a provincial Indian intelligence apparatus, and the intelligence that the Director SIS received on the 4th, 20th and 21st April 2019 was from this operation and the intelligence operative pretending to be one Abu Hind. Operatives of this outfit operate on social media pretending to be Islamic State figures. They are trained to run virtual personas.” The PCoI report goes on to say, “The testimony was that Zahran believed Abu Hind was the Islamic State regional representative. Abu Hind was in touch with both Zahran and his brother, Rilwan, and had spoken to Naufer. This part of the evidence is confirmed by the testimony of Hadiya [Zahran’s wife].” It is mentioned on the page 220 of the report that according to the aforesaid international expert, ‘the Indian Central Government was not aware of the intelligence obtained by the provincial outfit’.

The allegation that there was a conspiracy behind the Easter Sunday attacks to enable the SLPP to capture state power must be probed thoroughly. Similarly, there is a pressing need for a separate investigation to find out whether an external force was behind the carnage. If it is true that the aforesaid witnesses did not furnish credible evidence to substantiate the claim that there was a foreign involvement in the Easter Sunday bombings, all of them should be asked to provide information in support of their assertions.