National security cannot justify land occupation, urges MP Shanakiyan

The Government's continued occupation of civilian lands in the Northern and Eastern Provinces was strongly challenged today by Batticaloa District Member of Parliament Shanakiyan Rasamanickam, who questioned the justification for retaining thousands of acres of private and state lands under military control nearly seventeen years after the end of the armed conflict.

Raising the matter in Parliament, the MP sought detailed information on the total extent of privately owned and state-owned lands occupied by the Tri-Forces in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, the extent of lands released since the present government assumed office, the locations and dates of those releases, the extent of lands that continue to remain under military occupation, and the government's timeline for releasing all remaining civilian lands.

Questions were also raised by him regarding the continued occupation of 16 Grama Niladhari Divisions and parts of a further three Grama Niladhari Divisions in Valikamam North, the status of lands relating to Myliddy, Palaly, Keppapilavu, and Kilinochchi, and the release of lands affecting places of worship, schools, and other civilian institutions.

Responding to the Minister's lengthy statement, MP Rasamanickam stated that the time allocated for supplementary questions was insufficient to challenge every aspect of the government's response.

The Minister repeatedly relied on the term "High Security Zone" to justify the continued occupation of civilian lands, he noted, adding that at the recent Defence Consultative Committee meeting, it was acknowledged that areas declared as High Security Zones during the war, based on security circumstances existing at the time, do not necessarily need to continue under that designation today. If that represents the government's own position, he asked why wartime justifications are still used to deny people access to their lands.

The Minister's assertion that members of the public are able to access religious sites within the Palaly (J252–J256) and Myliddy (J246, J248, and J257) areas was also challenged by the MP.

That claim simply does not reflect reality, as there is no access to St. Sebastian's Church, Myliddy Roman Catholic School, or Vasavilan Sri Velupillai Vidyalayam, he stated. In fact, even the original site of St. Sebastian's Church no longer exists, making it misleading to suggest that normal access is restored.

Referring to the Minister's justification that continued military presence in the North is necessary for maritime security, narcotics interdiction, and disaster management, MP Rasamanickam questioned why these responsibilities justify a disproportionately large military footprint in the Northern Province.

If preventing narcotics trafficking and responding to disasters are reasons for maintaining such a heavy military presence in the North, then the same principle should apply equally along the Southern and Western coastlines, he argued. These represent national responsibilities rather than duties unique to the Northern Province, and the burden of militarisation cannot continue falling disproportionately on one region under the guise of national security.

Referring to the Minister's recent visit to the Northern Province for discussions with district representatives, MP Rasamanickam questioned why the government's own response indicated that only 11 affected persons will receive their lands while 44 others continue to seek the return of their original properties.

Criteria used by the government to decide that only 11 people deserve justice while the remaining 44 continue waiting were questioned by him, alongside the timeline for resolving claims of those still deprived of their lands.

Further criticism was directed at the government's position regarding private lands in Kilinochchi, where the Minister's response suggested that approximately Rs. 8 million would be paid to acquire privately owned lands because permanent military structures are already constructed there.

Questioning who authorised the military to construct permanent buildings on private land without owners' permission, he rejected the argument that spent public funds on unlawful constructions justify owners permanently losing their land. Occupying private property without consent and attempting to legitimise it through compensation is neither just nor acceptable, he added.

The issue extends beyond individual land disputes and concerns the rule of law, property rights, and post-war reconciliation, MP Rasamanickam stressed.

People of the North and East are not asking for favours but for the restoration of rights guaranteed under the Constitution, he said, asserting that seventeen years after the war, the government cannot continue to hide behind "national security", selectively release lands, or rely on compensation schemes while thousands of acres remain under military occupation.

An urgent call was made to the government to abandon outdated wartime policies, provide a transparent and time-bound plan for the release of all remaining civilian lands, restore access to places of worship, schools, and public institutions, and ensure civilian properties are returned to rightful owners without further delay.