Project Tiger: Reintegration of the Surrendered LTTE Cadres
It is now over two years since the military defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). According to the Sri Lankan Attorney General’s Department, a total of 11,696 LTTE cadres have either been captured or have surrendered since the end of ‘Eelam War IV’. What is their status now? Are there any ‘reintegration’ programmes pursued to bring them back to the mainstream? If so, what is the progress, and how successful have they been?
Appreciably, and thanks partly due to international pressure, within months of the formal end of the violent ethnic conflict, the ‘National Action Plan for the Reintegration of Ex-combatants’ was put in place by the Government of Sri Lanka. It was principally designed to “minimize the risk of socio-economic marginalization and increase employability of ex-cadres among other things.” Through this reintegration programme, in the words of Gotabaya Rajapakse, Defence Secretary and one of the masterminds of the military victory, the “Tigers should learn that there is a better world beyond waging war.” The Ministries of Defence, Justice, Health, Women’s Affairs, Foreign Employment, Vocational Training, Labour, National Integration and Social Services have been involved in the process. Although there are thus so many players involved in this process, when it comes to transparency there is too little of it.
As for “known knowns”, the Tigers in custody have been broadly divided into three categories: those who were forcefully recruited (mostly children), non-combatant members, and hardcore combatants. Separate “welfare centres” for each category were set up – 24 in all – in the districts of Jaffna, Batticaloa and Vavuniya to rehabilitate them. The first category – 556 child combatants – are said to have been provided with catch-up education classes and allowed family visits. Nevertheless, free access to specialised independent international agencies like Save the Child, UNICEF and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) could have made the rehabilitation more successful. Instead of just limiting their education to the secondary level, the programme should go beyond in turning the former child soldiers into useful citizens.
Those identified as “hardcore” were separated out to extract the maximum information on the LTTE remnants, their ‘sleeper cells’, existing network, future plans of revival, and hidden weapons/mines. In the initial stages, there were human rights abuses in the rehabilitation process, but these have subsequently declined. No distinction was made between leaders and ordinary cadres in this regard. Some of the important LTTE leaders who are presently under custody include Kumaran Pathmanathan (former head of the international wing of the LTTE), Yogaratnam (former spokesman of the LTTE), Lawrence Tilagar (a former spokesman of the LTTE, a onetime head of the LTTE office in Paris and later in charge of the Tamil Rehabilitation Organisation), Thangan (former Deputy political wing leader), Ilamparithi (former head of the political wing, Jaffna district), Elilan (former Trincomalee political wing leader), Papa (former head of the LTTE sports division), Puvannan (former head of the administrative division of the LTTE), Gnanam (deputy international head) and Tamilini (head of the Women’s political wing). Some of these former heavyweights are now working with the Sri Lankan Military Intelligence in neutralising the internal and external networks of the LTTE. They are expected to undergo legal proceedings after the rehabilitation process, which, in turn, may depend on the “level of cooperation” they render to the government.
In the non-combatant category, the government has been a bit easy. As of end-April 2011, over 6000 former LTTE cadres have been released and reintegrated. On record, they have undergone psychological and creative assistance, education, vocational training (in areas such as information technology, sewing, plumbing, electric work, carpentry, mason work, welding, and metalwork) spiritual, religious and cultural empowerment, sports and socialization. Support for the programme has come from Japan, the US, India, the EU, a section of the Sri Lankan diaspora and also from private companies based in Sri Lanka like Aitken Spence, Brandix, Ceylon Tobacco, Dilmah, Hayleys, John Keells, MAS Holdings, Unilever and Ajitha de Zoysa.
However, despite rehabilitation and reintegration, the stigma as former Tigers remains. The Sri Lankan Government has not done much to ease this strain. On the other hand, the Government’s strategy of releasing the rehabilitated with much media hype has, in fact, increased the stigma factor due to wide publicity and dissemination of their identities. This could be avoided. Also, due to their past activities, the physical security of many of the former Tigers are in jeopardy. They should be provided security. There is also apprehension among the rehabilitated cadres about being under the watchful eyes of the security forces, and the chances of them being detained anytime appear high. It is the duty of the Government to tone down such trepidation. The Government should consider the periodic orientation of those reintegrated ex-militants to make sure that they do not slip away from the right path in the long run. The Government has ruled out absorbing them into the armed forces, but they may be a good bet as police or Home Guards. Sadly, the Plan of Action also completely ignores empowering the disabled former Tigers. It is not too late to address this lacuna.
Overall, proper reintegration of former militants into mainstream society is one of the vital components of rebuilding post-conflict societies. In the Sri Lankan case, it is all the more important given the character of the LTTE – secretive, ruthless and uncompromising – which had led it to make enemies all around. If adequate attention is not given to this aspect of the problem, there are chances that they may resort to criminal or militant activities for their livelihood. In this regard, if the reintegration programme of the Sri Lankan government is attractive, the dispersed Tigers may surface to join the mainstream. Providing alternative livelihood opportunities to those already surrendered will go a long way in convincing those still at large. If the post-conflict environment is conducive for a decent living, the chances of ex-militants picking up arms once again would be remote.
* The author is Senior Fellow, Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi
It has been almost 7 years since the conclusion of Sri Lanka’s civil war and there are still many questions that remain unanswered. One of the biggest of those is what happened to the many hundreds of LTTE ‘surrendees’, as well as the thousands of Tamil civilians, who were taken into the custody of the Sri Lankan army at the end of the war and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
In February 2009, as the war reached its final climax, former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and former Minister for Human Rights and Disaster Management Mahinda Samarasinghe (now Minister of Skills Development and Vocational Training under Sirisena’s Government) issued a statement in which they offered amnesty to junior LTTE cadres who voluntarily surrendered to the Army. It is estimated that several hundred, LTTE cadres did just that. Several thousand civilians also crossed the frontline during the final weeks of the war, many of them subsequently being detained in the notorious ‘IDP camps’ before being interrogated and/or sent for ‘rehabilitation’.
Among those reported or witnessed to have entered into the custody of the Sri Lankan armed forces alive, a significant proportion of them – particularly among surrendering LTTE cadres – remain unaccounted for. For many of the families who are still searching for answers about what happened to them, it is often at this stage in the timeline that the trail runs cold. There is strong evidence to suggest that many of those who did come under the control of the Sri Lankan armed forces at the end of the war were extra-judicially killed.
In this context, the revelation by Major General Chanayaka Gunaratna (head of the Army’s 58th Division), that the army is in possession of a list of people that surrendered during the final stages of the war is of enormous significance. The admission came in February during a writ of habeas corpus magistrates hearing filed by Northern Provincial Councillor Ananthy Sathisaran (and several others) in relation to missing relatives, when the officer stated that none of those missing persons in question was on a list of names held by the army.
This would apparently be the first time that the army has confirmed that a record of individuals moving across the front-line at the end of the war was kept and – whilst the number of individuals accounted for by the record remains unclear – could potentially be a major development in helping to establish the last known whereabouts of many of the disappeared.
On 17 February, Mullaittivu Magistrate MSM Samsudeen ordered the officer to furnish the court with the list by 20 April. Disappointingly, however, Army representatives informed the Mullaitivu Magistrate on the 19 May, that it needed more time in handing over the information of persons surrendered into their custody – this after two separate postponements in the hearing due to the absence of Major General Gunaratna and his representation.
The army must disclose this information as a matter of urgency. It is now incumbent on the judiciary and political leadership in Sri Lanka – as well as the international community at the ongoing Human Rights Council session – to apply the pressure to ensure they do so. Amid the drafting of new legislation for an Office of Missing Persons, and Sri Lanka’s recent ratification of the International Convention on Enforced Disappearances, the Sri Lankan state now faces a major opportunity to clearly demonstrate the real depth of its commitment to establishing the truth about the 24,000 plus cases of missing persons in Sri Lanka. Their response will provide one of the strongest indications yet of whether the new mechanisms for investigating the disappeared will be able to prevail over the deep culture of secrecy within the Sri Lankan security forces, and the impunity it creates.
The Sri Lankan Army presented a list to the court in July, but it was rejected by the court, as the list only contained the names of those who had successfully completed the Government’s rehabilitation programme. This appears to be a different, and less incriminating, list to the list that the Major General alleged that the Sri Lankan Army had in its possession.
Army claims LTTE cadres did not surrender to military
Several LTTE cadres had reportedly surrendered to the Army during the final stages of the war but there has not been any information on the exact number or their identities.
The latest claim by the Sri Lanka Army has also stirred up the controversial “White Flag” case where several LTTE leaders who had reportedly surrendered to the military during the final stages of the war were gunned down.
Meanwhile, former LTTE cadre Chandralingam alias Thulasi has told the weekly English newspaper, The Sunday Morning that there was no doubt LTTE cadres surrendered directly to the army.
He has said that he was among those who surrendered to the Army and was later rehabilitated and released.
Thulasi has noted that during the final stages of the war, only the Army had access to the war zone and not government officials.
Various attempts have been made since the end the war to obtain information on the LTTE cadres who had surrendered to the Army.
Leaked videos after the war also showed LTTE cadres, including several female LTTE cadres being screened by the military.
Also, former Northern Provincial Council member Anandi Saseetharan has told The Sunday Morning that she had no doubt that LTTE cadres surrendered to the Army during the final stages of the war. Her husband Elilan was among the LTTE cadres she claims had surrendered to the Army.
Saseetharan, who also campaigns on behalf of the families of the missing, has said that the news claiming that LTTE cadres did not surrender to the Army has created a lot of anguish among the families of missing LTTE members.
The Army, however, maintains that the LTTE cadres had surrendered to government officials and not to the military during the final stages of the war.
Army spokesman Brigadier Sumith Atapattu has said the Army had only acted as the facilitator to hand over those who surrendered to officials from the Rehabilitation Ministry or department.
According to the Spokesperson, the Army was the first point of contact for the LTTE cadres who surrendered in the war zone.
He has added that all those who surrendered were taken to safe areas and then handed over to government officials.
Sri Lankan army contradicts itself over surrendered LTTE cadres
Photograph: Balachandran Prabhakaran pictured in Sri Lankan military custody. Later photographs show him dead, with several bullet wounds in his chest.
The Sri Lankan military claimed that it did not receive any surrendering Tamil fighters during the closing stages of the armed conflict in 2009, in an extraordinary denial of its role in the disappearances of hundreds of LTTE cadres.
Responding to a Right To Information (RTI) Act request, the Information Officer of the Sri Lanka Military, Brigadier Sumith Atapattu, who was part of the Mechanised Infantry regiment claimed “LTTE members have not surrendered themselves to the Sri Lanka military during the last stages of the war and they have handed themselves over to the Sri Lankan government”.
“As the institution with authority to deal with matters regarding surrendered LTTE members is the Bureau of the Commissioner General of Rehabilitation, you are kindly requested to obtain the required information from them,” the military response continued.
The RTI request had been filed by Tamil Mirror Journalist, P Nirosh Kumar.
The response directly contradicts several prior statements from the military which confirmed that it did receive surrendering Tamil fighters and their families.
JDS Lanka reports that there were several instances in which the military confirmed LTTE cadres had surrendered to the army, including in 2012 when a Sri Lankan army Court of Inquiry (COI) acknowledged that the military captured LTTE cadres, in 2013 when Gotabhaya Rajapaksa told journalists that 11,800 cadres had surrendered to the military, in 2016 when a senior military commander in the 58 Division said the army had kept a list of all those who surrendered and in 2018 when two ministers from the Rajapaksa administration acknowledged that those who had surrendered to the military had been killed.
See more from JDS here.
Hundreds of LTTE cadres, their families and other Tamils civilians are known to have surrendered to the Sri Lankan military and were executed. Others have been forcibly disappeared.
Last year the ITJP released the names of at least 293 people who were seen surrendering to the Sri Lankan military and have seen been disappeared. Among those is Father Joseph, who was last seen boarding a Sri Lankan military bus with several LTTE cadres whose surrender he had facilitated.
The OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL) states,
“There are also reasonable grounds to believe that a number of LTTE cadres, such as those belonging to the political wing, and other individuals not or no longer taking direct part in hostilities, including children, were also extrajudicially executed.
“Based on this forensic analysis of photographic as well as video material, witness testimonies and open sources, OISL concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that LTTE senior political wing leaders Balasingham Nadesan and Seevaratnam Puleedevan as well as Nadesan’s wife Vineetha Nadesan may have been executed by the security forces sometime after 06:00 on 18 May.”
See more from the ITJP on this particular case – dubbed the White Flag incident – here.
Amongst the other emblematic cases are those of LTTE leader Colonel Ramesh who was filmed in Sri Lankan custody, being interrogated by soldiers. Later photographs show he was shot dead. Balachandran Prabhakaran, the 12-year-old son of the LTTE leader Veluppillai Prabhakaran, was also photographed in military custody and then shot dead, as well as Tamil TV presenter Isaipriya.
Several videos have since emerged, captured by Sri Lankan soldiers on their mobile phones, as they execute naked and tied up Tamils. Some laugh as they shoot the blindfolded Tamils in the head.
Tamil families across the North-East have been campaigning for over two years for answers about their disappeared relatives, many of whom surrendered at the end of the war
Photo via AP
Meera Srinivasan, the Hindu correspondent in Sri Lanka, at the first press conference with Presidential candidate Gotabaya Rajapaksa asked him what happened to the LTTE cadres and others who surrendered to the army during the last days of war, and who have thereafter disappeared (see full interview here). She raised it in the context of a series of questions posed by the journalists who spoke before her on accountability for war-related human rights abuses and the fate of UN Resolutions co-sponsored by the present government since 2015, in case candidate Rajapaksa is elected as President. In response to those questions, candidate Rajapaksa after some obfuscation and back and forth, stated that there are more important concerns for people in the north and east like jobs and education. As a follow up to this response, Meera stated that even as people are concerned about jobs and education, they also want to know what happened to the people who surrendered and never returned and since he was at the helm of the army he should have an answer. “Where are they?” she asked. Candidate Rajapaksa’s response is instructive. First he stated that he did not lead the army. The army was led by the army commander. (This is of course ironic, for the Rajapaksa’s have never been shy to take credit for the defeat of the LTTE and the war victory). When Meera persists that he was the Secretary of Defence, he stated that all those who surrendered, 13784 persons in all, were rehabilitated and reintegrated in what is considered the most successful of such programmes in the world. He also made the point that often it is impossible to recover the bodies of soldiers who die in battle and they tend to be considered as missing. He went on to state, that more than 4000 Sri Lankan officers and soldiers are missing as a result. Meera then rightly pointed out that some of those who surrendered are not part of those who were rehabilitated and in fact never returned to their families. She asked, “Are they lying?” The exchange between candidate Rajapaksa then continues as follows:
GR: Somebody can say that. But that is only an allegation. We have inquired on this we had a commission on this, but nobody has said that they have handed over such and such person, on such and such a date, to such and such a person. There were no cases like that.
Meera: But even the Paranagama Commission in your time, they did give the date of surrendering.
GR: No. I don’t think so.
I begin with this vignette to help us think about truth, lies and obfuscations on this question of the surrendees, after the war. In the 10 years since the end of the war, hundreds of Tamils, mostly women have testified to the fact that during the last days of the war, that is on 17th and 18th of May 2009, Sri Lankan security forces made public announcements calling all LTTE cadres to surrender, with a promise to grant a general amnesty to those who did. In these announcements, it was stated that those who served in the LTTE for even one day should surrender into Army custody. As a consequence, hundreds of LTTE cadres including a few high level political and military officers of the LTTE surrendered to the 58th Division of the Sri Lankan Army. (This is quite apart from the white flag incident). According to the testimony given by a number of women, Father Francis Joseph and three other priests facilitated the surrender, as they spoke fluent English and could communicate with the Army. Army officers separated those who surrendered into a separate line, while their families were asked to join a civilian queue. In some cases, however, wives and children also surrendered together with the LTTE cadres. Take the case of Parvati (I have changed her name) from Kilinochchi whose daughter, son in law and two grandchildren aged two and four surrendered to the army in front of her own eyes. She has not seen them since.
According to eye witness testimony, the Army took all those who surrendered into an enclosure fortified by barbed wire. Their families could see them from a short distance away. Their families and acquaintances witnessed the missing persons board Ceylon Transport Board buses, as directed by the Army. Army personnel told the families that the missing persons would be taken for questioning and would reunite in an IDP camp. However, in each case, this was the last the families saw of these family members. To be clear then, these women are not speaking of LTTE combatants who died in battle and whose bodies could not be recovered. They are speaking of persons who were very much alive at the end of the war and who surrendered themselves to the army in trust.
Since then, the women family members of the surrendees have been ceaselessly searching for their loved ones. They have attempted to make complaints to the police and been turned away. They have petitioned whoever else they thought might be able to help – politicians, administrative officials, civil servants, ambassadors, wives of politicians, international NGOs, and United Nations agencies, while physically searching for their disappeared family members in army camps, police stations, hospitals, and jails across the country. They have travelled miles and spent exorbitant sums of money in order to continue searching, often pawning family jewellery and taking loans at massive interest rates. In the process they have invited scrutiny, surveillance and sexual harassment from an array of public officials.
In a media interview, Parvati refers to her grandchildren as “flowering buds” and that she has to believe that they are still alive. “That is what keeps me going. Otherwise, I would kill myself”. A few have also filed habeas corpus applications but to no avail. In a decision given by the Magistrate Court in Mullaitivu, in respect of one of these applications, the court held that the woman was unable to give concrete evidence relating to the type of bus and the number of the bus in which those who surrendered were taken away. In the end, it was a matter of her word against the words of denial of the army. And the army won, despite the fact that the woman’s testimony was corroborated by others.
Eye witness testimony in relation to the surrender and disappearance which first emerged in trickles from sites in the north and east has thickly accumulated since then. Evidence that some LTTE cadres who surrendered to the army during the last days of the war have disappeared without a trace, first emerged through testimonies before the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) appointed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The LLRC in its final report documents 45 persons who gave testimony of a family member surrendering to the army and who thereafter disappeared, while also quoting from the testimonies of a number of them (see for instance para 4. 245 to Para 4. 248). On the question of surrendees, the LLRC states:
The Commission must emphasize that in respect of the representations .. . from a number of people who stated that they had directly witnessed certain persons surrendering to the custody of the Army, it is the clear duty of the State to cause necessary investigations into such specific allegations and where such investigations produce evidence of any unlawful act on the part of individual members of the Army, to prosecute and punish the wrongdoers. The Commission must also stress in this regard that if a case is established of a disappearance after surrender to official custody, this would constitute an offence entailing penal consequences. Thus the launching of a full investigation into these incidents and where necessary instituting prosecutions is an imperative also to clear the good name of the Army who have by and large conducted themselves in an exemplary manner in the surrender process and when civilians were crossing over to cleared areas, which conduct should not be tarnished by the actions of a few.
The Paranagama Commission appointed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2013, also acknowledged the disappearance of busloads of persons who surrendered in the last days of conflict, including one such busload which was accompanied by a Catholic Priest by the name of Father Francis (The second mandate report of the Paranagama Commission, p.xxvi). The Commission states that it heard first-hand testimony from approximately 100 such persons, and that this matter should be the subject of an independent judicial inquiry. It goes on to state:
There are credible allegations, which if proved to the required standard, may show that some members of the armed forces committed acts during the final phase of the war that amounted to war crimes giving rise to individual criminal responsibility” (p.xxv).
Elsewhere, the Commission further states that: “a judge-led investigation into this incident is necessary and that the Commission has “made a finding that there is a reasonable basis to believe, having heard evidence on this issue, that these individuals may have been executed”. (para 437, p. 105). Citing the testimony of several persons as instances of disappearances where there is clear evidence of individuals passing into the hands of the Sri Lanka Army, the Commission states that written requests to the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Justice to ascertain the names of persons who were in custody, in prisons, in detention camps, in refugee camps and in rehabilitation centres were NOT complied with. The commission goes on to state that while “it is quite possible that persons who had been in custody went abroad upon their release, without the knowledge of their families, or alternatively went underground, or changed their identities, the truth must be ascertained as regards the fate of the majority of those disappeared persons whose fates are hitherto unknown. This, . . . is a vital contribution to reconciliation” (para 449, p. 108).
When candidate Rajapaksa says that the Paranagama Commission made no reference to surrendees, who have since gone missing, is he lying or is he unaware of the contents of the Paranagama Commission report?
Ruki Fernando, a human rights activist has pointed out that this is a mass disappearance involving several hundred people. He had stated: “They have simply vanished in the custody of the army. Not just vanished but vanished in the custody of the army. It’s an absurd situation for an army of a country to take away its citizens in buses in front of their family members and then claim that it never happened”.
Indeed, this story of the surrender and disappearance that has slowly but surely emerged from the hundreds of written and oral testimonies given before multiple judicial and quasi-judicial forums would amount to a scandal in ordinary circumstances. Instead, the surrender remains insistently, infinitely, and perpetually deniable both inside and outside the courthouse – as an exaggeration or a conspiracy to discredit and take revenge on the military or a confusion, fantasy or lie dreamed up by Tamil women.
Candidate Rajapaksa can well look forward to a future in which he is elected as President and in which various crimes committed under his watch as Secretary of Defence has been erased. At some point in the press conference, he also states: “You are talking all the time about the past no. Ask the future. We are trying to become the president of the future”. For family members of those who surrendered, the past is their present and their future. They are still trying to find answers and closure all these years after the war. They are unable to mourn and unable to let go of hope until they know the truth. Many still live in hope that those who surrendered must be detained in a secret detention centre deep in the heart of the Sri Lankan state and that they might someday return. Until they do, as Meera Srinivasan did, we have to keep asking “Where are they?” And how is it possible to so easily, so glibly deny the surrender of hundreds of people before hundreds of witnesses?
தமிழிழ விடுதலைப் புலிகளின் 12,186 போராளிகளுக்கு என்ன நடந்தது? அவர்கள் தற்போது எங்கே?
- July 26, 2018
முன்னாள் போராளிகின் வாழ்க்கை குறித்து தேடிப்பார்க்க வேண்டிய சூழலில் ஒவ்வொரு தமிழர்களும் உள்ளனர். அவர்கள் இன்றும் எங்கோ ஒரு மூலையில் தங்களது வாழ்வாதாரத்திற்காக கஸ்டப்பட்டுக்கொண்டிருப்பார்கள் என்பதினால் அவர்கள் குற்த்து சிந்திக்க வேண்டியது அனைத்து தமிழர்களினதும் கடமையாக உள்ளது
2008ஆம் ஆண்டுக்கும், 2018ஆம் ஆண்டுக்கும் இடைப்பட்ட காலத்தில், 12,186 விடுதலைப் புலிகள் இயக்க உறுப்பினர்கள் புனர்வாழ்வுக்கு உட்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளனர் என்று சிறிலங்கா அரசாங்கம் தெரிவித்துள்ளது.
தகவல் உரிமைச் சட்டத்தின் கீழ் எழுப்பப்பட்ட கேள்வி ஒன்றுக்கே, இதுபற்றிய தரவுகள் வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.
சிறிலங்காவின் புனர்வாழ்வு ஆணையாளர் நாயகத்திடம், ஊடகவியலாளர் தரிந்து ஜெயவர்த்தன, புனர்வாழ்வு அளிக்கப்பட்ட விடுதலைப் புலிகள் தொடர்பாக, தகவல் உரிமைச் சட்டத்தின் கீழ் கேள்வி எழுப்பியிருந்தார். எனினும், இந்த விண்ணப்பம் முதலில் நிராகரிக்கப்பட்டது.
புனர்வாழ்வு அளிக்கப்பட்ட விடுதலைப் புலிகளின் தனியுரிமை மற்றும் தேசிய பாதுகாப்பு ஆகிய காரணங்களைக் காட்டியே இந்த விண்ணப்பம் நிராகரிக்கப்பட்டது.
எனினும், இந்த தரவுகளால் தேசிய பாதுகாப்புக்கோ, தனியுரிமைக்கோ ஆபத்து ஏற்படாது என்று முன்வைக்கப்பட்ட வாதத்தை அடுத்து, புனர்வாழ்வு ஆணையாளர் நாயகம் சில தகவல்களை வழங்கியுள்ளார்.
இதற்கமைய, 2008ஆம் ஆண்டுக்கும் 2018ஆம் ஆண்டுக்கும் இடையில், 12,186 விடுதலைப் புலிகள் இயக்க உறுப்பினர்கள் புனர்வாழ்வுக்கு உட்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளனர்.
இவர்களில், 4,156 பேர், 20 வயதுக்கும் 29 வயதுக்கும் இடைப்பட்டவர்களாவர். இவர்களில் 1,084 பேர் பெண் போராளிகள்.
2010ஆம் ஆண்டிலேயே அதிக பட்சமாக, 5,586 போராளிகளுக்கு புனர்வாழ்வு அளிக்கப்பட்டது.
புனர்வாழ்வு அளிக்கப்பட்ட முன்னாள் போராளிகளில், 594 பேர் சிறுவர்கள் என்றும் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.