Civilisation is defined...

.. by how we treat our dead

Death, being a constant companion and final leveller for all of us, is one of the two known constants in the universe (the other being taxes). And it is how we treat people in death that defines who and what we are

The earliest signs of religion are death rites. And all religions (you Scientologists can go back to your volcanos thankyouverymuch) are based on death. The afterlife is the reward for the life. Whether you'll be playing the harp in the fiery heat of heaven, Ragnarokking out with the Valhallans, tapping those 72 constantly virgin bootys, or many myriad other fun things to do when you're no more, have ceased to be, have expired and gone to meet your maker, a stiff, bereft of life, resting in peace, pushing up the daisies, off the twig, kicked the bucket, shuffled off your mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile.

But what happens to you after death is less important to the living than what happens to your meat-shell. After all, we grieve not for the dead, but for ourselves. We are promised that in death we'll be allowed to join our loved ones in the afterlife. So corpses are, for want of a better word, important.

And it is because they are so important that what we do with the corpses defines what our civilisation is. Do we bury them? Or cremate them? Do we consider eating the dead to be a ritual farewell to an nonoured enemy? A way to bring your deceased loved ones closer to you? A way to stave off hunger? Or a cynically effective way to feed the populace? Do we mummify them with all their possessions? Do we put them in a long boat and set fire to it? Think on which civilisations practiced what, and see if they fall under sophisticated or barbarous.

On Monday, the 22nd of October, 2007, the LTTE attacked the Anuradhapura airbase. The details on that are well known, and there are many reports available from many sources. It is also known that the LTTE cadres who attacked didn't make it out. It is at this point that things get ugly. The dead bodies were then stripped naked and loaded onto the back of a tractor-trailer and, according to various reports, taken around Anuradhapura town before they were brought to the entrance to Anuradhapura hospital, where the tractor trailer was left outside the gates, on the main road, allowing the people to take photographs and videos. It is not known how long the bodies were outside without any covers before they were taken into the hotpital.

Corpse desecration is a serious thing according to many people and societies. Mutilated corpses guarded the paths to cities and castles, a grim reminder to all visitors of the punishments that they would endure for attacking the city. Corpses were catapulted into cities under siege to demoralise them. Bodies have been scalped, mutilated, dragged around town, hung up on display, or just plain ripped to pieces. That these things were done in so-called civilised societies makes them all the more barbarous. They show how thin the veneer of civilisation that we pretend to truly is.

Sri Lanka has gained a recent and disturbing history of corpse desecration. The activities of the government and the various insurgents it has faced in 1971, 1989 and the current long-running conflict is well documented. Many of us remember the tire pyres, corpses tied to trees and fences, mutilated and tortured. We have seen the bodies floating down the rivers and lakes. Evidently so do the leaders of the armed forces.

If this were done by the LTTE, there would be a great outcry. But since it was done by the government forces, and by extension the government, the media are silent. And yet are we to expect that the silence will remain? After all, the LTTE have made an art form of PR. They are skilled media manipulators and spin doctors. It is to be expected that this incident will be used to gain more suport, more money, more weapons.

All this could have been solved with a tarp, or tent, or even a few mats to cover te trailer body. The question is, was this accidental or intentional? If it was accidental, then the forces owe an apology to the families of those who died. It doesn't matter if they were the enemy. Battles have been stopped so that the soldiers from each side could collect their dead and wounded. What was done could be classified as a mistake and apologised for. But if it was done intentionally, then no apology would be necessary. The forces can be sure to receive payback in the form of weapons and materiel, delivered to them pointy end first