On Lakshman
Kadirgamar
& the Peace Process
Somawansa Amarasinghe,
Leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna
in Sinhala Owned Sri Lanka Sunday Times,
21 August 2005
| "...We stood for administrative decentralization, he
stood for federalism. We said how in Sri Lanka's context, federalism
and separatism were entwined. He did not necessarily agree, but was
eager to hear what we said. He considered them reasoned arguments...
The LTTE has been guilty of all the crimes over which the western
powers, the "International Community", has been
campaigning against ... The LTTE should
not be given visas by these countries. The JVP hopes to hold a major
demonstration in London and in capitals of other countries for democracy and
against the LTTE. We are asking Britain to deport Mr. Balasingham... If the LTTE resorts to war, as the signs indicate they will, we
must prepare for self-defence. We must prepare now. The international
community must support us in that legitimate self- defence..."
[see also
1.V.Thangavelu
-
Assassination of Lakshman
Kadirgamar
2.Sachi Sri
Kantha -
Farewell to Lakshman
Kadirgamar
3.Sanmugam Sabesan
-
தி(ஒ)ரு லக்ஷ்மன்
கதிர்காமரின்,‘ஒரு தனி மனிதச்சாவு’ ஒரு பதிவு
] |
We are still in shock and in mourning about a person that
we of the JVP and
the country loved and admired. It is time for all of us to take stock and
for us to take the opportunity to say a few words on how we of the JVP
interacted with Minister Kadirgamar.
Mr. Kadirgamar fought for the integrity of the country. Equally important,
and perhaps more so, he fought for democracy and human rights for all the
people especially of the Tamils living in the North and East.
When we first heard of Mr. Kadirgamar over 10 years ago, in 1994 we had not
met him in person. We had only read about his straightforward and honest
actions through the media. We followed his work over the years. In 2004 when
we came to form the new government we thought him the most suitable for the
highest office then available. It is no secret that we campaigned strongly
for him. Others who now unreservedly extol his virtues would understand and
appreciate our viewpoint. We believe we must all learn from him the
qualities of honesty and straightforwardness.
As we began to meet him regularly, we became friends. Our friendship was
based on an agreement to disagree if needed. We soon discovered that he
behaved correctly, probably because he had grown up in mature environments
both in Sri Lanka and internationally, where correct norms on how to conduct
business was followed.
He never spoke without an agreed agenda. So our discussions were up to the
point, businesslike. He was always very punctual. If he was even five
minutes delayed he would apologise. There were many times he would cancel
other appointments to meet us. This was because he understood the basic
nature of coalition politics. We were the major coalition partner and he
took our viewpoints seriously. And when we met again at the next meeting he
would go back to our earlier agenda and especially draw attention to those
areas where there were disagreements. He never tried to gloss over or
conceal genuine differences.
He was honest in politics, in discussions and in personal dealings. As he
began to know us, he started in turn to appreciate some of our actions
especially our honesty. And he said so several times. We, of course, came
from different histories and different backgrounds. But because of his
honesty we developed a strong bond. After official matters were over, he
wanted us to stay behind and chat freely as normal friends, not political
associates. We regret that in our busy political life we could not oblige
him always.
After we left the Sandanaya too, he reiterated the invitation to chat in
such a manner. It is wrongly put by some quarters that he blindly followed
our ideas. That was not true. We stood for administrative decentralization,
he stood for federalism. We said how in Sri Lanka's context,
federalism and
separatism were entwined. He did not necessarily agree, but was eager to
hear what we said. He considered them reasoned arguments.Comment
1
But these differences were no barrier for civilized discussion, between us.
Both sides agreed that the final solution to the national question was by
discussion and dialogue of all the parties to the conflict. When we spoke at
length about consistency in democracy and the need to wipe out inequalities
in all communities, he listened with considerable attention. We both agreed
that democracy should be the foundation for any future in any part of Sri
Lanka. If the people were for federal solution on the democratic will, then
so be it. If the people wanted administrative decentralization, then so be
it.
We both believed that in
the search for democracy and equality in the
country, Tamils, Muslims, Burghers and Malays should not be considered
second-class citizens and also should not be condemned to a
dictatorship
without democracy and human rights.
He together with us did not believe that
the LTTE, the major suppresser of free will and democracy, could in any way
be considered the sole representative of Tamils.
We learned from him
how international diplomacy was conducted. He mentioned
to us the working of human rights organizations in the United Nations and
other international organizations. When we were ignorant of certain matters
he pointed out our own failings and we appreciated it. We learned from him.
He confessed several times that before meeting us he had a wrong impression
about us - given to him by interested parties. He appreciated
our idealism
and he repeated several times that he wanted our idealism to be harnessed in
the forward march of the country. We know that many times he had corrected
others' false views on us and showed them our true nature. We found him
appreciating views, irrespective of a person's social origin. And he would
openly say so when he disagreed. There was no coercion whatsoever or attempt
to force his views on others without first convincing them.
As we came to know him personally, we were glad that we had proposed him to
high office, although then only knowing him from his actions. When he
contested the post of Secretary of the Commonwealth we were relieved that he
did not succeed because we felt that he could serve the motherland better
than serving the world. And we did express these sentiments to him to his
face. He gave us his broad smile.
After the Sandanaya was dissolved we spoke with him. He was disappointed. We
said that this was not the first Sandanaya or the last. And we said that
whatever be the fate of the political alliance, our appreciation of him
would not diminish. Later when we met him for a non-political chat we found
him as open as ever. He did not betray SLFP secrets but clearly
his
discomfort on such issues as PTOMS were plain to see.
Today our country is in deep trouble. The prime and first duty of any
country's leaders is to maintain the country's borders intact. It is for
this purpose that countries whatever their size or nature from whichever
part of the world, maintain an army and a foreign service.
Today, our
borders have been eroded in an attempt to carve out a separate state. There
are no signs that the LTTE has given up these aims. In the Wanni today there
exists an illegal entity from which the government is debarred and which at
every turn aims to legalise it as a separate state and expand its
boundaries. Eradicating this entity should be the legitimate objective of
any person aspiring to be a leader of the country.
We are today in a phony peace trap. It is difficult to get out of it. Within
this trap our sovereignty is continuously getting eroded. If this cease-fire
was not phony we should not have any LTTE assassinations. Minister
Kadirgamar should have been able to cycle freely from his official residence
to his own home for his swim.
The LTTE leaders have said several times recently that they are prepared to
go to war. This was possibly meant to blackmail us. The government on the
other hand has bent over backwards every time to accommodate the LTTE's
unreasonable and increasing demands.
And so does the international
community. The LTTE is not so strong as it seems. They are afraid of freedom
and democracy for the Tamils.
It has lost effective control of the East. It
is maintained partly by the government.
The United States and Britain have recently seen terrorism,
namely attacks
on noncombatants. These are by no means
legitimate armed struggles.
The LTTE has been guilty of all the crimes over which the
western powers, the "International Community", has been
campaigning against and even went to war for.
Comment 2
The LTTE has done ethnic cleansing,
in fact it invented it. It has the
largest amount of suicide bombers,
in fact it invented it. It recruits
children as soldiers—this too was invented by the LTTE. It prevents
democracy.
Those who are genuinely against war should now pressurize the LTTE. There
are strict laws against terrorism in the USA and Britain.
The LTTE should
not be given visas by these countries. The JVP hopes to hold a major
demonstration in London and in capitals of other countries for democracy and
against the LTTE. We are asking Britain to deport Mr. Balasingham.
We are
also advocating both abroad and locally, the highest transfer of resources
to rebuild the devastated areas in the North and East. We also want the
greatest possible welfare to the population there,
delivered through the
existing government machinery.
It is time now to ask some direct questions. Will the LTTE come for peace
talks? Democracy and human rights for Tamils should be the main subject of
such talks. If the LTTE resorts to war, as the signs indicate they will, we
must prepare for self-defence. We must prepare now. The international
community must support us in that legitimate self- defence. If the
International community governments do not come to our assistance, we will
appeal directly to the terrorism-affected people of US, Britain, France, and
other countries. This would be similar to what they did for us in our time
of need when the tsunami hit us.Comment
3 |