A few months months ago a committed diaspora Eelam Tamil activist concerned with
the grave humanitarian crisis
faced by his kith and kin in Tamil Eelam prepared a well researched booklet for
presentation to a member of the legislature of the country in which he lived.
The legislator had indicated that such a booklet will be helpful in the
discussions that he planned to have with the head of the government of that
country. The Eelam Tamil activist requested that I review the booklet and offer
my comments. In the context of the
report
by the distinguished westcentric International Crisis Group dated 20 February 2008
that
my response to the
Eelam Tamil activist may have a general relevance and I set out here
an extended and revised version of the reply that I had sent -
" Your booklet is comprehensive and has been put
together with care – and reflects your commitment to the
struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam for freedom.
You are right to hope that 'the documentation will
help the government of the country' in which you live, 'see
for itself the vital leadership role that it can play as a protector of human rights
and a champion of the oppressed.’
Said that, we may also want to pay attention to
something which Velupillai Pirabakaran
said in 1993 –
".. the world is not rotating on the axis of human
justice. Every country in this world advances its own
interests. It is economic and trade interests that determine
the order of the present world, not the moral law of justice
nor the rights of people. International relations and
diplomacy between countries are determined by such
interests...."
The cynicism of real politick in the world
in which we live, was pointed out by Amnesty in a full page
advertisement in the London based Guardian many years ago, on 12 March 1994
in the context of East Timor - comments which are equally
applicable to the situation of the people of Tamil Eelam in
the island of Sri Lanka:
''...When governments pretend not to notice
suffering, to whom can peoples.. turn for help? The
United Nations? Alas, the deeper you delve, the
redder the faces. The cynicism of realpolitick
extends even to the UN Commission on Human Rights...
When Amnesty attended the Commission in Geneva last
month to urge action on Indonesia and East Timor, we
met only embarrassment. The governments to which we
spoke repeated what they have been promising us for
thirty years: they will pursue a policy of 'quiet
diplomacy'''
Quiet diplomacy is
more often than not a cloak for the
pursuit of the geo strategic interests of the country
concerned. We need to pay careful attention to the
assessment of Sivaram
(Taraki) in 2003 -
"..Today it is clear beyond all reasonable doubt that
India and the US-UK-Japan Bloc are trying to influence
and manage Sri Lanka's peace process to promote and
consolidate their respective strategic and economic
interests... From 1983 to 86, it was taboo among Tamils
to propagate the truth that India was exploiting their
cause to gain a foothold in Sri Lanka. The few who dared
to speak about India's hegemonistic designs were
admonished not to be too rash lest we provoke Delhi's
ire and cause a disruption in the weapons handouts by
the RAW....The price the Tamil liberation movement as a
whole had to pay for not educating the people about the
truth of India's intentions was high. At this juncture,
even a doddering dullard would find the deja vu
inescapable...The Tamil nation cannot afford to make the
same mistake again..."
Even 'a doddering dullard would find the deja vu
inescapable' and we cannot afford to make the same mistake
again. The political reality is that
the world is not rotating on the axis of human justice. It is
not the case that at the highest levels of
governments in the Western world, the justice of the
struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam to be free from alien
Sinhala rule is not known.
For instance, Congressman Mario Baggio's
declared
eloquently in the US
House of Representatives in May 1980 -
"To understand the problems that exist in Sri Lanka
- formerly known
as Ceylon - it is essential that we review its history. Located in
South Asia, the island of Sri Lanka has been composed of two
distinct populations for centuries - the Tamils and the Sinhalese.
They lived not as one, but as two nations, with separate languages, religions, cultures, and
clearly demarcated geographic territories...
My colleagues and I have introduced the following resolution because
we believe it is essential to express the concern of the Congress
about the army occupation in the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka: the denial
of basic rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of
religion, equal citizenship and educational opportunities; and the
freedom to exercise the
right of political self-determination."
That was 28 years ago, and Tamils lobbying their elected
representatives in the United States, in Canada in Australia or in the United
Kingdom will be hard
pressed to put the justice of the Tamil struggle more effectively.
Again, the resolution of
US Massachusetts House of Representatives in June 1981 calling for the
Restoration of the Separate Sovereign State of Tamil Eelam makes it abundantly clear that the United States,
for instance, was not without an understanding of the
justice of the Tamil Eelam struggle for freedom.
What then has changed in the ensuing 27 years?
Not much, if we recognise that countries do not have
permanent friends but have permanent strategic interests.
The political reality is that there
are two conflicts in the island of Sri Lanka - one the
conflict between the Sinhala nation and a Tamil Eelam nation
seeking freedom from alien Sinhala rule, and the other, the conflict
between international actors in the
asymmetric
multilateral world in which we live - a world in transition from the
unipolar to the multilateral.
Today, the
China ward tilt of President Rajapakse is a matter of concern to the West – in the same
way as the Westward tilt of President Jayawardene
was a
matter of concern to India in the 1980s. I myself believe
that these strategic interests need to be discussed openly –
otherwise we may end up by ignoring the elephant in the room.
Admittedly there are those who take the
view that this not the ‘anuku murai’, not the ‘diplomatic
way’. But I continue to believe in something that I wrote in
Black Pebbles & White Pebbles in 2006 -
"..It seems that we avoid confronting the
international community for fear of provoking its ire.
We avoid seeking an open dialogue with the international
community on its own strategic imperatives and the true
rationale for its actions…We say that our way is the
'anuku murai' - the diplomatic way to 'approach' issues.
We claim that this is the effective way. But has this
'anuku murai' succeeded? Again the result of not calling
a spade a spade is that we confuse our own people... We
confuse our people by leading them to believe that all
that needs to be done is to wake up the international
community to the facts and the justice of our cause and
all will be well. This is the limitation of our
discourse. It is a limitation that we need to
transcend...."
It is not that each of one us should not
tirelessly, fearlessly and openly lobby against the genocidal onslaught
launched by Sri Lanka on the people of Tamil Eelam. We must.
But at the same time, we must equally tirelessly, fearlessly and openly
espouse the lawfulness and justice of the Tamil Eelam struggle for
freedom from alien Sinhala rule. It is not either or - it is both. The charge is genocide - but the struggle is for
freedom.
We must tirelessly, fearlessly and openly point out to those who
speak to us about a creating a multi ethnic Sri Lanka that the
conflict continues not because of the LTTE but because
a
Sinhala Buddhist nation
seeks to masquerade as a 'multi ethnic'
'Sri Lankan
civic nation', with a
Sinhala Lion Flag, with
as yet
unrepealed Sinhala Only Act, with
Buddhism as the State religion,
and with an occupying Sinhala army in the Tamil homeland - a Sinhala
army of occupation which was first
sent to the Tamil homeland in 1961,
long years before the
demand for an indedependent Tamil Eelam in 1975.
We need to ask those whom we lobby to
respond to our concern that in the same way as in the
1980s, when India
sought to use Sri Lanka's violations of the human rights
of Tamils
to move Colombo away from the West, today both the West and India are seeking to
use Sri Lanka's violations of the human rights of Tamils
to move Sri Lanka away from
too great linkage with
China - and when that is secured, we will be offered
'comic opera' reforms such as the 13th Amendment and Provincial
Councils, with a Provincial Governor appointed by a Sinhala
Sri Lanka President who will exercise executive power in respect of
provincial matters.
We need to ask those whom we lobby some simple questions
which may help to focus their minds (as well as ours). Let us say:
"Yes, let us forget a separate state. Let us forget the
Gandhian leader,
S.J.V.Chelvanayagam's independence declaration of 1975. Let us forget the
Vaddukoddai Resolution of the Tamil United Liberation Front
(TULF) of 1976. Let us forget
the TULF Manifesto for independence which received the
overwhelming support of the people of Tamil Eelam in 1977. Let
us forget S.J.V.Chelvanayagam. Let us forget
the LTTE. Let us forget
Velupillai
Pirabakaran.
Indeed, let us go further. Let us forget federalism. Let us forget
devolution - yes, even devolution.
Let us also forget decades of
murder,
torture and
rape which led Paul Sieghart Q.C. to
conclude in 1984 that "communal riots in which Tamils
are killed, maimed, robbed and rendered homeless are no longer isolated episodes; they are
beginning to become a pernicious habit."
Let us forget
1956,
1958,
1961,
1974,
1977 and
1983. Yes, even
1983.
Let us forget
decades of
broken
pacts and dishonoured agreements entered into by the
dominant Sinhala majority with the Tamil political leadership.
Yes, by all means, let us forget the past. Let us live in the present and
look to the future. Let
us explore
dispassionately the
'disinterested' advice of the 'international community' that the
answer to the conflict in the island of Sri Lanka lies in a
multi ethnic secular
Sri Lanka.
Let us then ask: Will this unitary (yes, unitary) 'multi ethnic secular
state' renounce
the
Sinhala flag as its 'national' flag and adopt
a tricolor as
its national flag? If not, why not?
Will this 'unitary multi
ethnic secular state' repeal the
Sinhala Only Act and
declare explicitly and without subterfuge that Sinhalese and
Tamil shall have parity throughout the island? If not, why not?
Will this 'unitary multi ethnic secular state' repeal the
Constitutional recognition
given to Buddhism? If not, why not?
Will this 'unitary multi ethnic secular state' agree to
renounce its Sinhala name which it
gave itself unilaterally in
1972? If not, why not?
Will this 'unitary multi ethnic secular state' stop
changing the demography of the land by
state sponsored Sinhala colonisation?
If not, why not?
Let us then ask -
If the Sinhala political leadership cannot, even today,
(yes, even today)
remotely consider doing any or all of this, would the
'disinterested' international community please tell us why
that is so? What is it in the Sinhala political consciousness
that prevents it agreeing to a truly unitary (yes, unitary) 'multi ethnic secular
state'? And given the existential reality of that Sinhala political
consciousness what does the
mantra of a 'multi ethnic plural soceity' actually mean
- despite its meditative ring?
Let us ask those whom we lobby -
Would you deny that Sinhala ethno nationalism is a
nationalism that dare not speak its name?
Would you deny the reality that in the island of Sri
Lanka a Sinhala Buddhist
ethno nation seeks to masquerade as a 'multi ethnic
civic Sri
Lankan nation' so that it may further its assimilative
agenda?
Would you deny the political reality of
the homogeneous Pan
Sinhala Ministry of 1936 - yes, in 1936 under British rule
when separation was not even a remote threat, and devolution was
not on the table?
Would you deny that the
record shows that during the past sixty years and more, the intent and goal of all Sinhala governments
(without exception) has been to secure the island
as a Sinhala
Buddhist Deepa ?
Would you deny that
Sinhala Buddhist ethno nationalism existed
long before Tamil demands for devolution or federalism or
an independent state - and that Sinhala Buddhist ethno nationalism
has its roots in the Mahawamsa and in Duttugemenu and that it has continued to assert its hegemony with
increasing ferocity?
Would you deny that Sinhala Buddhist ethno nationalism did
not arise as a response to the Tamil demand for federalism or
an independent state?
Would you deny that Sinhala Buddhist ethno nationalism is not
the creation of S.J.V.Chelvanayagam
or
Velupillai Pirabakaran?
Would you deny that in fact and in
truth, it is the other way around?
Would you deny that it this political reality which prevents
the Sinhala political leadership even today, (yes, even today)
from agreeing to a truly unitary 'multi ethnic secular
state' without
a
Sinhala Lion Flag,
without
the Sinhala Only Act, without
Buddhism as the State religion,
and without the
Sinhala 'Sri Lanka' name
Would you deny that it this political reality of the
existence of two nations in the
island of Sri Lanka (one which dares not speak its name, and
the other which does) that any meaningful conflict resolution
process will need to address?
Would you deny that Velupillai
Pirabakaran was right when he declared many years ago -
"We are not chauvinists.
Neither are we lovers of violence enchanted with war. We do not regard the
Sinhala people as our opponents or as our enemies. We recognise the Sinhala
nation. We accord a place of dignity for the culture and heritage of the
Sinhala people. We have no desire to interfere in any way with the national life
of the Sinhala people or with their freedom and independence. We, the Tamil
people, desire to live in
our own historic homeland as an independent nation, in
peace, in freedom and with dignity."
Would you admit that to deny all this is to display the
simple mindedness
of the naive or the trickery of the knave."
We are a reasonable people and we will listen to reason. But let
us say to those whom we lobby (and who may be lobbying us) that thousands upon thousands of Tamils, young and old, men and women, and
children as well, have died and suffered so that we, their brothers
and sisters, may stand up
and declare openly and fearlessly that we
will not be browbeaten by those who would deny us reason.
We need to say openly and fearlessly to those whom we lobby that former US
Ambassador Jeffrey Lumsted
was disingenuous when he declared some
months ago in a paper on
the ‘United States Role in Sri Lanka Peace Process
2002-2006’ -
“..With the
end of the Cold War, U.S. interest in Sri Lanka waned... Political-military interests are not high, and
the U.S. has no interest in military bases in Sri Lanka."
We
need to openly and fearlessly point out that US Ambassador Jeffrey Lumsted failed to
mention that with the end of the old cold war a
new cold war has started
and that he failed to address the issues raised by United States Lt.Col. Christopher J.
Pehrson in ‘String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power
Across the Asian Littoral’
"Militarily, the United
States must bear the cost of maintaining superior military power to
guarantee security and serve as a hedge against a possible future China
threat. In the “String of Pearls” region, U.S. efforts should be aimed at
broadening and deepening American influence in ways that have wide appeal
among the various regional states."
We need to openly express our concern that Sri
Lanka is intent on using the political space created by
the uneasy balance of power in the Indian ocean region
to further its genocidal onslaught on the people of
Tamil Eelam and to
terrorise them to submit to
permanent
rule by an alien Sinhala majority within the confines of
a single state.
Again, it is true that individual Congressmen,
Senators and Parliamentarians may not have the same
understanding that those at the highest levels of their Governments
may have – and indeed they may not be privy to all the
information and strategic reasoning on which their own
government may choose to act. It is also true that individual
legislators may be impelled by immediate considerations of
securing votes in an election and that therefore they may be
influenced by the presence of a significant number of Tamil
voters in their electorate.
Said that, the responses by
individual legislators will also
be limited by that which they
may perceive to be the
strategic interests of the
country to which they belong. It
is usual for the US State
Department,the Canadian
External Affairs Ministry and the
UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office
to provide a briefing note to
individual legislators
explaining the stand taken by
their governments on important
foreign policy issues.
It was not that the gross violations of human
rights by the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, Suharto and Marcos
were not known to the West (and their legislators) – they pretended to be
unaware at that time or else advised a 'quiet diplomatic
approach'.
And the flip side of this pretence is that individual
legislators often respond to lobbying efforts by Tamils by a
'reverse' lobbying exercise. They say for instance that the problem
of securing peace in the island of Sri Lanka is because of the
'intransigence' of the LTTE. Those Tamils who lobby are
advised that they should 'persuade' the LTTE to 'compromise' and be
more reasonable - and give up violence and give up on the demand for
an independent Tamil Eelam.
Given that the
LTTE is banned in the US as well as in Europe, and that Tamils
(mostly professionals) seek to act within the law, the 'moderate' Tamil 'lobbyist'
then persuades himself that the 'anuku murai', 'the diplomatic way'
is to distance himself from 'terrorists' and 'intransigence'.
The words of Frantz Fannon in
The Wretched of the Earth
in relation to Kenya and the Mau Mau come to mind -
"..the
leader of the ('moderate') nationalist party... loudly proclaims that he has nothing to
do with these Mau-Mau, these terrorists, these throat slitters. At best, he shuts himself off in a no-man's-land between
the terrorists and the settlers and willingly offers his services as go-between; that is
to say, that as the settlers cannot discuss terms with these Mau-Mau, he himself will be
quite willing to begin negotiations.
Thus it is that the rear-guard of
the national struggle... find themselves
somersaulted into the vanguard of negotiations and compromise - precisely because that
party has taken very good care never to break contact with colonialism..."
And so the rear-guard of
the national liberation struggle persuade themselves
that they are in the vanguard of
'negotiations and compromise'.
The 'moderate' Tamil
lobbyist offers his services as a go between.
He persuades himself that the way forward is to distance
himself not only from those labelled as 'terrorists', but also distance himself from the 'ends' that
the Eelam Tamil resistance movement seeks to achieve. He is persuaded to
gloss over the political reality that the demand for an independent
Tamil Eelam
did not originate from the Tamil Eelam armed resistance movement - and
that the demand originated in the declaration of the Gandhian
(yes, Gandhian) Tamil leader S.J.V.Chelvanayagam in 1975.
"Throughout the ages the Sinhalese and Tamils in the country lived as
distinct sovereign people till they were brought under foreign domination...
We have
for the last 25 years made every effort to secure our political rights on the basis of
equality with the Sinhalese in a united Ceylon."
"It is a regrettable fact that successive Sinhalese governments have used the
power that flows from independence
to deny us our fundamental
rights and reduce us to the position of a subject people. These governments have been
able to do so only by using against the Tamils the sovereignty common to the Sinhalese and
the Tamils."
"I wish to announce to my people and to the country that I consider the verdict at
this election as a mandate that the
Tamil Eelam nation
should exercise the sovereignty already vested in the Tamil people and become free."
The 'moderate' Tamil lobbyist is then taken down the slippery slope of 'federalism',
'devolution', 'decentralisation', the comic opera of the
13th Amendment, and so on without knowing how to stop - or where to
go. He rationalises his approach by speaking of the pressing need to end the suffering of his kith and
kin in the Tamil homeland and speaks of the urgent need for 'peace'. He chooses
to forget that the conqueror is always a lover of peace.
"The would be conqueror is always a lover of peace,
for he would like to enter and occupy our country unopposed. It is in order to prevent him
from doing this that we must be willing to engage in war and be prepared for it."
Clausewitz quoted in
Philosophers of Peace and War, edited by Professor Gallie
The 'moderate' Tamil lobbyist persuades himself that
the ‘international community’ is actually engaged in the business of dispensing
‘justice’ and ‘equality’. And the 'international community'
concerned to further its own strategic interests actively encourages
(and
it
now appears, is intent on creating the political space for) such Tamil 'lobbying'. The question here
is: who is lobbying whom?
In 1885, it was a retired British civil servant, A.O.Hume (in consultation
with the British Viceroy of India) who founded the Indian National Congress. The
British were far seeing. David Hume declared:
"Every adherent of the Congress, however noisy in declamations, however bitter
in speech, is safe from burning bungalows and murdering Europeans and the like. His hopes
are based upon the British nation and he will do nothing to invalidate these hopes and
anger that nation."
The Indian National Congress of that time was the 'Indian lobby' through which dissent was channelled and managed
by the ruler in such a way
so as to enable the ruler to secure its strategic interests in the Indian sub
continent. Some 8 years after the founding of the Indian National Congress,
Aurobindo set about showing where Hume was wrong.
Aurobindo wrote in 1893 in the Indu Prakash:
"...Popular orators, who carry the methods of the bar into politics, are
very fond of telling people that the Congress has habituated us to act
together. Well, that is not quite correct; there is not the slightest
evidence to show that we have at all learned to act together; the one lesson
we have learned is to talk together, and that is a rather different thing...Our
appeal, the appeal of every high souled and self respecting nation, ought
not to be to the British sense of justice, but to our own reviving sense of
manhood, to our own sincere fellow feeling - so far as it can be called
sincere - with the silent suffering people of India. I am sure that
eventually the nobler part of us will prevail - that when we no longer obey
the dictates of a veiled self interest, but return to the profession of a
large and genuine patriotism, when we cease to hanker after the soiled
crumbs which England may cast to us from her table, then it will be to that
sense of manhood, to that sincere fellow feeling that we shall finally and
forcibly appeal..."
Admittedly, it is difficult to wake up an international community
which pretends to be unaware of the justice of the struggle of Tamil
Eelam for freedom - a struggle which US Congressman Mario Baggio's
supported
so eloquently in the US
House of Representatives in May 1980. But the ‘waking up’ process will be hastened by openly
discussing (and drawing public attention to) the
strategic
reasons for the international community's sleep.
Let us also communicate to those whom we lobby
that we
also recognise that sovereignty is
not virginity. Let us say that if Germany and France were able to put in place
'associate' structures such as the European Union, despite the
suspicions and confrontations of two world wars, it should not be
beyond the capacity of Tamil Eelam and Sri Lanka to work out
structures, within which each independent state may remain free and
prosper, but at the same time pool sovereignty in certain agreed
areas.
Let us say that Velupillai
Pirabakaran was right
when he declared in 1992
-
''It is the Sri Lanka
government that has failed to learn the lessons
from the emergence of the struggles for self
determination in several parts of the globe and
the innovative structural changes that have
taken place.''
Let us communicate to those whom we lobby our belief that the 'asymmetric multilateral
world' of states in their search for stability will find an
increasing need to adopt a more
principle centred approach towards struggles for self determination not
only in the Indian region but also elsewhere in the globe. And let
us say that little will be gained by demonising resistance to alien
rule and the leaders of that resistance - because, apart from
anything else, 'in those men thousands more
are contained, an entire people is contained, human dignity is contained.'
And to those who ask: when will Tamil Eelam achieve
freedom, let us say that Mahatma Gandhi was right when
he
declared in Transvaal, South Africa more than one hundred
years ago
"..If someone asks me when and how the struggle may end, I may say that,
if the entire community manfully stands the test, the end will be near.
If many of us fall back under storm and stress, the struggle will be
prolonged. But I can boldly declare, and with certainty, that so long as
there is even a handful of men true to their pledge, there
can only be one end to the struggle, and that is victory..."
