President
Jayawardene, in his now famous interview with Ian Ward
of the Daily Telegraph, in July 1983, had many things
to say. Apart from his oft quoted statement that he
could not think of the lives of the Jaffna people or
their opinions, he also declared:
"The more you put pressure in the north, the
happier the Sinhala people will be here.. Really, if
I starve the Tamils out, the Sinhala people will be
happy."
President Jayawardene also wondered aloud whether
the Government should not do that which the British had
done in Malaysia. President Jayawardene was speaking to
a British journalist, and as always he suited his words
to his audience. After all a British journalist would
be more receptive to a British way of doing things. But
President Jayawardene's Minister of Industries, Cyril
Mathew was somewhat more explicit:
"Terrorism cannot be stopped and has never been
stopped by means of the law. Terrorism has been
stopped by terrorism. In no other way is it
possible.."
The intent of the declaration made by President
Jayawardene and his Government was clear. The
Government of Sri Lanka was set on the path of
terrorism. The legitimating propaganda was that
'terrorism must be stopped by terrorism'. But what was
the nature of the so called 'terrorism' which the
Government of Sri Lanka sought to eradicate? The
factual position appears from a report published by the
International Commission of Jurists in March 1984. It
said:
"..the scale and size of terrorism in Sri Lanka is
not such as to constitute a public emergency
threatening the life of the nation.. and so does not
justify measures permanently derogating from the
rights guarantied by the Covenant.. In particular,
the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1979 infringes many
of Sri Lanka's obligations under the International
Covenant for Civil and Political Rights...and some of
its provisions would be an ugly blot on the statute
book of any civilised country...if terrorism is to be
contained or eliminated the legitimate expectations
of the Tamil community must be met.."
But clearly, the Government of Sri Lanka was no
longer concerned with the lives or the opinion of the
Tamil people, leave alone their 'legitimate
expectations'. It seemed to believe that state
terrorism was the answer to the Tamil national
question. In March 1984 and in the succeeding weeks,
the Sinhala army moved into Tamil areas in the North
and East of Sri Lanka in increased strength.
A new army commander was appointed. The
Government insisted that all Tamils should carry
identity cards. Tamils were taken into custody as
hostages. The army shot at random in Chunnakkam, a busy
market town in the North of Sri Lanka and in urban
Jaffna as well. More than 200 Tamils young middle aged
and old, were killed.
The Guardian in England reported on 17 April:
"Most of the dead are admitted to have been
passers by, shot at random by vengeful infantrymen.
They reportedly included men and women in their
sixties...when the security services cannot find
known suspects, they detain their fathers or
brothers.."
The Government sought to legitimise its
actions by claiming that it was attacking 'terrorists'.
Ex Oxford Union President, Lalith Athulathmudali, was
appointed National Security Minister and his
pronouncements were in the style of Hitler's propaganda
chief, Joseph Goebbels who said in the
1930s:
"Propaganda does not have anything to do
with truth. We serve truth by serving a German
victory"
It would seem that Minister Athulathmudali seeks to
serve truth by serving the cause of Sinhala state
terrorism. In an interview reported in the Sri Lanka
Island, appropriately enough, on the 1st of April,
Minister Athulathmudali said, with reference to the
killings in Chunnakkam on the 28th of March:
"According to the information I have received,
the Air Force men were fired on by terrorists who
were on the roofs of some buildings. The servicemen
fired back. Unfortunately, while terrorists were
killed, there was also the death of a lady who had
been marketing. She had been accidentally hit by a
stray bullet. The first reports to the media were
that the Air Force had shot at the crowd. The events
in Jaffna last week were blown out of all
proportions."
Ex Oxford Union President, Lalith Athulathmudali was
not without the skills of an undergraduate debater. To
ex Oxford Union President Athulathmudali it was all a
question of the events in Jaffna being 'blown out of
all proportions.' It would appear that certain
appropriate proportions should be maintained when air
force personnel are accused of killing civilians. But,
perhaps more appropriately, what are the facts ?
According to Minister Athulathmudali, bullets
directed at roof tops, somehow started 'straying'
downwards. The air force men fired at terrorists on
roof tops and they fired with such accuracy, that the
bullets 'strayed' and hit a lady who was marketing at
ground level. Though Minister Athulathmudali's
statement was reported in the Sri Lanka Island
newspaper on the 1st of April, he was not relating an
April Fool joke. But this was not all. Minister
Athulathmudali who is a lawyer by profession, stated
rather disingenuously:
"Unfortunately, while terrorists were killed,
there was also the death of a lady who had been
marketing"
Lawyer Athulathmudali deliberately led his listeners
to infer that apart from the lady 'who had been
marketing', the others who were killed were terrorists.
But who were these so called terrorists who were
killed on that fateful day at Chunnakkam?
One of those who were killed on the 28th of March at
Chunnakkam was 22 year old Krishnandan who was employed
as an operator at Nathan Brothers at Chunnakkam and he
was shot whilst at his work place at ground level. Was
he a terrorist, Mr. National Security Minister? And was
Krishnandan also killed by a bullet which was directed
at the roof tops and which 'strayed' downwards?
Krishnandan was the sole bread winner of his family.
He supported his elderly father, who is a T.B. patient,
and his mother. He supported two unmarried sisters and
a brother who was 13 years old. Does that concern you,
Mr. Minister?
Another who was killed at Chunnakkam was 53 year old
Kandiah Balasubramaniam who worked as a watcher at the
Jaffna Railway Station. He was shot at Chunnakkam on
the morning of the 28th of March, whilst on his way to
work. was he also a terrorist, Mr. National Security
Minister? And was Kandiah Balasubramaniam also killed
by a bullet which 'strayed'?
Does it concern you, Mr. Minister, that Kandiah
Balasubramaniam was the sole bread winner of a family
of five daughters, aged 21, 19, 17, 13, and 8 years and
one disabled son who was ten years old?
Another of the dead was 27 year old Nadarajah
Yogarajah who helped his brother in the family store at
Chunnakkam and who was shot whilst standing in front of
the shop. Was he also a terrorist, Mr. National
Security Minister? And was Nadarajah Yogarajah also
killed by yet another bullet which was directed at the
roof tops but somehow 'strayed'? Not only the Tamils of
Sri Lanka, but the Tamils the world over would like to
know your views Mr. Minister.
And does it concern you, Mr. Minister that Nadarajah
Yogarajah leaves behind him a 60 year old mother and an
unmarried sister?
Another of the dead was 42 year old Vairavi
Thiagarajah, who had left his home at Market Lane,
Chunnakkam, that morning to buy some firewood and milk
powder for his infant twins. He did not return home. He
was shot dead in the shop whilst he was purchasing milk
powder. Was this man also a terrorist, Mr. National
Security Minister? And was Vairavi Thiagarajah killed
by a bullet which 'strayed' into a shop selling milk
powder?
And does it matter to you, Mr. Minister, that
Vairavi Thiagarajah leaves behind a widow aged 36
years, a son aged 12 years, a daughter aged 6 years and
twins aged 4 months? Or is it that you and your
Government feel that this is the price that the Tamil
people should pay for their struggle to be free from a
continuing oppression?
Another of those killed was 68 year old Vallipuram
Sinnathurai who was a vendor of vegetables at the
Chunnakkam public market. He was shot dead whilst
selling vegetables and his body was eventually brought
back home in a bullock cart. Was Vallipuram Sinnathurai
also a terrorist, Mr. National Security Minister?
And was Vallipuram Sinnathurai also killed by a
'straying' bullet - a bullet directed at the roof tops
but which somehow found its way into the Chunnakkam
public market, and 'accidentally' killed a vegetable
seller at ground level. Does it concern you, Mr.
Minister, that Vallipuram Sinnathurai leaves behind his
widow Ponnama who has no one to support her?
Yet another who was killed was 37 year old
Thambimuttu Suntharalingam. He was a street hawker who
used to supply vegetables and on the morning of the
28th of March he left home by cycle to go to the
Chunnakkam market. He did not return. He was shot at
Chunnakkam. Was Thambimuttu Suntharalingam also a
terrorist, Mr. National Security Minister? And was
he also killed by yet another 'stray' bullet? And
does it concern you, Mr. Minister that Thambimuttu
Suntharalingam's widow must now look after her aged
parents, who live with her, and her 4 year old son and
twins aged one year and eight months. Does it concern
you that this widow is herself a T.B. patient?
Another who was killed at Chunnakkam was Kathiravelu
Kanesh who had accompanied his uncle, Suppiah
Balasubramaniam, to Chunnakkam. his uncle went as
usual, on that day, to read palms at the Chunnakkam
market. Kathiravelu Kanesh was shot whilst at the
Chunnakkam market. Was Kathiravelu Kanesh, who
accompanied his uncle, who was a palm reader, was
Kathiravelu Kanesh a terrorist on a roof top, Mr.
National Security Minister? And was he also killed
by a 'stray' bullet? And does it matter to you, Mr.
Minister, that Kathiravelu Kanesh left behind a widow
who is six months pregnant and who must now fend for
herself?
And so, Mr. Minister, this was not a day when
merely one bullet, which was directed at the roof
tops somehow 'strayed' downward and killed a lady at
ground level. That would have been curious enough.
But as Alice remarked in Wonderland, the story
becomes curiouser and curiouser. It was not even a
day of two straying bullets. It was not even a day of
three or four or five or six or seven straying
bullets. It would seem that all the bullets fired on
that day at terrorists on roof tops, somehow
'strayed' downwards and killed people at ground
level.
In fact, Mr. National Security Minister, we all
know, do we not, that it was not a day of straying
bullets at all. We all know do we not, that the persons
who were killed at Chunnakkam on that day, were not
terrorists but were persons who were there on
legitimate business of their own.
The bullets fired by the air force at Chunnakkam
did not stray. Like all good bullets, they went in the
direction they were fired. On 28 March 1984 the
Sri Lankan Air Force exhibited their prowess and their
bravery and fired at random in the busy market town of
Chunnakkam with intent to kill and terrorise civilian
Tamils.
And if these eight persons who were killed at
Chunnakkam as a result of the shooting on the 28th of
March were not terrorists, who were the so called
'terrorists' who were killed on that day? Because, the
official communiqué of the Sri Lankan Government
stated that only seven persons were killed by the
shooting.
The truth is self evident. The air force did not
kill any terrorist at Chunnakkam on that day because in
fact, there were no terrorists in Chunnakkam on that
day. The air force did not fire at the roof tops
because there were no terrorists on the roof tops in
Chunnakkam on that day. The Sri Lankan air force
committed murder and National Security Minister Lalith
Athulathmudali sought to insult the intelligence of the
world by seeking to narrate the story of the mysterious
case of 'The Straying Bullets'.
Francis Whelan commented in the London Times on 7
May 1984:
"..In the past two months at least 100 Tamils in
the northern province of Jaffna have been killed by
security forces. The official explanation is that
these people were all 'terrorists', but this is
contradicted by the accounts of every independent
observer who has visited Jaffna. One typically
disturbing incident occurred on the 28th of March,
when air force personnel opened fire in the market
place at Chunnakkam, a town about 8 miles outside
Jaffna. Eight Tamils were shot dead and 22 others
were wounded...
If the victims were really terrorists, one
might expect that fact to come out at the inquest
into the deaths. However no inquest will be
held into the killings in Chunnakkam market place,
nor into any of the other recent deaths of Tamil
civilians. This is because of a rule called
Emergency Regulation 15A which was introduced last
June and which allows the security to dispose of any
dead body as they see fit, without post mortem or
inquest.
The International Commission of Jurists (in their
report of March 1984) is particularly scathing about
Regulation 15A arguing that it is bound to be
regarded as a 'deliberate device for covering up
murder'. But President Jayawardene will not repeal
it; rather, he and his new Minister of National
Security, Lalith Athulathmudali, actually intend to
strengthen the emergency rules. One of the new rules
would effectively do way with the right of habeas
corpus, which according to an official spokesman '
the Government considers as an unnecessary
exercise.'"
The massacre at Chunnakkam marked the beginning
of the Malaysian style operation which President
Jayawardene had wondered about in July 1983 and it is
therefore something more than a stray interest that
leads us to inquire as to what President Jayawardene
had in mind when he referred to a 'Malaysian' type
solution. What was it that was done in
Malaysia?
In 1948, the British launched a campaign to counter
a communist insurgency in Malaysia. It was an
insurgency which was confined to sections of the
Chinese in Malaysia. The British campaign lasted
several years. The back of the insurgency was broken by
1957. The communist insurgency failed but the Malaysian
national liberation struggle succeeded and the British
handed over power to an independent Malaysia in July
1957.
Robert Thompson, who served as adviser to the
campaign, has written of his experiences in a
publication on Studies in International Security. That
which he has written is relevant and revealing. He
says:
"...the first requirement is an identity card
system throughout the country.. this makes it easy to
check absentees and visitors...Dusk to dawn curfews
outside hamlets should be imposed and strictly
enforced. Bulk supplies of food and other articles of
value should be convoyed between towns and villages
and no individual should be allowed to take such
articles outside the hamlet...Check points should be
established to enforce all these regulations, and
snap checks should be carried out on all roads,
rivers and tracks ..
There are many who will criticise the harshness
of the measures which may have to be used. This is a
mistaken attitude. What the peasant wants to know is:
Does the government mean to win the war? Because if
not, he will have to support the insurgent. The
government must show it is determined to win.
Only in that way will it instil the confidence that
it is going to win...The blame for the harshness of
the measures can be placed squarely on the
insurgent...There should be in the whole of the
government's approach an adroit and judicious mixture
of ruthlessness and sympathy.."
Robert Thompson was frank and clinical. He
continued:
"As an example of a ruthless measure it is worth
quoting the case of a village in Malaya of about 3000
inhabitants. This was a very bad area...Having given
the inhabitants a choice between the government and
the communists, and having failed to make any headway
by appealing to or persuading them to cooperate, the
government surrounded it with several battalions at
dawn one morning and moved the whole village out.
Everyone in it, men, women and children, went
into detention. All the houses were razed to the
ground and crops destroyed. This did not cause a
public outcry because the effectiveness of the
result...silenced all criticism."
And, so we begin to have some understanding of
President Jayawardene's "Malaysian" type answer to the
Tamil national question. It would seem that ex Oxford
Union President and new Minister for National Security,
Lalith Athulathmudali, is co-ordinating a Malaysian
style operation in Jaffna with 'an adroit mixture of
ruthlessness and sympathy' - ruthlessness in
deed and sympathy in word. In the interview
reported in the Island, Minister Athulathmudali
said:
"Q. Can you tell me one country where tough
measures have arrested terrorist activities?
A. One of the best examples is Malaysia where
there was a fight against Communist infiltrators and
commandos. The Malaysians won.
Q. But that was against Communists?
A. Yes, but the majority of these terrorists are
trained in Marxist ideology. So it is the same
format."
However, events and time will prove that
President Jayawardene's 'Malaysian' type solution will
turn out to be counter productive - because despite
Minister Athulathmudali's assertion, the 'format' is
not the same.
The insurgency in Malaysia was communist in origin
and it was confined to a section of the Chinese people.
The British successfully prevented the insurgency from
developing into a national liberation struggle by
promising and then granting independence to Malaysia in
1957, with the Malays and Chinese sharing power.
This was the major political plank of the campaign
and it was this which was crucial to its success.
The British left Malaysia. If they had
sought to continue to rule in Malaysia, the insurgency
would have developed into a full fledged national
liberation struggle to oust the foreigner from the soil
of the people. This was the political lesson of the
Malaysian campaign.
It was a lesson which British Adviser, Robert
Thompson, presumably, did learn when he went to South
Vietnam in 1961, after his successful completion of his
tour of duty in Malaysia. In Vietnam, the tough
approach resulted in the strengthening of the
liberation movement - it led to a marriage of Marxism
and nationalism and this has often proved to be a
potent mix in the developing Third World.
In Sri Lanka, the struggle of the Tamil
people is a struggle to be free from a continuing
Sinhala oppression. It is a national liberation
struggle and so long as the Sinhala Government has no
intention of relinquishing its rule, the struggle will
continue. Every act of Sinhala "ruthlessness" will have
the result of increasing the togetherness of the Tamil
people and will confirm them in their belief that they
are being oppressed by a foreign army and a foreign
government.
President Jayawardene and his Government are bent on
teaching the Tamil people, in the crucible of immediate
experience, something which John Stuart Mill said many
years ago in 1872, 'soldiers to whose feelings the
people are foreigners, will have no more scruple in
mowing them down, and no more reason to ask the reason
why, than they would have in doing the same thing
against declared enemies'.
President Jayawardene and his Government are engaged
in a 'Malaysian style' military operation, without the
Malaysian style political solution. Unlike the British,
the Sri Lankan Government has no intention of
recognising the existence of the Tamil nation, leave
alone granting freedom to the Tamil people.
The Sri Lankan Government has failed to offer any
meaningful political solution to the Tamil national
question. Minister Lalith Authulathmudali paid lip
service to the question of a political answer. He said
on the 1st of April:
"I believe in a political solution. I believe that
every man, woman and child must believe and work for
a political solution through non-violent means."
The rhetoric of ex Oxford Union President Lalith
Athulathmudali was suspect for more than one reason. He
and his Government were engaged in a planned attack on
the Tamils which found its most open expression in
July and
August 1983, when thousands of Tamils were killed
by persons identified as henchmen of leading Ministers
and when the Government of Sri Lanka secured that the
army and the police would look the other way whilst the
grim deed was done.
It was a holocaust which has led to a demand by the
Tamil people, in many lands for an independent
international inquiry into the allegations of murder
and arson against the Government of Sri Lanka. Minister
Athulathmudali speaks on behalf of a Government which
has blood on its hands. But, be that as it may, what
was the nature of the political solution which the
Government of Sri Lanka had in mind and which Minister
Athulathmudali did not spell out in his interview on
the 1st of April?
President Jayawardene declared in a magazine
interview on the 7th of April 1984:
" How can I say I want Regional Councils when
everybody else is against them?...I am a prisoner,
not of any particular group but a prisoner of
circumstances, law, the constitution and the
political parties. I cannot throw my weight about and
say: do this, do that. I am not a dictator"
These were the words of President Jayawardene, who
had, deprived his chief Sinhala political rival,
Mrs.Bandaranaike, of her civic rights, soon after he
assumed power in 1977, and who had in 1982, secured the
extension of the life of the Sri Lankan Parliament from
six years to twelve years.
These were the words of a President who has had with
him for an year and more, the undated signed letters of
resignations of all the members of Parliament of the
ruling party, including Ministers and who cheerfully
admitted in an interview reported in the Island on the
5th of February: ' Yes, I have heard that some people
call it my atomic bomb'.
These were the words of a President who on more than
one occasion promoted police officers
within hours of their being found guilty of violating
human rights by the Supreme Court. These were the
words of a President, whose Government had enacted the
infamous Prevention of Terrorism Act which was
described by the International Commission of Justice in
a report published in March 1984 as containing
provisions which would be 'a blot on the statute
book of any civilised country'.
These were the words of a President who had secured
the amendment of the Sri Lankan Constitution on six
different occasions in six years so that a recent Sri
Lankan joke was that the constitution had become a
'periodical'. And President Jayawardene would have the
world believe that he was a prisoner of the law and of
the constitution. President Jayawardene is no prisoner
either of the law or of the constitution. And, it is
not without relevance, that as long ago as in June
1957, at a time when he was in the opposition he
said:
"The time has come for the whole Sinhala race
which has existed for 2500 years, jealously
safeguarding their language and religion, to fight
without giving any quarter to save their
birthright...I will lead the campaign.
It was President Jayawardene who also declared,
twenty years later, in 1977, soon after he had assumed
control of the Government of Sri Lanka that 'the
Sinhala people are saying , I am not saying, that if it
be war let it be war, if it be peace, let it be
peace.'
As always, the style was familiar. 'The Sinhala
people are saying - I am not saying' - it was always
somebody else who was responsible. But behind the
'style' lay the reality. The Government of Sri Lanka
was engaged in an undeclared war against the Tamils of
Sri Lanka - it was engaged in a fight 'without giving
any quarter'.
The Sri Lankan Government's views on the Tamil
national question, should not, therefore, come as a
surprise. The Sri Lankan Government refuses to
recognise that the Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka
are a people with an ancient history, a common language
a common culture and a traditional homeland.
The Sri Lankan Government refuses to recognise the
existence of the Tamil nation. The Sri Lankan
Government refuses to recognise the need to sit and
talk with the Tamil nation, as a nation, and with its
leaders, as leaders of a nation.
The Sri Lankan Government refuses to recognise that
which is guaranteed by the first article of the
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights,
namely, the right of a people to freely determine their
political status. The Sri Lankan Government goes
even further. It seems to have some doubts as to
whether the Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka have any
problems at all.
In a magazine interview on the 7th of April
President Jayawardene said:
"Q. Do you accept that the Tamils have grievances
in the first place?
A. They may have in Jaffna. But what are their
grievances in the rest of the island?"
These were the words of the President of a
country which had witnessed the planned murder of
thousands of Tamils outside Jaffna during July and
August 1983. A few thousands were killed but then the
dead do not have grievances and perhaps that is what
President Jayawardene had in mind.
Thousands of Tamil wives and children have lost
the bread winners of their families but in President
Jayawardene's perception they have no grievances.
Thousands of Tamil homes were destroyed and Tamils
in Colombo and elsewhere were pauperised, but in
President Jayawardene's perception, they too have no
grievances.
The Tamils in Colombo, in Kandy, in Amparai were
assaulted and killed in 1958, but in President
Jayawardene's perception, the Tamils outside Jaffna
have no grievances.
More than a million Tamils who were born in Sri
Lanka and lived on the tea estates in the central
parts of Sri Lanka, were rendered stateless in 1948,
but in President Jayawardene's perception, Tamils
outside Jaffna, have no grievances.
The Tamils of Trincomalee and Batticaloa have
protested time and again against the systematised
colonisation of their traditional homeland, but in
President Jayawardene's perception, Tamils outside
Jaffna, have no grievances.
The Tamils in Colombo and elsewhere were deprived
of employment in the public service by the enactment
of the Sinhala only law in 1956, but in President
Jayawardene's perception, the Tamils outside Jaffna
have no grievances.
Thousands of qualified Tamil youths were refused
admission to Universities because they were Tamils,
but in President Jayawardene's perception the Tamils
outside Jaffna have no grievances.
'The Tamils may have grievances in Jaffna - but
what are their grievances in the rest of the Island?'
What, indeed?
It would seem that in President Jayawardene's
perception there were really no grievances so far as
the Tamils were concerned - presumably the real
grievances were the grievances of the Sinhala majority.
And so perhaps not unnaturally, President
Jayawardene's so called political solution seeks to
resolve the grievances of his Sinhala electorate by
setting up District Development Councils in Tamil
areas, so that the Sinhala majority may more
effectively manage the Tamil people and continue the
oppression behind a legitimating facade.
The District Councils will be without executive
powers and with very limited rule making powers. They
will be financially dependent on the centre. A minister
nominated by a Sinhala President would form a joint
executive committee together with the elected chairmen
and similarly nominated ministers of one or two other
district councils. The joint executive committee would
meet under the Chairmanship of the President. The
intention of the frame is clear.
The control of the activities of the District
Council will be in the hands of an executive dominated
by the President and his nominees. The Sinhala majority
will manage and control the Tamils even in the
relatively insignificant functional areas where the
District Councils have some jurisdiction.
President Jayawardene's proposal has no claim to
originality. It is a gambit often adopted by a colonial
power in the face of a rising national consciousness -
a gambit which seeks to perpetuate colonial rule with
the assistance of collaborators from those who are
ruled. It is a legal frame which, President Jayawardene
hopes, will help to create an appropriately servile
Tamil quisling 'leadership' which will depend on the
patronage of their Sinhala masters for their
survival.
This is President Jayawardene's political solution
to the problem created for the Sinhala people by the
national consciousness of the Tamils in the island of
Sri Lanka - a national consciousness which has been
fertilised by the martyrdom of thousands of Tamils,
brave and honest, brilliant and dedicated. President
Jayawardene's political solution seeks to perpetuate
Sinhala rule and Sinhala discrimination. President
Jayawardene offered no solution to the grievances of
the Tamils - after all, he was not quite sure whether
they had any grievances at all.
He declared in an interview with the London Times,
reported on the 7th of May 1984, that if the Tamil
United Liberation Front did not agree, they can stay
out. 'We do not need agreement with them to go ahead
with our proposals'. He added that the TULF was
'dead as dodo'. This was two days before the
scheduled resumption of the Round Table Conference with
the TULF, on the 9th of May.
These were not the words of a leader who was
concerned about amity and reconciliation. These were
the words of a leader who believed that Biafra style
terrorism was the answer to the Tamil national
question. These were words which were intended to
render the Round Table Conference 'dead as dodo'.
And on the 9th of May, not surprisingly, the so
called amity talks broke down and the TULF walked out.
But, then President Jayawardene was being consistent.
He was not concerned with the opinions or the lives of
the Tamil people and he spoke with the belligerence of
a conqueror about the leaders of a conquered people.
History will show that he spoke too soon and that he
spoke unwisely.
The Sri Lankan government is engaged in a Malaysian
style military operation without a Malaysian style
political solution. This is nothing but a Biafra type
terrorism which is intended to intimidate and frighten
the Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka into accepting
the servile role of quisling collaborators in the
proposed District Councils. And it is this state
terrorism that has now unfolded in the traditional
homelands of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.
The random shootings in Chunnakkam and in Jaffna
Town during the recent past will not, however, silence
: they will create a quiet determination and a growing
resolve amongst the Tamil people.
The Tamil people know that these are the terrorist
actions of a Government which seeks to subjugate the
Tamils of Eelam and bend them to its will. The
Sinhala Army may even temporarily conquer and subjugate
the Tamils of Eelam. Such conquests are not unknown in
history. But there will be no peace or rest for the
land or its rulers until the army departs - and depart,
they will.
In the interregnum, the Tamils of Eelam will be
called upon to pay a heavy price in suffering and pain.
But pain is a great teacher. It is teaching us that we
suffer because we are Tamils. It is teaching us that we
are not alone in our suffering. It is teaching us that
our pain is shared by millions of Tamils everywhere. It
is a pain that is teaching us that we are one. And in
that increasing togetherness we are finding a new and
surging strength.
