“The
new constitution that is in the process of being drafted will contain an
elaborate chapter on devolution. We are convinced that a substantial degree of
devolution represents the key to the most vexed problem confronting the Sri
Lankan nation at this time” —
Prof. G.L. Peiris
“The package for the
devolution of power submitted to the people by the government of Sri Lanka on
August 3, 1995 may be considered more as a pre-constitutional document than as
a statement of government policy............ It appears that this document
represents the nation’s alternative to Eelam................ The document
contains in substance a balance between what any government in Sri Lanka could
concede to the Tamil people while at the same time maintaining its political
legitimacy in the eyes of the majority Sinhala people”
—
Prof. Lakshman Marasinghe
“The proposals of August 3,
1995, represented the boldest attempt to redress the imbalance in the
relationship between the different ethnic groups through devolution of power
to the regions”
—
Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam
Anton
Stanislaus Balasingham described nowadays in chaste Tamil as “mathiyurainjar”
(advisor) of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) made a startling
disclosure about the devolution package formulated by the late Dr. Neelan
Tiruchelvam at a press conference on March 12, in Kilinochchi.
The Jaffna based Tamil daily Uthayan
of March 13 carried extensive details of what the Tiger Chief Negotiator had
to say. Speaking within the context of the long search for a negotiated
settlement, Balasingham made explicit reference to Tiruchelvam. This is what
he purportedly stated:
Neelan Tiruchelvam
presented in 1995 a draft amending the constitution. That was a
correct draft. That was acceptable. But later in 2000 Chandrika submitted an
amended version based on that draft. This one was only a half-baked version
of the earlier draft by Neelan Tiruchelvam.
My
immediate reaction on reading Balasingham’s comments was a mixture of
emotions — disbelief, anger, sadness, agony, frustration, etc. After
vilifying Neelan as a traitor and the August 3rd 1995 devolution package
as an act of treachery for years the LTTE was now acknowledging the
merits of Neelan’s draft
His ruthless assassination was supposedly
for this but now the Tigers were saying something different. I have been
closely associated with Neelan from 1977 and regarded him as friend,
philosopher and guide in many respects. Although in Canada now I was one of
the last people to speak to him. I was talking to him on the phone from 7:50
a.m. to 8:40 a.m. on that fateful July 29, 1999 morning. I will always
remember that final conversation.
He died at 9:10 a.m. when a suicide bomber
exploded against his vehicle at the Kynsey Road junction while on his way to
office. These memories came back vividly as I read what Balasingham was saying
now.
These comments were not to be taken lightly
as the LTTE theoretician was confident enough to assert in the press
conference of April 10, last year that “Prabhakaran and I speak with one
voice. We are one and the same.”
Silent on killing
Several months ago in a telephone
conversation with Balasingham I had raised the issue of Neelan’s killing
with him. He listened to me patiently but avoided a pointed reply saying
nothing except “appadiyo” (is that so) placatingly in Tamil. At
least three other prominent personalities close to the LTTE hierarchy were
also evasively silent when I had raised the same issue before.
The LTTE has neither confirmed nor denied
involvement in Neelan’s killing. The modus operandi however bore the
Tiger stamp conclusively. Tiger propagandists and LTTE fellow travellers had
been blatantly transparent in their criticism of Neelan before and after his
death. In fact I was forced to engage in an acrimonious exchange with the late
Kumar Ponnambalam in the columns of another newspaper in the process of
defending Neelan.
The LTTE led and inspired propaganda against
Neelan prior to his death was that he had ‘betrayed’ the Tamils by
formulating along with Prof. G.L. Peiris the set of devolution proposals known
then as the “package.” The process of depicting Neelan as a ‘traitor’
continued up to his death and even continued for a while afterwards in a bid
to justify that despicable murder.
The basis of all this hate mongering was the
devolution proposals of August 4, 1995. Neelan as co-architect was accused of
having caused great harm to the Tamil cause through that. As is customary in
many matters of this nature the ‘green light’ for the barrage of
anti-package propaganda among Tamils was given by the LTTE itself.
Barely a week after the draft proposals were
released on August 4, 1995, the LTTE held a press conference in Chundikuli,
Jaffna.
Balasingham and Political Wing Head S.P.
Thamilchelvan rejected the proposed package outright even though it had not
been formally submitted to them. It was criticised as an act of treachery. Now
the very same Balasingham is praising Neelan’s draft.
Thereafter the LTTE began a vicious campaign
against Neelan spearheaded by its self-styled poet laureate Puthuvai
Ratnadurai alias Tiyaasan. Discredited Tamil politicians hoping to gain
political office by pandering to the LTTE also began maligning Neelan. Sadly,
his party the Tamil United Liberation Front (TUFL) did not rally to Neelan’s
defence just as the Federal Party of old let down Neelan’s father Murugesu
Tiruchelvam when opposition jackals started howling.
Neelan with characteristic modesty and
disdain for hogging the limelight played down his involvement in the August 4
proposals known as the “GL-Neelan” package. In private and in fora that
mattered, Neelan defended the package. He would often lament that much of the
mud slung at him in Tamil circles was “ill-informed” and without any grasp
of what the package was all about.
He was very proud of it but accepted that it
had its shortcomings from a Tamil point of view. What he felt was that the
package was the best possible as a starting point. A particular source of
satisfaction was the change of the unitary state into a union of regions. He
felt that if there was a Tamil consensus around it and the LTTE itself lent
its bargaining clout the package could be enhanced further. That was not to be
and the LTTE campaign sought to undermine the package as a complete sell-out.
With the LTTE taking up cudgels against the
package and the war intensifying, the Chandrika Kumaratunga government too
altered its approach. The new strategy was to
conduct a war to weaken the LTTE
militarily and isolate it politically through building up a consensus around
the package.
Revisions
This led to a situation where the devolution
proposals drafted originally with higher ideals being utilised as an important
component in the so-called “war for peace” effort. Naturally, Neelan was
placed in an unenviable position while his critics became increasingly
strident. On the other hand, the original package itself underwent a series of
revisions. The end result of all this was the systematic whittling down of the
original package to which Neelan had contributed immensely.
The August 3 package lost much of its lustre
when presented formally as government proposals on January 16,
1996. The
parliamentary select committee proceedings saw the devolution proposals being
diluted further when tabled as a white paper on October 24, 1997.
With the war intensifying and Chandrika
Kumaratunga becoming increasingly enthralled with visions of becoming a latter
day Viharamahadevi, relations with the TULF began to sour. At one point
Kumaratunga bluntly told the TULF not to bother her about the devolution
exercise until her uncle, the reincarnation of Sapumal Kumara finished the job
in the north.
Unfortunately for the devolution proponents,
Prof. Peiris himself was now being replaced as close confidant of the
President by Lakshman Kadirgamar. While Neelan worked in his usual behind the
scenes manner and helped spotlight the violation of human rights in the north
east, internationally publicity-seeking persons were playing to the Tamil
gallery by indulging in bombastic rhetoric.
Unfair criticism
The positive and constructive endeavours of
Neelan remained unknown to the Tamil world while the abrasive yet negative
play-acting of others received undeserved praise. The widespread grief and
condemnation expressed by a spectrum of human rights organisations at his
killing demonstrated the extent of his contacts and was a tribute to his
untiring yet unpublicised efforts on behalf of the Tamil people.
The unfair criticism and allegations against
Neelan continued in the Tamil world. One of the worst instances of false
allegations was the charge in sections of the Tamil media about Neelan
undertaking a sudden trip to the USA to poison Washington against the LTTE,
whereas he had only gone to be with his brother at a time of deep sorrow due
to a bereavement in the family.
In this climate of hate where every act of
Neelan was being distorted in negative portrayals those close to him were able
to persuade him to say “au revoir” if not “adieu” to Sri
Lankan politics. This was a very reluctant decision as his involvement in
politics was motivated by a missionary zeal.
Although a citizen of the world in every
sense Neelan also felt deeply about the plight of “our people” as he would
refer to the Tamils in talking to me. It was this concern about the Tamil
predicament and the yearning to do something meaningful about it that drew me
closer to him. At the same time Neelan was not ethno-centric and realised
fully that ultimately a solution acceptable to all sections of the people had
to be found.
Neelan became chairman of the much respected
UK based Minority Rights Group for a four year term. He consoled himself by
saying that he would spend the next few years fighting for minority rights
globally and focus on his own country later when the need for his role arose.
He was also scheduled to lecture at Harvard
University for the fall term in 1999. He was quite excited about it and went
to Italy for a month to prepare for it. He was planning to resign his
parliamentary seat and formally suspend his political role prior to his
departure to Harvard in September. The LTTE had other ideas and struck him
down before those plans materialised.
After Neelan’s death, the devolution
package he conceptualised in its original form was further eroded. In the
short-lived honeymoon period between the PA and UNP the devolution proposals
got reduced in scope and scale further. Choksy was responsible for much of
that. With Neelan’s demise there was no one from the Tamil side to
contribute positively to this exercise. Ultimately a caricatured version of
the original Neelan package came to parliament but even the TULF would not
support it now.
Draft “acceptable”
Kumaratunga in her address to parliament
lavished her gratitude to Choksy but omitted to even mention Neelan’s name
despite his having paid the supreme sacrifice.
Now the wheel has turned full cycle. After
condemning the “GL-Neelan” package, the LTTE is now praising it. There was
a time when Tiger apologists explained that the package was unacceptable
because the LTTE was not consulted in the preparatory phase. Balasingham,
however, now says that Neelan’s draft was “correct” and “acceptable”
now.
This makes me wonder. What will all those
Tamils who branded Neelan a traitor and the August 3 package a betrayal do
now? I do not for a moment say that Balasingham is the final arbitrator of
whether Neelan’s draft was correct or incorrect, acceptable or unacceptable.
The crux of the matter is that the package was a sound one regardless of LTTE
approval or disapproval.
Nevertheless, those Tamils who blindly
echoed the LTTE then could do some soul searching now. Neelan is no more but
Balasingham and Neelan’s former associate G.L. Peiris are now co-chairmen of
a sub-committee assigned the task of exploring federalism. Let us wait and see
whether these new partners can deliver the goods.
Will this partnership help achieve
federalism, a cause close to Neelan’s heart? Much as I would like this
search for a federal goal to succeed, I have nothing to be optimistic about
given what is happening now. Moreover, the opponents of federalism are now
closing ranks and have commenced firing opening salvos.
I am unable to visualise Balasingham
providing the strength and support Neelan gave G.L. in the earlier exercise.
The LTTE is now praising Neelan’s draft. After years of slandering and
maligning Neelan in life and death, it is now being truthful. The singer was
killed because his song was faulted. Now the song is being praised. The
creator was killed for the creation but now the creator is being lauded.
Irreplaceable loss
Despite the belated recognition by the LTTE
of the intrinsic merits of Neelan’s original package, a noble soul is no
more due to murder most foul. Balasingham praising Neelan’s draft now is not
akin to cheering from the ranks of Tuscany.
Even though Neelan has been vindicated in a
way, the man is no more and nothing can bring him back. The loss to his
family, friends, colleagues and associates is irreplaceable. So too is the
loss to his community, country, humanity at large and the intellectual realm.
Nothing can fill this void.
When replying to his critics in the
aftermath of Neelan’s assassination I wrote that with the passage of time
his positive contribution would be acknowledged by the Tamils. I did not
imagine then that the LTTE’s Political Advisor would — for whatever reason
— sing praises of Neelan Tiruchelvam’s “varaipu.” This does not
mean that the LTTE can be absolved of Neelan’s murder. This admission by
Balasingham has only placed the LTTE more firmly in the dock.
Neelan’s vindication is in every way a
condemnation of the Tigers. If Neelan’s draft was indeed correct and
acceptable then what was the ‘sin’ he committed to deserve horrible
assassination? If his draft was all right then why did the LTTE orchestrate a
campaign calling him a traitor and describing the August 3, 1995 package a
betrayal?
These are questions that Neelan’s party
the TULF should raise. Given the fact that the TULF did not even utter a word
of protest at Neelan’s killing, one cannot expect that party to do this even
now. Since I have no communication channel with Bala-singham now, I too am
unable to seek answers directly. This does not mean that these questions will
ever go away. They will continue to linger and be a constant indictment of the
LTTE.
The heinous crime of killing Neelan
Tiruchelvam has acquired a monstrous intensity in the aftermath of Anton
Balasingham’s revelations in Kilinochchi.
