|
Stunned by the fact that Mr Pirabakaran controlled the result of
the election, whereby the Sinhalese were to determine who their
President should be, the Sinhalese/English press react with articles
and editorials seasoned with resentment as well as concern.
The unitary constitution and a united nation
Realizing the total unacceptability of Mr Rajapakse�s unrealistic
insistence on retaining the Unitary Constitution, the press
recommend a duplicitous course of action for him to follow. They
suggest that Rajapakse publicly renounce his election platform by
abandoning his policy about the importance and sanctity of
maintaining the Unitary Constitution. They suggest that he carefully
shift his position in order to convince the international community
that peace, not the Unitary Constitution, is his number one
priority. They advise that he pretend to the international community
that he is ready for peace talks by talking of a united nation
instead of insisting on a Unitary Constitution.
Is there really any difference between the two?
The press hope that the international community, with their blinded
opposition to a separate state, will be attracted by this change in
terminology. By this approach, they hope to accomplish two goals.
1.)Get the international community to lull the LTTE to engage in
fruitless peace talks, and thereby 2.) give the President time to
prepare his armed forces and his constituents for war.
Majority domination of minorities
The Sinhalese love to talk of satisfying the aspirations of all
communities when seeking a solution to the ethnic tensions that
divide this nation, when in fact all they are concerned with is
fulfilling their own wishes of remaining the ruling power over every
other community in every part of the island. They have consistently
chosen to deny the very simple fact that the Tamils are indisputably
the regional majority in the NE, despite the unforgivable Sinhalese
effort to change the demography of the region through colonization.
They cannot bring themselves to frankly recognize that their
irrevocable objective is to keep us Tamils and other ethnic entities
under their control, while ours has been to free ourselves from that
menace. How can one reconcile such utterly inconsistent policies?
As stated before, the Sinhalese press suggest that Rajapakse should
talk of a united country instead of an Unitary Constitution. This
will no doubt appease the international community, who keep mouthing
the formula that separation is out of the question. Unfortunately,
they fail to realize that a United Nation or a Unitary Constitution
boil down to the same thing, namely, uncontrolled Sinhalese control
of the fate and future of the Tamils and others.
Devolution vs autonomy
Mr Rajapakse made that clear by implication when he said that the
most he was willing to grant by way of surrendering even a semblance
of power to the Tamils under the concept of a �United Nation� is to
adopt the policy of �Devolution of Power.� As pointed out by Chief
Justice Sharwananda in the XIII Amendment case, Devolution was
Constitutional under the Unitary Constitution, as it enabled the
Central Parliament to withdraw whatever they devolve to anyone at
any time. What type of surrender of powers is that?
In short, Rajapakse's conception of a Unitary Constitution and a
United Nation are synonymous with each other. The question the
international community should ask these Sinhalese journalists and
leaders is, what does their concept of a united country mean? Does
it mean the opportunity for the Sinhalese to continue to control,
and limit the ambitions, hopes and expectations of the Tamil youth?
Or does it envisage granting to the NE sufficient autonomy to avert
such repression while the NE. remains part of the same nation?
To the Sinhalese the proposals in the ISGA demanded too much
autonomy. What does that signify? An obvious determination not to
release the Sinhalese hold over the Tamils? Whether it be under the
guise of what is described as a United Nation or what can be
described as a Unitary Constitution, the end result is identical, to
deny the Tamils any right to determine their own rights and
obligations.
Sinhalese journalists hope for a tangible improvement in race
relations by maintaining the right of the Sinhalese to retain
Sinhalese supremacy, which has been the evil that has sparked the
racial crisis in the first place. They refuse to recognize that the
Tamils have every reason to seek autonomy based on the hideous
history of Sinhalese discrimination that has dominated this nation
since the Sinhalese obtained Independence from the British in 1948.
Multi-ethnic vs majority-dominated polity
The Unitary Constitution made this a Sinhalese dominated nation
instead of a multi ethnic one. Unfortunately, the Sinhalese used
their majority in the single parliament to illegally abolish the
crucial entrenched protections the British provided for the other
ethnic groups on the island.
The whole focus on �Federalism� is farcical, for, as Mr H.L. de
Silva has vividly pointed out, Federalism can only succeed if the
parties trust each other. It should be obvious to anyone, judging
from statements from both sides, that neither side trusts the other.
The latest Sinhalese ploy is to get India, that fears a breakaway by
Tamil Nadu, the Sikhs and the Kashmiris, to intervene. Let them not
forget that, when the Indians physically intervened under President
Jayawardena, both the Sinhalese and Tamils resented that invasion.
The then Prime Minister Mr Premadasa virulently opposed this foreign
intervention. The Tamils fought and humiliated the Indian army. The
Indians have never forgotten this and carry their resentment against
the LTTE to this day. What kind of neutral intervention could we
possibly expect from them now? In any event, can the Sinhalese trust
the Indians any more than we do? The important question everyone has
to ask is whether we should allow others to dictate to us what our
future should be. The Indians, as an unhealthily ambitious mini
superpower with its intelligence service R.A.W running around our
island in an effort to control events there, will love to do that.
The sovereignty of both the Tamils and Sinhalese would be
compromised thereby.
The rest of the international community, on the other hand, will
most likely do all in their power to avoid this, preferring a local
leader to determine the island's future. The worry we Tamils have is
whether that local leader will represent our interests, or those of
the Sinhalese to the exclusion of those of the Tamils.
Ultimately, the question that arises is whether the Sinhalese people
are ready to stop playing games by doing everything in their power
to avoid facing the simple straightforward issue that faces us,
which is, that they seek to continue to control our fate, while we
wish to control our own.
Democracy with a permanent majority
The international community and the U.N. have recognized the right
of minorities to overcome the unwelcome, overwhelming power of
national majorities in East Timor, Northern Sudan and Bosnia. What
is so different about Sri Lanka? The fact that Sri Lanka has
elections? Those elections allow the Sinhalese to choose between two
or more rival contenders who their leader should be. Does it permit
the Tamils to have a real voice in determining who their leader
should be? Obviously not. Do they regard these as free democratic
elections from a Tamil viewpoint?
It is in this connection that the USA and Britain, engulfed as they
are by the 9/11 syndrome, should realize that the LTTE has no
connection whatsoever with Al Qaeda, nor does in anyway share its
goals. The enemy of the LTTE is the Sinhalese armed forces, who are
out to suppress Tamil aspirations for Autonomy on behalf of every
successive Sinhalese government. It is nothing short of a freedom
struggle to be freed from the rule of the self centered Sinhalese.
The deeper question is whether we can escalate the debate between
the parties any further, considering how inconsistent the goals of
each side are with the other. One demands autonomy, the other
refuses to consider it. Are we not chaffing at threads in trying to
pretend that there is anything that holds us together?
Assimilation or genocide the only choice?
There is an old saying that the best way to deal with your enemy is
to assimilate them, because you cannot kill them all. Can the Tamils
possibly be assimilated? Unlike the multi ethnic societies of the
developed world, we are an anti ethnic society, with little in
common and little sympathy between the communities.
With the current standoff, war is inevitable, as neither side can
offer a peaceful solution. It does not matter who fires the first
shot. Neither side has any other alternative, unless the government,
realizing that by all accounts we have reached a critical stage in
the nation's ethnic crisis, is able to shy away from its standoff
stance, come to grips with reality, and face the fact that the NE
must be free of their stifling and unwelcome domination of the
region. |
