Tiruchelvam

1 November 1999, Hotsprings

Mr Tiruchelvam was always described adoringly as a moderate in a struggle between parties who were polls apart. The Tamils wanted to be freed from SINHALA domination, while the Sinhalese were determined to maintain it. Mr Tiruchelvam, was a ‘Colombo 7 Tamil’ – a phrase used to describe an elitist group of Tamils who were born and lived in the most exclusive residential area of the nation’s capital. He was educated in Colombo’s prestigious Royal College, Colombo, and later abroad at Harvard. He never lived amongst his TAMIL counterparts in the North or East, and was never a heartfelt advocate of separation.

He was an advocate of concessions to the Tamils while retaining SINHALA supremacy. The problem with such compromises was that it always ensured SINHALA domination over the Tamils. The concessions made to the Tamils were subject to withdrawal by a displeased SINHALA government. This provision was necessary in order to preserve the UNITARY NATURE of the CONSTITUTION. The uninvolved, who did not discern this, praised the government for being conciliatory for making concessions subject to this proviso. The Tamils were characterized as obstreperous for turning such concessions down. The architects (always agents of the government) were hailed as moderates with a neutral bent.

Mr Tiruchelvam, was made a nominated member of Parliament by the TULF in 1994. He was never elected to Parliament. From the date of his nomination to this year, not one peace proposal of constitutional dimension has been presented to the LTTE. The government has published a host of proposals none of which have been submitted to the other party to the conflict. They have been presented to those cooperating with the government. Of what use is that in bringing about a peaceful solution to the war.

The TULF swept every ELECTION in the North & East in 1977 on a platform DEMANDING INDEPENDENT STATE. No meaningful elections have been held in this region since. Just before his sad demise, Mr Tiruchelvam was invited by the President to prepare a new constitutional proposal with the Minister of Constitutional Affairs, Mr G.L. Peiris. The TULF now seeks to find a solution working with, rather than against the SINHALA government. What then can one expect. A perpetuation of the ‘UNITARY CONSTITUTION’ by which the Sinhalese with a commanding majority in the central parliament can dominate the Tamils. The Tamils demand a FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (analogous to that of the United States) whereby they will control much of their own destiny through their regional government. They will then be freed of SINHALA control in areas of government that matter to them most.

For them to submit to an UNITARY CONSTITUTION would be to revert to square one. This whole violent struggle to attain goals they could not win by constitutional means because they were a permanent minority in the central parliament, would be be meaningless. Lives would have been lost and property devastated in vain. They would in fact be conceding the right of the Sinhalese to rule them on any terms the Sinhalese desired. Is that a compromise or a total surrender to end the conflict?

These are a people who saw one million of their Indian counterparts denied their franchise and citizenship within a year of Independence. These are people who were denied equality of access to jobs with the introduction of the SINHALA Only Act. These are people who were denied equal access to the universities. These are people who were massacred at the hands of SINHALA mobs in ’56, ’58, ’61, ’77, ’79, ’81, ’83 when they engaged in nonviolent protests over these compounding inequities.

These are a people who saw agreements with the government torn up at the behest of Buddhist monks, who openly advocated, and continue to advocate, discrimination as a policy to be pursued. Can any moderate find a solution to ease the Tamils of their fear and suspicion of the SINHALA politician, after these experiences?

Can any moderate, at the other end of the spectrum, convince a SINHALA government to let go the reins of power over a dissatisfied and disgruntled segment of the population who are a majority in their region of the island? The moderates can devise academic alternatives which will never satisfy the aspirations of a people hungering for Independence, struggling to control their own destinies, ready to suffer physical assaults on their people and property to attain these ends. They have reached the end of their patience, their tolerance has evaporated. All they ask is to be left alone to look after themselves, just as the Sinhalese did when they sought independence from the British.

The international community has to develop a more fined tune understanding of Tamil resentment and suspicion before jumping to characterize them as extremists. What after all is an extremist? A person with a strong and unbendable commitment to alter the inequities of history? What is a moderate? One without such a commitment, who hopes to placate both sides? Does the latter deserve more plaudits than the former?

The press has to open its eyes and aim its viscous pointed claws to burrow under the rubble to see what is going on. When moderates work with the government against the Tamil fighting forces, are they collaborators or neutral interveners?

Mr Thiruchelvam was a well intentioned man. So are many others involved in this conflict. The question is, who can solve it? Are partisan moderates the answer? Can the opposition be expected to have faith in such a government appointed intermediary? Is an alternative intermediary necessary? Is an observer to be present at unconditional negotiations an answer? Will the Sinhalese government ever consent to this? If not, why not?

Soverign states have been subject to international INTERVENTION when human rights are violated. KOSOVO is an example. The UN charter permits it. Can we do this without military intervention? The answer is yes, as neither party seeks that. Can we have an intervention short of a military onslaught? Yes, if the government does not object. But they have and will.

So why blame the LTTE for failure to negotiate? There has not been a single proposal put on their plate since 1995. They have offered to negotiate with international observers present. The government has turned this down. Who is fearful of exposure and why? What can be expected of the proposals yet to come?

The press should lift up its socks or skirts and look at the situation anew. Praising the well intentioned is to be applauded. Looking for better answers, on the other hand is the way to go. It should be evident that the stalemate has lasted too long for the status quo to remain. A rash of fresh intermediaries is needed, before we can even dream of any prospect of success in ending this everlasting conflict. We have to reach for the roots to find a solution, to discover if one is possible.