|
United States & the struggle for Tamil Eelam
US Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka
Introduces Resolution in the US House of Representatives
"The facts can be whatever we want them to be..."
9 February 2006
[Comment by
tamilnation.org
Frank Pallone, Jr, founder and co-chair of the
Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka, introduced a resolution on 9
February 2006 in the US House of Representatives. The text of the
introduced resolution appears below. The words of Arundhati Roy in
Instant-Mix Imperial Democracy (Buy One, Get One Free)
come to mind - "..Way back in 1988, on the 3rd of July, the U.S.S.
Vincennes, a missile cruiser stationed in the Persian Gulf, accidentally
shot down an Iranian airliner and killed 290 civilian passengers. George
Bush the First, who was at the time on his presidential campaign, was
asked to comment on the incident. He said quite subtly, "I will never
apologize for the United States. I don't care what the facts are." I
don't care what the facts are. What a perfect maxim for the New
American Empire. Perhaps a slight variation on the theme would be more
apposite: The facts can be whatever we want them to be...""]
Text of Resolution introduced by Frank Pallone,
Jr, founder and co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Sri
Lanka, on 9 February 2006 in the US House of Representatives.
Whereas Sri Lanka is Asia's oldest democracy and remains a close friend of the
United States;
Comment by
tamilnation.org
It is understandable that the Congressional
Caucus on Sri Lanka regards Sri Lanka as a 'close friend' of the US.
On 4 February 2006, in the governing council of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Sri Lanka, as 'a close
friend', voted with the United States
to report Iran to the UN Security Council.
By doing so, it reversed the stand of the Chandrika Kumaratunge
government on 24 September 2005, when Sri Lanka voted against the
United States sponsored resolution on Iran. As for Sri Lanka being a
democracy, well, 'close friends' are prone to help one another - what ever
the facts may be. However, the US Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka should
not find it surprising that the maxim 'facts can be whatever we want them
to be' is not without limitation. In the end, it is a question
of credibility. Here, some of the facts that the US Congressional
Caucus on Sri Lanka chose to ignore (thereby rendering its conclusion
less credible) include the following -
1.
Abuse of political power led to Judges resignations says Sri Lanka State
Bar, 9 February 2006 - "The resignation of two Senior Judges of the
three-member Judicial Commission (JSC) of Sri Lanka, has caused shock
and alarm within the legal community, civil society and trade unions in
Colombo. The resignations, reported on the eve of Sri Lanka's 58th
anniversary of gaining Independence, were due to the "simmering state
of discontent prevailing for some time within the Judicial Service
Commission," said Desmond Fernando, President, Bar Association of
Sri Lanka, addressing a press conference in Colombo "
2.
Free Media Movement calls for Immediate Investigation into Complaint by
Sunday Leader Editor of threats by Sri Lanka President Rajapakse, 13
January 2006 -
"The seriousness of a mere allegation that the President
has allegedly used abusive and threatening language against a senior
Editor sends shock waves in the media community and serves as a sombre
reminder of the insecure and dangerous situation that journalists in
Sri Lanka have to face."
3.
Death threats and escalation of violence in Sri Lanka
says Asian Human Rights Commission
17 May 2005 - "..The increase in death threats and intimidation to
activists and journalists in Sri Lanka are alarming. In particular,
there is concern that the situation may degenerate into that similar to
the terror of the late 1980s.The law enforcement authorities have
lost all semblance of control, with extrajudicial killings and death
threats being made openly..." and
4.
Sri Lanka's Elections : Fear and Intimidation Rule the Day - An
Observer's Report - Laura Gross"...The progressive destruction of
the political process in Sri Lanka has led to both domestic and
international tolerance of an enormous amount of violence by the
government (regardless of party affiliation) against its citizens.
Increasingly, it seems that the government of Sri Lanka is accountable
to no one - not its citizens, and not its foreign counterparts who
rubber-stamped the recent parliamentary elections. In Sri Lanka's
current political climate, power seems to be determined by the number of
thugs a given politician has at his/her disposal..."
For the US Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka,
these facts notwithstanding,
Sri Lanka is a democracy
- and the oldest in Asia, at that. There is ofcourse the
small matter of India having gained independence in August 1947
and Sri Lanka only in February 1948. But then it may be that the
US Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka did not regard India as a
democracy. Or again, it may be that the caucus took the view
that even as a colony under the rule of the British, Sri Lanka
was a democracy where the people ruled themselves.
Whereas more than 64,000 civilians have died and 350,000 persons have been
internally displaced in Sri Lanka as a result of a 20-year armed conflict
between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a
group designated by the Department of State as a foreign terrorist organization;
Comment by
tamilnation.org
It may have been helpful if the US
Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka had taken the trouble to
define
terrorism. Unless, ofcourse it seeks to follow in the footsteps
of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland -
"'When I
use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it
means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less'.
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean
so many different things'. 'The question is,' said Humpty
Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all'."
Lewis Carrol - Through the Looking Glass, c.vi
The
Indian Supreme Court remarked recently
"The UN member States still have no
agreed-upon definition apparently on
account of what at times reveal to be state sponsored terrorism,
both at national and international levels." An even handed
approach may have even persuaded the US Congressional Caucus on Sri
Lanka to attend to the words of
Velupillai Pirabakaran in November 2005 -
" There is no clear, coherent,
globally acceptable definition of the concept of terrorism. As
such,
just and reasonable political
struggles fought for
righteous causes are also branded as terrorism. Even
authentic liberation movements struggling against
racist oppression are denounced as terrorist outfits. In the
current global campaign against terror, state terrorism always
finds its escape route and those
who fight against state terror are
condemned as terrorists.
Our liberation organisation is also facing a similar plight..."
But even if it preferred to ignore
the words of Velupillai Pirabakaran, the US
Congressional Caucus may have gained by revisiting the words of
The Geneva Declaration on the Question of Terrorism, 1987
and the call made for the liberation of political language
along with the liberation of peoples.
"...The peoples of the world are
engaged in a fundamental series of struggles for a just and
peaceful world based on
fundamental rights now acknowledged as sacred in a series of
widely endorsed international legal conventions. These struggles
are opposed in a variety of
cruel and brutal ways by the political, economic and
ideological forces associated with the main structures of
domination present in the world that spread terrorism in a
manner unknown in prior international experience... The
terrorism of modern state power and its high technology
weaponry exceeds qualitatively by many orders of magnitude the
political violence relied upon by groups aspiring
to undo oppression and
achieve liberation... We condemn all those tactics and
methods of struggle that inflict violence directly upon innocent
civilians as such.... but, we must insist that terrorism
originates with
nuclearism, criminal regimes,
crimes of state, high-technology attacks on Third World
peoples, and
systematic denials of human rights. It is a cruel extension
of the terrorist scourge to taunt the
struggles against
terrorism with
the label
"terrorism". We support these struggles and call for the
liberation of political language
along with the liberation of peoples. Terrorism originates from
the statist system of
structural violence and domination that denies the
right of self-determination to peoples..."
Whereas in 2002 the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam signed a cease-fire agreement;
Whereas peace talks between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam have been stalled since April 2003;
Comment by
tamilnation.org
It may have been helpful if the US
Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka had made explicit to the US Congress,
the contributions made by both the US and India to the 'stalling' of
the peace process - helpful, so that the same mistakes are not
repeated yet again.
After the
Oslo Declaration of 5 October 2002, where "..the parties agreed to
explore a political solution founded on the principle of internal
self-determination in areas of historical habitation of the
Tamil-speaking peoples, based on a federal structure within a united Sri
Lanka..."
India let it be known on 9 December 2001 that "..there are serious
concerns about the political shape of any power-sharing model as well as
its ground-level implementation. Apart from the domestic issues
involved, the serious question of the extradition of the LTTE leader, V.
Prabakaran, a key accused and proclaimed offender in the Rajiv Gandhi
assassination case, is of primary concern to any post-conflict
scenario..."
It was a view that
was reiterated on 21 December
2002 by K. Natwar Singh, (then ex Indian Foreign Minister,
later to become Indian Foreign Minister in the Manmohan Singh
government, and now once again an ex Foreign Minister) "...Under no
circumstances would the Congress(I) agree to Pirabaharan getting any
formal high office or position in the new set up in the North-East of
Sri Lanka. He remains persona non grata
with us..."
Again, 6 months after the Oslo
Declaration,
the United States found it unable to have the LTTE present at the
crucial international donor conference held in Washington on 14 April
2003. In
the letter of 20 April 2003 addressed to the Sri Lanka Prime
Minister, suspending the negotiations the LTTE stated inter alia,
"We view the exclusion of the LTTE,
the principle partner to peace and the authentic representatives of
the Tamil people from discussions on critical matters affecting the
economic and social welfare of the Tamil nation, as a grave breach
of good faith. Your government, as well as our facilitator
Norway, are fully aware of the fact that the United States has legal
constraints to invite representatives of a proscribed organisation
to their country. In these circumstances an appropriate venue
could have been selected to facilitate the LTTE to participate in
this important preparatory aid conference. But the failure on
the part of your government to do so gives cause for suspicion that
this omission was deliberate. The exclusion of the LTTE from this
conference has severely eroded the confidence of our people in the
peace process."
The fact is that given the different end
goals that the US and
India
have in the international frame, the policies of the United States and
New Delhi in relation to Sri Lanka and the LTTE are not always
congruent. That is not to say that the United States will not cooperate
with India. It will. It will seek to cooperate 'as a super power' - and
the US believes that it has sufficient instruments in its armoury to do
just that and it seems that one such instrument is the
Norwegian sponsored Peace Process. On the other hand, Indian Prime
Minister Manmahon Singh has remarked that he preferred the word
'multilateral' to even 'multi polar'. In this, New Delhi
may count on the 'calibrated' support of the
European Union,
Russia,
China
and Iran amongst others. Here
Dr. Michael A.
Weinstein recent comments on Condoleezza Rice's Geostrategic
Shift are not without interest -
"..Rice's announcements culminate a
major revision of Washington's overall geostrategy that has been
in the making since 2004 when the failures of the Iraq intervention
exposed the limitations of U.S. military capabilities and threw into
question the unilateralist doctrine outlined in the administration's
2002 National Security Strategy... Rice's reforms are significant
because they are embraced by a multipolar perspective on
world politics that brings Washington into line with the other major
power centers. .... other power centers will welcome Washington's
acknowledgment of multipolarity at the same time that they
will be challenged by it..."
It may appear to some that in 'embracing
a multipolar perspective' the US is taking the approach that in
the emerging multipolar world, as in
George Orwell's Animal Farm, all will be equal, but some will be
more equal than others. It was perhaps all this that led Jonathan
Goodhand and Bart Klem to suggest in
Aid,
Conflict & Peace Building in Sri Lanka 2000 - 2005 -
"There
is scope to think more creatively about the interfaces between
diplomatic, development, humanitarian, and human rights actors, so
that the distinctive approaches of each reinforce and complement
(rather than undercut) one another. The same also applies to
complementarity between countries - for instance the "good cop"
roles of the European countries, versus the "bad cop" roles of India
and the U.S..."
Whereas on August 12, 2005, the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, Lakshman
Kadirgamar, was assassinated in a terrorist act that has been attributed to the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam;
Comment by
tamilnation.org
The US Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka
did not consider it relevant to state that some six months earlier, on 7
February 2005 E. Kousalyan, Head of the Liberation Tigers'
political division for Batticaloa-Amparai district was
assassinated in a terrorist act that was attributed to
the Sri Lanka para military forces and that
the killing was condemned by the UN Secretary General.
Neither did the Caucus find the need to refer to the more recent
murder of Tamil Parliamentarian and human rights activist, Joseph
Pararajasingham on 25 December 2005.
It appears that the US
Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka did not want to embarrass a close
friend. But given the silence, the Caucus should not be surprised if
many Tamils give credence to the report by the
US based think tank Stratfor in July 2004, that the " former
LTTE Commander Karuna's defection was supported at the highest levels of
the Sri Lankan government with tacit US approval." and that "the plan is
to destabilize the Tigers, bait the group into confrontation and
ultimately launch an offensive aimed at destroying the fractured Tamil
movement once and for all. That was why the Sri Lankan government
provided tacit support to Karuna during his rebellion and still is in
regular contact with him."
Whereas December 2005 was the bloodiest month in Sri Lanka since
the cease-fire agreement came into effect in 2002 due to a series of Claymore
mine and suicide attacks against Security Forces of the Government of Sri Lanka
by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam;
Comment by tamilnation.org
It appears that as a close friend of Sri
Lanka, the US Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka chose to be silent on
the violence perpretated on the Tamil people by the Sri Lanka military
and para military forces during the same month of December 2005
including the
rape
and murder of Ilaiyathamby Tharshini;
the firing at a peaceful demonstration march by Jaffna University
students and staff;
repeated arrests and harassment of Tamil journalists;
the extra judicial killing of Jude Sugathy (Theresa) Croos , Jude
Arokiyathass Fernando, Emmani Croos, Emmani Anthonikkam Croos; and
the
extra
judicial killing of Thambirajah Arulajanthan.
Whereas the United States remains deeply concerned about the
continued violations of the cease-fire agreement in Sri Lanka, as marked by a
recent series of violent incidents involving Claymore mine and suicide attacks;
Comment by tamilnation.org
Again, as a close friend of Sri Lanka,
the US Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka chose to be silent on the
'recent series of violent incidents' in Tamil Eelam not marked by
'Claymore mine and suicide attacks', but marked by attacks by the Sri
Lanka military and para military forces during the month of
January 2006. These incidents included the extra judicial
execution by the Sri Lanka military and para military forces of
Thangathurai Sivanantha,
Logithasan Rohanth,
Shanmugarajah Sajeenthiran, Manoharan
Rajeehar,
Yogarajah Hemachandran,
Iyathurai Baskaran,
Ramanathan Ratheeskumar,
Thambiah Jeyarajah,
Major Kapilan,
Thambipillai Selvarajah,
Ramalingam Suntheralingam,
Kandasamy Vaikunthan,
Anthonippillai Soosainather, Thevasahayampillai Jeyakumar Soosainather,
Subramaniam Sugirtharajan,
Chandrakanthan Vijayatharson.
Chandragajan Krishnagobi,
Illayathamby Ramakrishnan,
Thurairajah Ravichandran,
Kanapathy Murugesu,
Mariyanayagam Maruthanayagam,
Suppiah Murugan,
Sithambari Ganesaratnam,
Visuvar Krishnan,
Bojan Renuka,
Bojan Shanuka,
Bojan Arthanageswary,
Tharmarasan Tharmaseelan,
N Kandeepan ,T
Tharmasri,
Soosaithas K Marinthiran,
Sebastiampillai P Ruban,
Selvarajah Uthayarajah,
S. Thanabalasingham,
Balakrishnan Rajeevmohan, and
Parimalarajah Robinson.
And as a close friend of Sri Lanka, the
US Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka did not find the need to inform the
US Congress that the new Sri Lanka President Rajapakse had
reneged on the Oslo Declaration
and had created the climate for
the reign of terror unleashed by the Sri Lanka military and para
military forces during the past two months.
Whereas Velupillai Prabhakaran, the leader of the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam, recently issued an ultimatum to the Government of Sri
Lanka to come up with a political settlement within the next year or face an
"intensified struggle for self-determination";
Comment by
tamilnation.org
It may have been helpful if the US
Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka had informed the US Congress that the
search for a 'political settlement' has gone on for more almost
50 years since the
Banadaranaike Chelvanayagam Agreement was
abrogated by the Sinhala Prime Minister in 1957. And, now
twenty years after
Thimpu, that
which was said there continues to be relevant.
"As early as 1928, the Donoughmore
Commission recommended the establishment of Provincial Councils on the
ground that it was desirable that a large part of the administrative
work of the centre should come into the hands of persons resident in the
districts and thus more directly in contact with the needs of the area.
Twelve years later the Executive Committee of Local Administration
chaired by the late S.W.N.D. Bandaranaike, considered the proposal of
the Donoughmore Commission and in 1940, the State Council (the
legislature approved the establishment of Provincial Councils. But
nothing was in fact done, though in 1947, on the floor of the House of
Representatives, the late S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike again declared his
support for the establishment of Provincial Councils.
In 1955, the Choksy Commission recommended the establishment of Regional
Councils to take over the functions that were exercised by the Kacheries
and in May 1957, the government of the late S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike
presented a draft of the proposed Bill for the establishment of Regional
Councils. Subsequently, in July 1957, the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam
Pact made provision for direct election to Regional Councils and also
provided that the subjects covered by Regional Councils shall include
agriculture, cooperatives, lands and land development, colonisation and
education. The Pact however did not survive the opposition of sections
of the Sinhala community which included the United National Party.
In July 1963, the government of Mrs. Bandaranaike declared that early
consideration' would be given to the question of the establishment of
District Councils to replace the Kacheries and the government appointed
a Committee on District Councils and the report of this Committee
containing a draft of the proposed Bill to establish District Councils
but again nothing was in fact done.
In 1965, the government of the late Dudley Senanayake declared that it
would give 'earnest consideration' to the establishment of District
Councils and in 1968 a draft Bill approved by the Dudley Senanayake
Cabinet was presented as a White Paper and this Bill provided for the
establishment of District Councils. This time round, the opposition to
the Bill was spearheaded by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party which professed
to follow the policies of the late S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike who himself had
in 1940, 1947 and again in 1957, supported the establishment of
Provincial/Regional Councils. In view of the opposition the Dudley
Senanayake government withdrew the Bill that it had presented.
More than 50 years have passed since 1928 and we have moved from
Provincial Councils to Regional Councils and from Regional Councils to
District Councils and now from District Councils back to
District/Provincial Councils. We have had the 'early consideration' of
Mrs. Srimavo Bandaranaike and the 'earnest consideration' of the late
Dudley Senanayake. There has been no shortage of Committees and
Commissions, of reports and recommendations but that which was lacking
was the political will to recognise the existence of the Tamil nation.
And simultaneous with this process of broken pacts and dishonoured
agreements, the Tamil people were subjected to
an ever widening
and deepening national oppression aimed at undermining the integrity
of the Tamil nation..." Today, 20
years after Thimpu (and after thousands more have given their lives) it
appears that though much has happened, not much has changed in relation
to the proffered solutions to the conflict. Hopefully, the US
Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka may be persuaded that the Tamil people
have not been without patience.
Whereas the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has a history of
engaging in a campaign of terror and violence;
Comment by
tamilnation.org
The conflation of the word 'terror' with
the word 'violence' obfuscates - and misleads. All violence is not
terror. The invasion of Iraq by the US was violent but by itself, it was
not terrorism. And in so far as 'a history of engaging in terror and
violence' is concerned, the US Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka
(with its specialist knoweldge on Sri Lanka) cannot be unaware of
the conclusion of Paul Sieghart, International Commission of Jurists in
March1984 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." It cannot be
unaware of the
extra judicial killings and disappearances, the
torture,
the
rape and
the
war
crimes committed by Sri Lankan authorities. The fact is that
the armed resistance of the Tamil people did not just happen.
"....An armed resistance movement
takes shape in the
womb of
oppression.
Its seeds are to be found in the eternal quest for
equality
and
freedom."
Nadesan Satyendra in Tamil Armed Resistance & the Law
The US Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka
may want to address the question whether armed resistance as a last
resort against
deepening and ever widening oppression and after failed
agreements, is available to a people under international law.
Here, it may also want to ask whether the words of
Professor Marshall Singer, at the US Congress Committee on
International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific Hearing on
Sri Lanka November 14,1995, were both right and prophetic -
"...One of the essential elements
that
must
be kept in mind in understanding the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict is
that, since 1958 at least, every time Tamil politicians negotiated
some sort of power-sharing deal with a Sinhalese government -
regardless of which party was in power - the opposition Sinhalese
party always claimed that the party in power had negotiated away too
much. In almost every case - sometimes within days - the party in
power backed down on the agreement..." -
Whereas if hostilities resume in Sri Lanka, the use of unconventional weapons
and suicide missions and other terrorist tactics by the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam could cause even greater devastation to the country and have
implications on regional security;
Comment by
tamilnation.org
Again as a close friend of Sri Lanka, the
US Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka makes no reference to the
devastation caused in the Tamil homeland by the 'conventional'
weapons used by Sri Lanka authorities during Sri Lanka's
Six
Year Genocidal War launched in 1995. The Caucus makes no mention of
Sri Lanka's relentless use of food & medicine as weapons of
war,
killing
of Tamil civilians by bombing and shelling,
bombing of Tamil civilian centres.,
indiscriminate
shelling of Tamil villages ,
using Tamils as human shields,
bombing Tamil villages under cover of Press censorship,
damaging 80% of houses in Jaffna,
bombing St.Peters Church in Navaly with refugees inside,
bombing
hospitals
,
'steamrollering' and destroying Jaffna,
and committing thousands of
other crimes.
Professor Margaret Trawick was moved to conclude -
" I have been
struggling in
my mind against the conclusion that the SL government is trying to
kill or terrorize as many Tamil people as possible; that the
government is trying to keep the conditions of the war
unreported internationally ... But it seems now that no other
conclusion is possible... "
That the US Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka is
concerned for the implications for regional security and for the impact
on the feelings of the
people of Tamil Nadu, is understandable. But regional security
will not be achieved by supporting the efforts of
Sinhala Buddhist fundamentalism to assimilate the Tamil people
(within a constitutional structure which secures rule by a permanent
Sinhala majority) - and kill or
terrorise those who resist assimilation.
Whereas to strengthen the implementation of the cease-fire agreement, the
Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam have agreed to
commence peace talks [at the] beginning of February 2006 in Geneva, Switzerland;
and
Whereas despite the agreement to continue peace talks, a return to
armed conflict in Sri Lanka is still a very real threat: Now, therefore, be it:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges, in the strongest possible
terms, the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to
(1) engage positively in the forthcoming peace talks and to
prevent a return to armed conflict in Sri Lanka
(2) renegotiate a
cease-fire agreement and implement the agreement in a productive and
successful manner; and
Comment by
tamilnation.org
Having
said
in the Preamble that the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE have
agreed to commence talks in Geneva 'to strengthen the implementation
of the cease-fire agreement' , the US Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka
resolution calls upon the parties to 'renegotiate a cease-fire
agreement.' US Congressional Caucus on Sri Lanka should not be
surprised if many may consider this a sleight of hand - advocating
the termination of the
current ceasefire agreement and renegotiating another one.
(3) focus on rebuilding a peaceful, secure, and prosperous
future for Sri Lanka.
Comment by
tamilnation.org
This is an aspiration which all of us will share. But not
much will be gained by recourse to the technique of psychological
pressure.
"Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of
State, openly criticized the Russian government in connection with the
gas conflict with Ukraine. Ms. Rice used quite a trivial technique of
psychological pressure, which is mostly practiced in the field of
education. According to Condoleezza Rice, Russia's actions towards
Ukraine did not characterize it as a respectable member of the Group of
Eight. The statement from the high-ranking US official sounded like a
reprimand from a strict babysitter that was teaching its baby to behave.
It goes without saying that the largest Eurasian power is not a baby"
Yaroslava Krestovskaya
on A
Trivial Technique of Psychological Pressure, 11 January 2006
The Tamil people too are not babies. They
have suffered much in their struggle to be free from alien rule - and
suffering is a great teacher.
As a first step, there is a need to
admit to and recognise the political reality that during the past 50 years
and more, ethnic identity has in fact determined the way in which both the
Sinhala people and the Tamil people have exercised their political right of
universal franchise. In this period, no Tamil has ever been elected to a
predominantly Sinhala electorate and no Sinhalese has ever been elected to a
predominantly Tamil electorate - apart, that is, from multi member
constituencies. The political reality is that for more than five
decades since 1948, we have always had a Sinhala Buddhist as the executive
head of government. The undeniable political reality is that the practice
of 'democracy' within the confines of an unitary state has led to rule by a
permanent Sinhala majority. It is this political reality which
constitutional structures directed to resolve the conflict will need to
address.
We need to give more serious
consideration to the words of Sinhala Historian K. M. de Silva -
"...In the Sinhala language, the words
for nation, race and people are practically synonymous, and a
multiethnic or multicommunal nation or state is incomprehensible to the
popular mind. The emphasis on Sri Lanka as the land of the Sinhala
Buddhists carried an emotional popular appeal, compared with which the
concept of a multiethnic polity was a meaningless abstraction..."
And also to the words of Velupillai
Pirabakarn in November 2005 -
"The Sinhala nation continues to be
entrapped in the
Mahavamsa mindset, in that mythical ideology. The Sinhalese people
are still caught up in the legendary fiction that the island of Sri
Lanka is a divine gift to Theravada Buddhism, a holy land entitled to
the Sinhala race. The Sinhala nation has not redeemed itself from this
mythological idea that is buried deep and has become fossilised in their
collective unconscious. It is because of this ideological
blindness that the Sinhalese people and their political and religious
leaders are unable to grasp the authentic history of the island and the
social realities prevailing here. They are unable to comprehend and
accept the very existence of a historically constituted nation of Tamil
people living in their traditional homeland in north-eastern Sri Lanka,
entitled to fundamental political rights and freedoms. It is because of
the refusal by the Sinhala nation to perceive the existential reality of
the Tamils and their political aspirations that the Tamil national
question persists as an unresolved complex issue. ..The scope and power
of Sinhala-Buddhist hegemony has not receded, rather, it has revived and
taken new forms, exerting a powerful dominance on the southern political
arena. "
We need to recognise the truth that to
continue with the assimilative agenda followed by successive Sinhala
dominated governments, will lead to continuing conflict between those
who seek to assimilate and those who resist assimilation. Peace will not
come by one people seeking to rule another people, who speak a different
language, have different historical memories and who trace their origins to
different roots. Democracy is
not the rule of one people by another people. We may want to pay
heed to the words of
Margaret
Moore in Normative Justifications for Liberal Nationalism
"...The problem in nationally divided
societies is that the different groups have different political
identities, and, in cases where the identities are mutually exclusive
(not nested), these groups see themselves as forming distinct political
communities. In this situation, the options available to represent these
distinct identities are very limited, because any solution at the state
level is inclined to be biased in favour of one kind of identity over
another. That is to say, if the minority group seeks to be
self-governing, or to secede from the larger state, increased
representation at the centre will not be satisfactory. The problem
in this case is that the group does not identify with the centre, or
want to be part of that political community... One conclusion that can
be drawn is that, in some cases, secession/partition of the two
communities, where that option is available, is the best outcome
overall. .."
In the case of Sri Lanka, in an important
sense, the interest that each party to the conflict seeks to protect is the
mirror image of the interest of the other party. The Sinhala people seek to
secure their national identity against a Tamil majority in the region. The
people of Tamil Eelam seek to secure their own separate national identity
within the island of Sri Lanka. The Sinhala people fear rule by the Tamil
majority in the region. The people of Tamil Eelam fear rule by the Sinhala
majority within the island of Sri Lanka.
The question is whether the
two peoples sitting together as equals cannot agree upon political
structures which will secure and guarantee that equality. There may be
a need to telescope two processes - one the creation of an independent Tamil
Eelam and the other the terms in which an independent Tamil Eelam may
associate with an independent Sri Lanka, so that the national security of
each may be protected - and, if need be, guaranteed internationally. An
independent Tamil Eelam is not negotiable. But an independent Tamil Eelam
can and will negotiate
If Germany and France were able to put in
place such 'associate' structures 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 may remain free
and prosper, but at the same time pool sovereignty in certain agreed areas.
The negotiating process may be complex. Sovereignty, after all, is not
virginity. We believe that a workable political solution must in the
end be a win-win solution - and strange as it may appear to some, the
struggle for an independent Tamil Eelam, is not in opposition to many of the
underlying interests of the parties concerned with the conflict in the
island - and that includes Sri Lanka, India and the United States.
|
