Sathyam
Commentary
On Violence &
Integrity
[17 February 2001, revised 8 November 2007]
A
visitor from Singapore wrote:"...I was going through (your website) and am
impressed with its layout and all. What disappointed
me was your call to arms along racial lines which is
contrary to what most mainland Tamils favour. I am a
Tamil in Singapore and a descendant of mainland
Tamils...I only ask the Ceylonese to keep their
internal squabbles to themselves..."
 "...tamilnation.org together with
many Tamils, will continue to grapple with (and agonise
over) the question of moral laws and ethical ideals in
the context of an armed struggle
for freedom. The question troubled Arujna in the
battlefield of Kurushetra. In Pondicherry, Aurobindo grappled with the
broader moral issues in 'The Evolution of Man'.
Kannagi in Cilapathikaram,
took the law into her own hands and burnt down Madurai
in her search for justice. The response to the armed
struggle, from those who are not members of the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, must spring from a
coincidence of what they themselves say, with what they
do, and in this way reflect their own integrity.... We
ourselves believe that means and ends are inseparable -
and that the relationship between the two is intrinsic
and dynamic. That is the first article of our creed. We
are mindful that the resort to violence to secure
political ends brings in its train consequences which
offend the conscience of humanity. But those who would
resist recourse to war, are also duty bound to address
some of the questions that arise - would they deny the
moral legitimacy
of the struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam for
freedom from alien Sinhala rule - and what is it
that they, themselves, are doing to end the war and
secure a just peace where no one people may rule
another? Or would they prefer to disdainfully dismiss
the struggle for freedom by the people of Tamil
Eelam as some 'internal squabble' or 'terrorism' - and continue
to remain silent and distant spectators of Sri Lanka's
continuing discrimination, arbitrary
arrests and detentions, torture, extra judicial killings
and massacres, indiscriminate
aerial bombardment, artillery
shelling, wanton rape,
genocide and state terrorism.
These are not some remote 'philosophical' questions,
but have something to do with the way in which each one
of us choose to live our lives and also our self image
'of standing for principles'..."
tamilnation.org has made no call for arms and
makes no call for arms - whether on 'racial' lines or any
other line. We do take the view that the armed resistance
of the people of Tamil Eelam to alien Sinhala rule is not
unlawful - and the double negative is deliberate.
At the same time, we are mindful of the
views
expressed by respected legal scholars such as James
Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law,
University of Cambridge (in relation to Quebec's
secession from Canada):
" (a) In international practice there
is no recognition of a unilateral right to secede based
on a majority vote of the population of a sub-division
or territory, whether or not that population
constitutes one or more "peoples" in the ordinary sense
of the word. In international law, self-determination
for peoples or groups within an independent state is
achieved by participation in the political system of
the state, on the basis of respect for its territorial
integrity.
(b) Even where there is a strong and
sustained call for independence (measured, for example,
by referenda results showing substantial support for
independence), it is a matter for the government of the
state concerned to consider how to respond. It is not
required to concede independence in such a case, but
may take into account the national interest and the
interests of all those concerned. (and)
(c) Even in the context of separate
colonial territories, unilateral secession was the
exception. Self-determination
was in the first instance a matter for the colonial
government to implement; only if it was blocked by that
government did the United Nations support unilateral
secession. Outside the colonial context, the United
Nations is extremely reluctant to admit a seceding
entity to membership against the
wishes of the government of the state from which it has
purported to secede. There is no case since 1945
where it has done so..."
That such views are expressed by legal
scholars, is not altogether surprising given that
international law itself is largely dependent on
state practice - and states have
always had a shared interest in securing the status quo
and protecting existing state boundaries.
Mahatma
Gandhi did not found India's struggle for freedom on
the 'international law principle' of the right to self
determination. If he had, he may have been met with the
objection (in the early part of the 20th century) that
no such general principle existed in international law.
It was, perhaps, this that led Aurobindo to remark in
1907:
"...It is the common habit of established
governments and especially those which are themselves
oppressors, to brand all violent methods in subject
peoples and communities as criminal and wicked. When
you have disarmed your slaves and legalised the
infliction of bonds, stripes, and death on any one of
them who may dare to speak or act against you, it is
natural and convenient to try and lay a moral as well
as a legal ban on any attempt to answer violence by
violence...
But no nation yet has listened to the cant of the
oppressor when itself put to the test, and the general
conscience of humanity approves the refusal...Liberty
is the life breath of a nation; and when life is
attacked, when it is sought to suppress all chance of
breathing by violent pressure, then any and every means
of self preservation becomes right and justifiable...It
is the nature of the pressure which determines the
nature of the resistance..."
tamilnation.org together with many Tamils, will
continue to grapple with (and agonise over) the question
of moral laws and ethical ideals in the context of an
armed
struggle for freedom. The question troubled Arujna in the
battlefield of Kurushetra. In Pondicherry, Aurobindo grappled with the
broader moral issues in 'The Evolution of Man':
"Man's highest aspiration - his seeking for
perfection, his longing for freedom and mastery, his
search after pure truth and unmixed delight - is in
flagrant contradiction with his present existence and
normal experience. Such contradiction is part of
Nature's general method; it is a sign that she is
working towards a greater harmony. The reconciliation
is achieved by an evolutionary progress...
...Since perfection is progressive, good and evil
are shifting quantities and change from time to time
their meaning and value. Four main principles
successively, govern human conduct. The first two are
personal need and the good of the collectivity. A
conflict is born of the opposition of the two
instinctive tendencies which govern human action: the
individualist and the gregarious.
In order to settle this conflict, a new principle
comes in, other and higher than the two conflicting
instincts, and aiming both to override and to reconcile
them. This third principle is the ethical ideal. But
conflicts do not subside; they seem rather to multiply.
Moral laws are arbitrary and rigid; when applied to
life, they are obliged to come to terms with it and end
in compromises which deprive them of all power.
Behind the ethical law, which is a false image, a
greater truth of a vast consciousness without fetters
unveils itself, the supreme law of our divine
nature. It determines perfectly our relations with
each being and with the totality of the universe, and
it also reveals the exact rhythm of the direct
expression of the Divine in us. It is the fourth and
supreme principle of action, which is at the same time
the imperative law and absolute freedom...."
Kannagi in Cilapathikaram,
took the law into her own hands and burnt down Madurai in
her search for justice. Today Kannagi is deified in many
parts of Tamil Nadu. It is a story rooted in the
ordinary lives of the early Tamils of the Pandyan Kingdom
in the first century A.D. and is regarded by many as the
national epic of the Tamil people. Professor A.L. Basham
writing in 'The Wonder that was India' commented:
''(Cilapathikaram has) a grim force and splendour
unparalled elsewhere in Indian literature - it is
imbued with both the ferocity of the early Tamils and
their stern respect for justice, and incidentally, it
throws light on early Tamil political ideas.''
The dividing line between violence and non violence is
not always the line of zero thickness of Euclidean
geometry. Thileepan and
Annai
Poopathy gave their lives in the struggle for Tamil
Eelam and who can say that in doing so, they were
violent. Again, the Black Tigers
willingly give their lives, though at the same time, it
is true that they take other lives. Theirs are acts of
violence but it is their willingness to give of
themselves, which has found an answering response in the hearts
and minds of thousands of
Tamils living today in many lands and across distant
seas. The same is true of the cyanide capsule in the
hands of the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam - and to say that is not to
romanticise the armed struggle for Tamil Eelam.
What then should be our response to armed resistance?
There is no mechanical rule which will provide us with an
universal answer. Velupillai Pirabaharan has
committed his life to the armed struggle for the freedom
of his people. So, did Sathasivam Krishnakumar and
Thamilselvan. And
so, too, have many other members of the Liberation Tigers
of Tamil Eelam. It is in the coincidence of what they
said with what they did, that they found harmony,
secured their integrity and enhanced their capacity to
influence. In the same way, it was a measure of Gandhi's integrity and his capacity
to influence that he walked his talk. His life was an
experiment with truth - and truth is a pathless
land.
It is, perhaps, some of all this that led the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to confine its
membership to those who actually participate in the armed
resistance - and that even its political wing should be
led by those who have been ready to put their lives on
line.
"..the political and the military are not separate, but form one organic whole, consisting of the people's
army, whose nucleus is the guerrilla army... the
guerrilla force is the party
in embryo...." Revolution in the Revolution?
- Regis Debray, 1967
By the same token, the response to the Tamil Eelam
armed struggle, from those who are not members of the
LTTE, must spring from a coincidence of what they
themselves say, with what they do, and reflect their own
integrity. Each of us have our dharma - our way of
harmony. It was Annie Besant who remarked once
(translating the Gita), that it is
better to act in accordance with one's own dharma rather
than try 'to act out some one else's dharma better'.
tamilnation.org itself
continues to seek a coincidence of its own words
and deeds.
"...There are in every part of the world men
who search. I am
not a prisoner of history. I should not seek there
for the meaning of my destiny. I should constantly
remind myself that the real leap consists in
introduction of invention into existence. In the world
through which I travel, I am
endlessly creating myself..." - Frantz
Fanon in
Black Skin, White Masks 1952
We believe that means and ends are inseparable - and
that the relationship between the two is intrinsic and
dynamic. That is the first article of our creed. We are
mindful that the resort to violence to secure political
ends brings in its train consequences which offend the
conscience of humanity. The words of the fictional Prince
Andrew Bolkhonsky in * Tolstoy's War & Peace , Book
10, Chapter 25, pp 486-7 are apposite -
"... we play at magnanimity and all that stuff. Such
magnanimity and sensibility are like the magnanimity
and sensibilities of a lady who faints when she sees a
calf being killed; she is so kind-hearted that she
can't look at blood, but enjoys eating the calf served
up with sauce. They talk to us of the rules of war, of
chivalry, of flags of truce, of mercy to the
unfortunate and so on. It's all rubbish. I saw chivalry
and flags of truce in 1805. They humbugged us and we
humbugged them. They plunder other peoples' houses,
issue false paper money, and worst of all they kill my
children and my father, and then talk of rules of war
and magnanimity to foes ! Take no prisoners but kill
and be killed ! . . . If there was none of this
magnanimity in war, we should go to war only when it
was worth while going to certain death, as now....
war is not
courtesy but the most horrible thing in life;
and we ought to understand that, and not play at
war.... The air of war is
murder; the methods of war are spying,
treachery, and their encouragement, the ruin of
a country's inhabitants, robbing them or stealing to
provision the army, and fraud and falsehood termed
military craft.... "
We recognise the harsh significance of
the British Admiralty Note of 1906:
"...It must not be forgotten that the
object of war is to obtain peace as speedily as
possible on one's own terms, and not
the least efficacious means of producing this result is
the infliction of loss and injury upon 'enemy'
non-combatants...... The object of the
bombardment of [commercial] towns might be the
destruction of life and property, the enforcing of
ransom, the creation of panic, and the hope of
embarrassing the government of the enemy's country and
exciting the population to bring pressure to bear upon
their rulers to bring the war to a close.... Lastly,
we have the case of bombardments
intended to cover, or divert
attention from, a landing. It is easy
to conceive that a bombardment of this nature might
involve undefended towns and villages, and it presents
perhaps the most difficult case of all from a
humanitarian point of view. At the same time,
no Power could be expected to abstain
from such an act of war, if it fell within their
strategic plan.... It must come under
the category of inevitable acts of war necessitated by
overwhelming military considerations. We could
not give up the right so to act, and we could not
expect other nations to do so.'. . . "
We are also more than mindful of the words of Harry L.
Stimson, US Secretary of State, quoted, appropriately
enough, by Albert Speer, Hitler's Armaments Minister in
his book 'Inside the Third Reich' published in 1970:
"...We must never forget, that under
modern conditions of life, science and technology, all
war has become greatly brutalized and that no one who
joins in it, even in self-defense, can escape becoming
also in a measure brutalized. Modern war cannot be
limited in its destructive method and the inevitable
debasement of all participants... we,
as well as our enemies have contributed to the
proof that the central moral problem is war and not its
methods..." (Harry L. Stimson, US Secretary of State
1929-1933, 'The Nuremberg Trial: Landmark in Law',
Foreign Affairs, 1947 - quoted by Albert Speer in
Inside the Third Reich, Macmillan, 1970)
We agree with Albert Speer that the
central moral problem is war, itself, and not simply its
methods. But those who would resist recourse to war, are
also duty bound to address some of the questions that
arise -
What is it that they, themselves, are
doing to end the war and secure a just peace where no
one people may rule another? Or do they advocate the
'peace' that comes from surrender to oppressive alien rule?
Would they deny the moral legitimacy of the
struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam for freedom
from alien Sinhala rule?
Would they agree that if democracy
means rule of the people, by the people and for the
people, then it also means that no one people may rule
another?
Would they agree that rule by a
permanent ethnic majority
within the confines of a single state is alien rule?
And, if they are willing to resist
alien rule, what will they do to manifest that will -
not only in word but also in concrete deed ?
To what extent are they prepared to
give of themselves to that resistance - even if by
doing so they may put at risk not so much their lives
but their life style?
Or would they prefer to disdainfully
dismiss the
struggle for freedom by the people of Tamil Eelam as
some 'internal squabble' or 'terrorism' - and continue to
remain silent and distant spectators of Sri Lanka's
continuing discrimination, arbitrary arrests
and detentions, torture, extra judicial killings
and massacres, indiscriminate aerial
bombardment, artillery
shelling, wanton rape, genocide and
state
terrorism.
These are not some remote 'philosophical'
questions, but have something to do with the way in which
each one of us choose to live our lives. It is also about
securing our self image 'of standing for principles'. The
words of Michael Rivero
serve to focus our attention on the existential dilemma
faced by many -
"Most people prefer to believe their
leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence
to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges
that the government under which he or she lives is
lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or
she will do about it. To take action in the face of a
corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and
loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender
one's self-image of standing for principles. Most
people do not have the courage to face that
choice..."
To take action in the face of a corrupt
government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones.
And, as always, Leo Tolstoy was perceptive -
"One man does not assert the truth
which he knows, because he feels himself bound to the
people with whom he is engaged;
- another, because the truth might
deprive him of the profitable position by which he
maintains his family;
- a third, because he desires to attain
reputation and authority, and then use them in the
service of mankind;
- a fourth, because he does not wish to
destroy old sacred traditions;
- a fifth, because he has no desire to
offend people;
- a sixth, because the expression of
the truth would arouse persecution, and disturb the
excellent social activity to which he has devoted
himself..."
Again, David Edwards was right to point
out in 'The Difficult Art of Telling the Truth
-
".. It is not virtuous, or even amoral,
to remain silent while terrible crimes are perpetrated
in our name - sometimes to be silent is to lie.
Ultimately... we have to make a choice: There are
victims, there are executioners, and there are
bystanders... Unless we wrench free from being what we
like to call 'objective', we are closer
psychologically, whether we like to admit it or not, to
the executioner than to the victim."
tamilnation.org takes the view that the Sri
Lankan government and its agencies have during the past
several decades, committed systematic violations of the
rights of the Tamil people, including grave breaches
of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the
Genocide
Convention. David Selbourne was right when he
declared in 1984:
"Everyone who possesses an elementary
sense of justice has no moral choice but to acquaint
himself fully with the plight of the Tamil people. It
is an international issue of growing importance. Their
cause represents the very essence of the cause of human
rights and justice; and to deny it, debases and reduces
us all."
We agree with Mahatma Gandhi that -
"...It is open to a war resister to judge between the
combatants and wish success to the one who has justice
on his side. By so judging he is more likely to bring
peace between the two rather than remaining a mere
spectator..."
We judge that the struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam
for freedom from alien Sinhala rule has justice
on its side and we take the view that by so judging,
and placing in the
public domain the facts on which that judgment is
founded, we are more likely to
bring a just peace in the island of Sri Lanka
than by remaining a passive spectator. And here, we find
the words of Martin Luther King persuasive:
"..The hottest place in hell is
reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great
moral conflict."
The
charge is genocide and the struggle is for
freedom.
|
