Tamils - a Trans State Nation..

"To us all towns are one, all men our kin.
Life's good comes not from others' gift, nor ill
Man's pains and pains' relief are from within.
Thus have we seen in visions of the wise !."
-
Tamil Poem in Purananuru, circa 500 B.C

Home Whats New Trans State Nation One World Unfolding Consciousness Comments Search
Home > Truth is a Pathless Land > Selected Writings by Nadesan Satyendra >


Selected Writings by Nadesan Satyendra
- நடேசன் சத்தியேந்திரா

CONTENTS
OF THIS SECTION

18/10/09

"...Every adherent of the (Indian National) Congress, however noisy in declamations, however bitter in speech, is safe from burning bungalows and murdering Europeans and the like. His hopes are based upon the British nation and he will do nothing to invalidate these hopes and anger that nation...." A.O.Hume, a retired British civil servant who (in consultation with the British Viceroy of India) founded the Indian National Congress in 1885
The Board of the International Crisis Group includes Lord Patten of Barnes, Former UK Cabinet Minister; Ambassador Thomas R Pickering, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN; and Gareth Evans Former Foreign Minister of Australia; and whose Executive Committee includes George Soros; Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former U.S. National Security Advisor to the President; and Fidel V. Ramos, Former President of Philippines with Martti Ahtisaari Former President, Finland (and author of the Kosovo Ahtisaari Plan) and George J. Mitchell, Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader (and Northern Ireland 'Peace Broker') as Chairmen Emeritus
Sathyam Commentary
23 February 2008

Who is Lobbying Whom?

" Western governments' policies on Sri Lanka should consciously include attempts to open up political space within their Tamil communities for non-Tiger political voices. Those governments with significant Tamil populations should engage representative civil society groups directly, expressing sympathy for the legitimate grievances of minorities in Sri Lanka, while challenging them to reject the LTTE's destructive politics and actively guarding against any intimidation of anti-Tiger Tamil groups... The international community ... should take up the challenge of pressuring and persuading it (the LTTE) - perhaps using diaspora representatives - to renounce suicide bombings, attacks on civilians, political killings and child recruitment...Peace supporters should consider setting a deadline for renunciation of a separate state, after which they would actively pursue prosecutions of current LTTE leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.... ....Countries should develop step-by-step benchmarks for progress towards revoking the terrorist designation - in part to encourage Prabhakaran's removal..." Report of 20 February 2008 by The International Crisis Group co-chaired by Lord Patten of Barnes, Former UK Cabinet Minister and by Ambassador Thomas R Pickering, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN; and with Gareth Evans, Former Foreign Minister of Australia as President.


Mr Nathan Kumar, President of the British Tamils Forum, receiving the Asia Voice award for best campaigning organisation of the year in the United Kingdom. from Dr John Reid MP, former UK Cabinet Minister & Home Secretary, 21 February 2008 - at a ceremony in the British House of Commons see Video at Youtube for Speech by Mr.Keith Vaz M.P. and see also

Britain will press Sri Lanka on Human Rights abuses - but will not support independence for Tamils, 26 February 2008


A few months months ago a committed diaspora Eelam Tamil activist concerned with the grave humanitarian crisis faced by his kith and kin in Tamil Eelam prepared a well researched booklet for presentation to a member of the legislature of the country in which he lived. The legislator had indicated that such a booklet will be helpful in the discussions that he planned to have with the head of the government of that country. The Eelam Tamil activist requested that I review the booklet and offer my comments. In the context of the report by the distinguished westcentric International Crisis Group dated 20 February 2008 that

"...Western governments' policies on Sri Lanka should consciously include attempts to open up political space within their Tamil communities for non-Tiger political voices."

and that

"Those governments with significant Tamil populations should engage representative civil society groups directly, expressing sympathy for the legitimate grievances of minorities in Sri Lanka, while challenging them to reject the LTTE's destructive politics and actively guarding against any intimidation of anti-Tiger Tamil groups."

my response to the Eelam Tamil activist may have a general relevance and I set out here an extended and revised version of the reply that I had sent -

" Your booklet is comprehensive and has been put together with care - and reflects your commitment to the struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam for freedom. You are right to hope that 'the documentation will help the government of the country' in which you live, 'see for itself the vital leadership role that it can play as a protector of human rights and a champion of the oppressed.'

Said that, we may also want to pay attention to something which Velupillai Pirabakaran said in 1993 -

".. the world is not rotating on the axis of human justice. Every country in this world advances its own interests. It is economic and trade interests that determine the order of the present world, not the moral law of justice nor the rights of people. International relations and diplomacy between countries are determined by such interests...."

The cynicism of real politick in the world in which we live, was pointed out by Amnesty in a full page advertisement in the London based Guardian many years ago, on 12 March 1994 in the context of East Timor - comments which are equally applicable to the situation of the people of Tamil Eelam in the island of Sri Lanka:

''...When governments pretend not to notice suffering, to whom can peoples.. turn for help? The United Nations? Alas, the deeper you delve, the redder the faces. The cynicism of realpolitick extends even to the UN Commission on Human Rights... When Amnesty attended the Commission in Geneva last month to urge action on Indonesia and East Timor, we met only embarrassment. The governments to which we spoke repeated what they have been promising us for thirty years: they will pursue a policy of 'quiet diplomacy'''

Quiet diplomacy is more often than not a cloak for the pursuit of the geo strategic interests of the country concerned. We need to pay careful attention to the assessment of Sivaram (Taraki) in 2003 -

"..Today it is clear beyond all reasonable doubt that India and the US-UK-Japan Bloc are trying to influence and manage Sri Lanka's peace process to promote and consolidate their respective strategic and economic interests... From 1983 to 86, it was taboo among Tamils to propagate the truth that India was exploiting their cause to gain a foothold in Sri Lanka. The few who dared to speak about India's hegemonistic designs were admonished not to be too rash lest we provoke Delhi's ire and cause a disruption in the weapons handouts by the RAW....The price the Tamil liberation movement as a whole had to pay for not educating the people about the truth of India's intentions was high. At this juncture, even a doddering dullard would find the deja vu inescapable...The Tamil nation cannot afford to make the same mistake again..."

Even 'a doddering dullard would find the deja vu inescapable' and we cannot afford to make the same mistake again. The political reality is that the world is not rotating on the axis of human justice. It is not the case that at the highest levels of governments in the Western world, the justice of the struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam to be free from alien Sinhala rule is not known. For instance, Congressman Mario Baggio's declared eloquently in the US House of Representatives in May 1980 -

"To understand the problems that exist in Sri Lanka - formerly known as Ceylon - it is essential that we review its history. Located in South Asia, the island of Sri Lanka has been composed of two distinct populations for centuries - the Tamils and the Sinhalese. They lived not as one, but as two nations, with separate languages, religions, cultures, and clearly demarcated geographic territories...

My colleagues and I have introduced the following resolution because we believe it is essential to express the concern of the Congress about the army occupation in the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka: the denial of basic rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equal citizenship and educational opportunities; and the freedom to exercise the right of political self-determination."

That was 28 years ago, and Tamils lobbying their elected representatives in the United States, in Canada in Australia or in the United Kingdom will be hard pressed to put the justice of the Tamil struggle more effectively.

Again, the resolution of US Massachusetts House of Representatives in June 1981 calling for the Restoration of the Separate Sovereign State of Tamil Eelam makes it abundantly clear that the United States, for instance, was not without an understanding of the justice of the Tamil Eelam struggle for freedom.

What then has changed in the ensuing 27 years? Not much, if we recognise that countries do not have permanent friends but have permanent strategic interests.

The political reality is that there are two conflicts in the island of Sri Lanka - one the conflict between the Sinhala nation and a Tamil Eelam nation seeking freedom from alien Sinhala rule, and the other, the conflict between international actors in the asymmetric multilateral world in which we live - a world in transition from the unipolar to the multilateral.

Today, the China ward tilt of President Rajapakse is a matter of concern to the West - in the same way as the Westward tilt of President Jayawardene was a matter of concern to India in the 1980s. I myself believe that these strategic interests need to be discussed openly - otherwise we may end up by ignoring the elephant in the room.

Admittedly there are those who take the view that this not the 'anuku murai', not the 'diplomatic way'. But I continue to believe in something that I wrote in Black Pebbles & White Pebbles in 2006 -

"..It seems that we avoid confronting the international community for fear of provoking its ire. We avoid seeking an open dialogue with the international community on its own strategic imperatives and the true rationale for its actions…We say that our way is the 'anuku murai' - the diplomatic way to 'approach' issues. We claim that this is the effective way. But has this 'anuku murai' succeeded? Again the result of not calling a spade a spade is that we confuse our own people... We confuse our people by leading them to believe that all that needs to be done is to wake up the international community to the facts and the justice of our cause and all will be well. This is the limitation of our discourse. It is a limitation that we need to transcend...."

It is not that each of one us should not tirelessly, fearlessly and openly lobby against the genocidal onslaught launched by Sri Lanka on the people of Tamil Eelam. We must. But at the same time, we must equally tirelessly, fearlessly and openly espouse the lawfulness and justice of the Tamil Eelam struggle for freedom from alien Sinhala rule. It is not either or - it is both. The charge is genocide - but the struggle is for freedom.

We must tirelessly, fearlessly and openly point out to those who speak to us about a creating a multi ethnic Sri Lanka that the conflict continues not because of the LTTE but because a Sinhala Buddhist nation seeks to masquerade as a 'multi ethnic' 'Sri Lankan civic nation', with a Sinhala Lion Flag, with as yet unrepealed Sinhala Only Act, with Buddhism as the State religion, and with an occupying Sinhala army in the Tamil homeland - a Sinhala army of occupation which was first sent to the Tamil homeland in 1961, long years before the demand for an indedependent Tamil Eelam in 1975.

We need to ask those whom we lobby to respond to our concern that in the same way as in the 1980s, when India sought to use Sri Lanka's violations of the human rights of Tamils to move Colombo away from the West, today both the West and India are seeking to use Sri Lanka's violations of the human rights of Tamils to move Sri Lanka away from too great linkage with China - and when that is secured, we will be offered 'comic opera' reforms such as the 13th Amendment and Provincial Councils, with a Provincial Governor appointed by a Sinhala Sri Lanka President who will exercise executive power in respect of provincial matters.

We need to ask those whom we lobby some simple questions which may help to focus their minds (as well as ours). Let us say:

"Yes, let us forget a separate state. Let us forget the Gandhian leader, S.J.V.Chelvanayagam's independence declaration of 1975. Let us forget the Vaddukoddai Resolution of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) of 1976. Let us forget the TULF Manifesto for independence which received the overwhelming support of the people of Tamil Eelam in 1977. Let us forget S.J.V.Chelvanayagam. Let us forget the LTTE. Let us forget Velupillai Pirabakaran.

Indeed, let us go further. Let us forget federalism. Let us forget devolution - yes, even devolution.

Let us also forget decades of murder, torture and rape which led Paul Sieghart Q.C. to conclude in 1984 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."

Let us forget 1956, 1958, 1961, 1974, 1977 and 1983. Yes, even 1983.

Let us forget decades of broken pacts and dishonoured agreements entered into by the dominant Sinhala majority with the Tamil political leadership.

Yes, by all means, let us forget the past. Let us live in the present and look to the future. Let us explore dispassionately the 'disinterested' advice of the 'international community' that the answer to the conflict in the island of Sri Lanka lies in a multi ethnic secular Sri Lanka.

Let us then ask: Will this unitary (yes, unitary) 'multi ethnic secular state' renounce the Sinhala flag as its 'national' flag and adopt a tricolor as its national flag? If not, why not?

Will this 'unitary multi ethnic secular state' repeal the Sinhala Only Act and declare explicitly and without subterfuge that Sinhalese and Tamil shall have parity throughout the island? If not, why not?

Will this 'unitary multi ethnic secular state' repeal the Constitutional recognition given to Buddhism? If not, why not?

Will this 'unitary multi ethnic secular state' agree to renounce its Sinhala name which it gave itself unilaterally in 1972? If not, why not?

Will this 'unitary multi ethnic secular state' stop changing the demography of the land by state sponsored Sinhala colonisation? If not, why not?

Let us then ask -

If the Sinhala political leadership cannot, even today, (yes, even today) remotely consider doing any or all of this, would the 'disinterested' international community please tell us why that is so? What is it in the Sinhala political consciousness that prevents it agreeing to a truly unitary (yes, unitary) 'multi ethnic secular state'? And given the existential reality of that Sinhala political consciousness what does the mantra of a 'multi ethnic plural soceity' actually mean - despite its meditative ring?

Let us ask those whom we lobby -

Would you deny that Sinhala ethno nationalism is a nationalism that dare not speak its name?

Would you deny the reality that in the island of Sri Lanka a Sinhala Buddhist ethno nation seeks to masquerade as a 'multi ethnic civic Sri Lankan nation' so that it may further its assimilative agenda?

Would you deny the political reality of the homogeneous Pan Sinhala Ministry of 1936 - yes, in 1936 under British rule when separation was not even a remote threat, and devolution was not on the table?

Would you deny that the record shows that during the past sixty years and more, the intent and goal of all Sinhala governments (without exception) has been to secure the island as a Sinhala Buddhist Deepa ?

Buddhist MonkWould you deny that Sinhala Buddhist ethno nationalism existed long before Tamil demands for devolution or federalism or an independent state - and that Sinhala Buddhist ethno nationalism has its roots in the Mahawamsa and in Duttugemenu and that it has continued to assert its hegemony with increasing ferocity?

Would you deny that Sinhala Buddhist ethno nationalism did not arise as a response to the Tamil demand for federalism or an independent state?

Would you deny that Sinhala Buddhist ethno nationalism is not the creation of S.J.V.Chelvanayagam or Velupillai Pirabakaran?

Would you deny that in fact and in truth, it is the other way around?

Would you deny that it this political reality which prevents the Sinhala political leadership even today, (yes, even today) from agreeing to a truly unitary 'multi ethnic secular state' without a Sinhala Lion Flag, without the Sinhala Only Act, without Buddhism as the State religion, and without the Sinhala 'Sri Lanka' name

Would you deny that it this political reality of the existence of two nations in the island of Sri Lanka (one which dares not speak its name, and the other which does) that any meaningful conflict resolution process will need to address?

Would you deny that Velupillai Pirabakaran was right when he declared many years ago -

"We are not chauvinists. Neither are we lovers of violence enchanted with war. We do not regard the Sinhala people as our opponents or as our enemies. We recognise the Sinhala nation. We accord a place of dignity for the culture and heritage of the Sinhala people. We have no desire to interfere in any way with the national life of the Sinhala people or with their freedom and independence. We, the Tamil people, desire to live in our own historic homeland as an independent nation, in peace, in freedom and with dignity."

Would you admit that to deny all this is to display the simple mindedness of the naive or the trickery of the knave."

We are a reasonable people and we will listen to reason. But let us say to those whom we lobby (and who may be lobbying us) that thousands upon thousands of Tamils, young and old, men and women, and children as well, have died and suffered so that we, their brothers and sisters, may stand up and declare openly and fearlessly that we will not be browbeaten by those who would deny us reason.

We need to say openly and fearlessly to those whom we lobby that former US Ambassador Jeffrey Lumsted was disingenuous when he declared some months ago in a paper on the 'United States Role in Sri Lanka Peace Process 2002-2006' -

"..With the end of the Cold War, U.S. interest in Sri Lanka waned... Political-military interests are not high, and the U.S. has no interest in military bases in Sri Lanka."

We need to openly and fearlessly point out that US Ambassador Jeffrey Lumsted failed to mention that with the end of the old cold war a new cold war has started and that he failed to address the issues raised by United States Lt.Col. Christopher J. Pehrson in 'String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China's Rising Power Across the Asian Littoral'

"Militarily, the United States must bear the cost of maintaining superior military power to guarantee security and serve as a hedge against a possible future China threat. In the "String of Pearls" region, U.S. efforts should be aimed at broadening and deepening American influence in ways that have wide appeal among the various regional states."

We need to openly express our concern that Sri Lanka is intent on using the political space created by the uneasy balance of power in the Indian ocean region to further its genocidal onslaught on the people of Tamil Eelam and to terrorise them to submit to permanent rule by an alien Sinhala majority within the confines of a single state.

Again, it is true that individual Congressmen, Senators and Parliamentarians may not have the same understanding that those at the highest levels of their Governments may have - and indeed they may not be privy to all the information and strategic reasoning on which their own government may choose to act. It is also true that individual legislators may be impelled by immediate considerations of securing votes in an election and that therefore they may be influenced by the presence of a significant number of Tamil voters in their electorate.

Said that, the responses by individual legislators will also be limited by that which they may perceive to be the strategic interests of the country to which they belong. It is usual for the US State Department,the Canadian External Affairs Ministry and the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office to provide a briefing note to individual legislators explaining the stand taken by their governments on important foreign policy issues.

It was not that the gross violations of human rights by the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, Suharto and Marcos were not known to the West (and their legislators) - they pretended to be unaware at that time or else advised a 'quiet diplomatic approach'.

And the flip side of this pretence is that individual legislators often respond to lobbying efforts by Tamils by a 'reverse' lobbying exercise. They say for instance that the problem of securing peace in the island of Sri Lanka is because of the 'intransigence' of the LTTE. Those Tamils who lobby are advised that they should 'persuade' the LTTE to 'compromise' and be more reasonable - and give up violence and give up on the demand for an independent Tamil Eelam.

Given that the LTTE is banned in the US as well as in Europe, and that Tamils (mostly professionals) seek to act within the law, the 'moderate' Tamil 'lobbyist' then persuades himself that the 'anuku murai', 'the diplomatic way' is to distance himself from 'terrorists' and 'intransigence'. The words of Frantz Fannon in The Wretched of the Earth in relation to Kenya and the Mau Mau come to mind -

"..the leader of the ('moderate') nationalist party... loudly proclaims that he has nothing to do with these Mau-Mau, these terrorists, these throat slitters. At best, he shuts himself off in a no-man's-land between the terrorists and the settlers and willingly offers his services as go-between; that is to say, that as the settlers cannot discuss terms with these Mau-Mau, he himself will be quite willing to begin negotiations. Thus it is that the rear-guard of the national struggle... find themselves somersaulted into the vanguard of negotiations and compromise - precisely because that party has taken very good care never to break contact with colonialism..."

And so the rear-guard of the national liberation struggle persuade themselves that they are in the vanguard of 'negotiations and compromise'. The 'moderate' Tamil lobbyist offers his services as a go between. He persuades himself that the way forward is to distance himself not only from those labelled as 'terrorists', but also distance himself from the 'ends' that the Eelam Tamil resistance movement seeks to achieve. He is persuaded to gloss over the political reality that the demand for an independent Tamil Eelam did not originate from the Tamil Eelam armed resistance movement - and that the demand originated in the declaration of the Gandhian (yes, Gandhian) Tamil leader S.J.V.Chelvanayagam in 1975.

"Throughout the ages the Sinhalese and Tamils in the country lived as distinct sovereign people till they were brought under foreign domination... We have for the last 25 years made every effort to secure our political rights on the basis of equality with the Sinhalese in a united Ceylon."

"It is a regrettable fact that successive Sinhalese governments have used the power that flows from independence to deny us our fundamental rights and reduce us to the position of a subject people. These governments have been able to do so only by using against the Tamils the sovereignty common to the Sinhalese and the Tamils."

"I wish to announce to my people and to the country that I consider the verdict at this election as a mandate that the Tamil Eelam nation should exercise the sovereignty already vested in the Tamil people and become free."

The 'moderate' Tamil lobbyist is then taken down the slippery slope of 'federalism', 'devolution', 'decentralisation', the comic opera of the 13th Amendment, and so on without knowing how to stop - or where to go. He rationalises his approach by speaking of the pressing need to end the suffering of his kith and kin in the Tamil homeland and speaks of the urgent need for 'peace'. He chooses to forget that the conqueror is always a lover of peace.

"The would be conqueror is always a lover of peace, for he would like to enter and occupy our country unopposed. It is in order to prevent him from doing this that we must be willing to engage in war and be prepared for it." Clausewitz quoted in Philosophers of Peace and War, edited by Professor Gallie

The 'moderate' Tamil lobbyist persuades himself that the 'international community' is actually engaged in the business of dispensing 'justice' and 'equality'. And the 'international community' concerned to further its own strategic interests actively encourages (and it now appears, is intent on creating the political space for) such Tamil 'lobbying'. The question here is: who is lobbying whom?

In 1885, it was a retired British civil servant, A.O.Hume (in consultation with the British Viceroy of India) who founded the Indian National Congress. The British were far seeing. David Hume declared:

"Every adherent of the Congress, however noisy in declamations, however bitter in speech, is safe from burning bungalows and murdering Europeans and the like. His hopes are based upon the British nation and he will do nothing to invalidate these hopes and anger that nation."

The Indian National Congress of that time was the 'Indian lobby' through which dissent was channelled and managed by the ruler in such a way so as to enable the ruler to secure its strategic interests in the Indian sub continent. Some 8 years after the founding of the Indian National Congress, Aurobindo set about showing where Hume was wrong. Aurobindo wrote in 1893 in the Indu Prakash:

"...Popular orators, who carry the methods of the bar into politics, are very fond of telling people that the Congress has habituated us to act together. Well, that is not quite correct; there is not the slightest evidence to show that we have at all learned to act together; the one lesson we have learned is to talk together, and that is a rather different thing...Our appeal, the appeal of every high souled and self respecting nation, ought not to be to the British sense of justice, but to our own reviving sense of manhood, to our own sincere fellow feeling - so far as it can be called sincere - with the silent suffering people of India. I am sure that eventually the nobler part of us will prevail - that when we no longer obey the dictates of a veiled self interest, but return to the profession of a large and genuine patriotism, when we cease to hanker after the soiled crumbs which England may cast to us from her table, then it will be to that sense of manhood, to that sincere fellow feeling that we shall finally and forcibly appeal..."

Admittedly, it is difficult to wake up an international community which pretends to be unaware of the justice of the struggle of Tamil Eelam for freedom - a struggle which US Congressman Mario Baggio's supported so eloquently in the US House of Representatives in May 1980. But the 'waking up' process will be hastened by openly discussing (and drawing public attention to) the strategic reasons for the international community's sleep.

Let us also communicate to those whom we lobby that we also recognise that sovereignty is not virginity. Let us say that if Germany and France were able to put in place 'associate' structures such as the European Union, 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 independent state may remain free and prosper, but at the same time pool sovereignty in certain agreed areas.

Let us say that Velupillai Pirabakaran was right when he declared in 1992 -

''It is the Sri Lanka government that has failed to learn the lessons from the emergence of the struggles for self determination in several parts of the globe and the innovative structural changes that have taken place.''

Let us communicate to those whom we lobby our belief that the 'asymmetric multilateral world' of states in their search for stability will find an increasing need to adopt a more principle centred approach towards struggles for self determination not only in the Indian region but also elsewhere in the globe. And let us say that little will be gained by demonising resistance to alien rule and the leaders of that resistance - because, apart from anything else, 'in those men thousands more are contained, an entire people is contained, human dignity is contained.'

And to those who ask: when will Tamil Eelam achieve freedom, let us say that Mahatma Gandhi was right when he declared in Transvaal, South Africa more than one hundred years ago

"..If someone asks me when and how the struggle may end, I may say that, if the entire community manfully stands the test, the end will be near. If many of us fall back under storm and stress, the struggle will be prolonged. But I can boldly declare, and with certainty, that so long as there is even a handful of men true to their pledge, there can only be one end to the struggle, and that is victory..."

Mail Us Copyright 1998/2009 All Rights Reserved Home


Mail Us Copyright 1998/2009 All Rights Reserved Home