Anomy or anomie, 'in contemporary English, means a
condition or malaise in individuals, characterized by an
absence or diminution of standards or values. The word
comes from the Greek - the prefix a: 'without', and
nomos: 'law'.' 1
Objectivity and subjectivity are but two sides of the
same coin and 'truth' always lies in the elusive interplay between the
two. It may have to be grasped
rather than analysed.
"Immediately after "July '83 " there was much sympathy for
the Tamils, with international condemnation of what
happened - remarkably absent within the Island - and
the opening of immigration doors. However, the Tigers
by their action have lost the moral high-ground,
dissipated goodwill, forfeited much support. They are
now proscribed in several countries and, generally,
are associated not with freedom but with
terrorism."
I believe that even in 1983,
international 'sympathy for the Tamils' and
'condemnation' of Sri Lanka was very much influenced by
real politick. International media headlines on the 1983
anti-Tamil pogrom were of little avail to prevent
the continued onslaught on the Tamil people in the
succeeding years. The fact is that the United Nations did
not take a firm stand against
Sri Lanka in 1983. Leo Kuper, Professor Emeritius,
University of California, who participated at the
meeting of the UN Sub-Commission in August 1983,
under the auspices of the International Commission of
Jurists, wrote in his
book "The Prevention of Genocide" published in
1985 -
"...The Sri Lanka
government is held in high esteem by many members of
the sub-commission, and it argued against
U.N.involvement on the ground that it might disturb
present delicate negotiations; it also circulated its
own version of events. Then, too, the Indian
government had interceded, and discussions were proceeding. But
there were also political currents observable in the
alignment of members, though I could not
altogether fathom the geo political considerations
involved. In the end a very mild resolution was
passed calling for information from the Sri Lanka
government and recommending that the commission
examine the situation at the next meeting in the
light of the information available. There was,
however, only a bare majority for the resolution (10
for, 8 against and 4 abstaining). It is
unfortunate that the United Nations did not take a
firm stand at this stage. The Sinhalese army is now
engaging in large scale massacres of Tamils and
the conflict has escalated, seemingly
beyond control...."
Again, the reasons for India's own
support for the Tamils in the 1980s are well
documented and need not be repeated here. Suffice
it to say that it had little do with support for the
'moral high ground' or the expression of 'goodwill' for
the people of Tamil Eelam. In Indian Foreign Secretary's Dixit's memorable
words in February 1998 -
"..Inter-state relations are not
governed by the logic of morality. They were and they
remain an amoral phenomenon.."
As for the United States,
the State Department's Annual Human
Rights Report to Congress released in February 1985
stated shamelessly -
"Sri Lanka is an open, working,
multiparty democracy. Citizens elect their president,
members of parliament, and local government officials
by universal adult suffrage. All laws including acts
extending the state of emergency, must be approved by
the Parliament... The Constitution guarantees the
independence of the judiciary, and lawyers and judges
are held in high esteem."
And to Christopher Dobson and
Ronald Payne, of the Daily Telegraph in April 1985
"...for whatever its shortcomings, Sri Lanka, a loyal
Commonwealth member, is a decent republic where
democracy prevails despite the troubles..." (Daily
Telegraph: April 9, 1985) Again, in the view of
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, 'it is a
democracy in Sri Lanka' and 'problems must be solved
through democracy'. (Guardian: 13th April
1985).
The international community
pretended that it did not know the true nature of Sri
Lanka's 'democracy' in 1985 -
"... The reluctance to hold
general elections, the banning of the opposition
press, the continued reliance on extraordinary powers
unknown to a free democracy, arbitrary detention
without access to lawyers or relations, torture of
detainees on a systematic basis, the intimidation of
the judiciary by the executive, disenfranchisement of
the opposition, an executive President who holds
undated letters of resignation from members of the
legislature, an elected President who publicly
declares his lack of care for the lives or opinion of
a section of his electorate, and the continued
subjugation of the Tamil people by a permanent
Sinhala majority, within the confines of an unitary
constitutional frame, constitute the reality of
'democracy', Sri Lankan style." Democracy, Sri
Lankan Style, May 1985
Today, a quarter of century later,
the same amorality that dictated the responses of the
international community to Black July
1983, dictates the steps taken by the
international community against the LTTE.
The proscription of the LTTE has
little to do with 'terrorism' and the international
community's concern for the 'moral high ground'. After
all, we know only too well the support extended to 'friendly dictators' by the
international community and to the Contras in Nicaragua and the Taliban
in Afghanistan (against the Soviet Union) - and indeed
to Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. US President Franklin D.
Roosevelt's words about the Nicaraguan
dictator Anastasio Somoza remain a constant reminder of
the ways of real politick - "Somoza
may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch."
The proscription of the LTTE has
everything to do with the new cold war in an asymmetric
multilateral world which is struggling towards a
greater symmetry. Shift
happens. In the Indian Ocean region the new cold war is
reflected in the uneasy balance of power between US, India
and China. Again, despite the
efforts of India, the present may be simply a staging
post for the emergence of a bipolar world dominated by the US (EU,
Japan) and China.
On 29 July 2008, Dr Henry Kissinger said in a speech at
the launch of the Kissinger Institute on China and the
United States -
"...China and
America no longer have a common enemy, but a common
opportunity. An adversarial relationship between the
United States and China is unfortunate for the whole
world; positive relations are beneficial to
everybody. China and the United States have an
opportunity to help lead the
world on common policies..."'
The reality is
that Sri Lanka has sought to use the political space created by the geo
strategic triangle of US-India-China in the Indian
Ocean region, to buy the support of all three for the
continued rule of the people of Tamil Eelam by a
permanent Sinhala majority within the confines of one
state.
"..We have
India in the Trincomalee oil farm, at the same
time we have a
Chinese coal powered energy plant in Trincomalee;
we have a
Chinese project for the Hambantota port, at the
same time we have the attempted
naval exercises with the US from Hambantota (to
contain Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean); we
have the grant of
preferred licenses to India for exploration of oil in
the Mannar seas, at the same time we have a
similar grant to China and
a 'road show' for tenders from US and UK based
multinational corporations; meanwhile we have
the continued presence of the Voice of
America installations in the island and the
ten year Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement
(ACSA) was signed by the United States and Sri
Lanka on 5 March 2007..." International
Dimensions of the Conflict in Sri Lanka - Nadesan
Satyendra, 2 October 2006
I believe that Velupillai
Pirabakaran was right when
he said in 1993 -
"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. Therefore we cannot
expect an immediate recognition of the moral
legitimacy of our cause by the international
community...In reality, the success of our
struggle depends on us, not on the world. Our success
depends on our own efforts, on our own strength, on
our own determination."
I also believe
that to conflate the two words 'terrorism' and
'violence' (as the international community has
persistently and, in my view, deliberately done) is to obscure the moral
legitimacy of a struggle for freedom. It is to assert
in effect that a people ruled by an alien people may
not, as a last resort, lawfully resort to arms to resist that
alien rule and secure freedom -
"...Do we not deliberately
obfuscate when we conflate the two words 'terrorism'
and 'violence'? ... The Cuban revolution was violent
but it was not terrorism. The war against Hitler was
violent but it was not terrorism...What are the
circumstances in which a people ruled by an alien
people may lawfully resort
to arms to resist that alien rule and secure freedom?
Or is it that there are no circumstances in which a
people ruled by an alien people may lawfully resort to arms to to liberate
themselves? And if all resort to violence to secure
political ends is not terrorism, then what is
terrorism? ..to categorise a combatant in an
armed conflict as a 'terrorist' organisation and seek
to punish it on that basis, is to.. assert in effect
that a people ruled by an alien people may not, as a
last resort, lawfully
resort to arms to resist that alien rule and secure
freedom... " On Terrorism & Liberation -
Nadesan Satyendra 23 September
2006
A principle centered
approach which liberates political language will also
help liberate peoples who have taken up arms as a last resort in their struggle
for freedom from oppressive alien rule.
And here let us be
clear. The struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam to be
free from alien Sinhala rule is not about what the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam may have done or may
not have done. The record shows that the armed resistance of the people of Tamil
Eelam (warts and all) arose as
the inevitable response to decades of efforts by
successive Sinhala governments to conquer,
subjugate, pacify and assimilate the Tamil people
and the enactment of the 6th Amendment to the
Sri Lanka constitution set the seal by
criminalising all non violent means of struggle for an
independent Tamil Eelam state - an
amendment which also violated Sri Lanka's obligations
under international law.
The short point that
I would make is that in sum, the moral
legitimacy of the Tamil Eelam Struggle for Freedom
remains today as it did in 1983 and the attitude of the
so called international community has little to with
the means adopted by the LTTE but everything to do with
the goal that the people of Tamil Eelam seek to achieve
- freedom from alien Sinhala rule.
Third Matter of
Disagreement
I now turn to the
third matter on which I disagree with Sarvan. He
writes (about the LTTE, and cites a Sinhala writer in
support) -
"...Dissent is not tolerated,
and competing groups have been eliminated without
hesitation or mercy. Ruthlessness was directed as
much against fellow Tamils, as against the "enemy"
Sinhalese: among several works, see, Nira
Wickramasinghe, already cited. The Tamils find
themselves caught between Sinhalese chauvinism, and
Tiger tyranny - or, as someone here in Berlin said to
me, they are trapped on a branch on fire at both
ends. Those who can, jump off - into exile and life
in a foreign country. Some may argue that the Tigers,
fighting against huge odds, must maintain
"discipline" and an iron control at all cost but,
again, an explanation does not necessarily lead to
exculpation: "at all cost" is humanely and morally
unacceptable."
Sarvan is right to say that
explanation is not exculpation and that maintaining
discipline and iron control "at all cost" is humanely
and morally unacceptable. But were the actions of the
LTTE simply a question of maintaining "discipline and
an iron control at all cost "? What are the
facts?
It is true that the LTTE has, from
time to time, taken action against those who have been
proved to be informers and collaborators. Whether that
was done 'without hesitation' or after several warnings
is a matter that cannot be determined on the say so of
writers who have little or no real contact with the
ground - and I count myself as one of them.
Said that, I do agree that the
principles of natural justice do demand that no one
shall be punished without being heard, that those who
judge shall be impartial and not moved by personal
considerations. Again, justice must not only be done
but must also be (publicly) seen to done. These are not
matters simply of procedural law or social contract.
They are deep rooted and seem to touch our innate
(natural) sense of justice - and, indeed, our
humanity.
In the absence of a sufficiently stable judicial system
(where traitors may be charged with sedition and their
guilt determined according to law) a guerrilla movement
will need to take care to ensure that any action that
it takes against a 'traitor' does in fact accord with
the principles of natural justice - however difficult
that such an approach may sometimes appear to be for
those on the ground, engaged as they are in a daily
battle for survival against an enemy with a great
reservoir of material resources. Any action that the
LTTE may take against a Tamil (even though he be a
traitor) sets one Tamil (family) against other Tamils,
and will divide and erode the solidarity of the Tamil
people, unless the justice of the action and the
reasons for the action are publicly known and
accepted.
The responses of the LTTE to the
activities of some Tamil elements who co-operate with
the Sinhala government (or for that matter with RAW and
other foreign agencies), suggest that it is mindful, on
the one hand, of the dangers posed by informers and
quislings, and on the other hand, of the difficulties
of responding to such dangers, within the framework of
a guerrilla movement without a stable judicial system.
But, that is not to say that the LTTE has always
succeeded in its efforts to address these
issues.
At the same time we need to
recognise that securing intelligence is, perhaps, the
most important part of any campaign against a guerrilla movement. That is
because the strength of a guerrilla movement lies in
its capacity to strike without warning against a
relatively static, though better equipped enemy.
Mobility and surprise are the key elements of the
success of a guerrilla movement. Hence the crucial need
of the enemy for intelligence.
But obtaining intelligence may
become increasingly difficult for an alien ruler who
does not speak the language of the people on whom he
seeks to impose his rule - this is more so as a
liberation movement begins to enjoy increasing support
among its own people. To secure intelligence, the
Sinhala government needs to recruit informers who are
(or were) in touch with the activities of the guerrilla
movement. The Sinhala government may make careful
efforts to infiltrate a guerrilla movement, by using
individual grievances that a person may have, family
connections and so on. And where the situation demands
it, this will be backed up by cash inducements. That
which Mark Lloyd, said in his book 'Special
Forces - The Changing Face of Warfare' remains
relevant -
"(This infiltration of a
guerrilla movement) is best achieved by targeting a
participant whose heart is not in it or who is
suffering from obvious family pressures. Initial
meetings with the target may only be conducted by
highly trained operators, and for obvious reasons
must take place in the utmost secrecy. The 'need to
know' principle, whereby only those within the
intelligence network who actively require details of
the agent are given them, must be imposed
rigidly.."
Mark Lloyd pointed out that this
approach will lead to further information being made
available to the enemy and further retaliatory 'action'
by the guerrilla movement against the 'new' informers -
a vicious cycle that is often deliberately encouraged
and directed by the enemy to lead ultimately to the
disintegration of support for the guerrilla
movement.
Said all this, the
words of US General Donald
Blackburn, who commanded US guerrillas against the
Japanese in the Philippines during World War II in
proceedings before the American Society of
International Lawyers, thirty years later (70th
Meeting, Washington, 1976 p.155) are a salutary
reminder of the harsh reality faced by a guerrilla
movement on the ground -
"...American forces that tried
to comply with the spirit of the standards of the law
of land warfare found that they could not physically
survive. For example, one officer who could not feed
captured Japanese prisoners returned them to the
Japanese through a priest. The Japanese promptly
returned and executed him. To avoid extinction and to
survive, the American-led guerrilla forces decided to
take stringent measures. Through
official orders it was announced that spies and
informers, considered to be the main problem, would
be controlled or eliminated.... "
The
British Admiralty note on 'Naval
Bombardment of Coast Towns' printed for the
Committee of Imperial Defence more than a hundred years
ago, in mid 1906, during the preparations for the
following year's Hague Conference [continuation of CID
paper 75B, in PRO, FO 88I/9328* II] was no less
forthright -
"...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.. "
The fact is that the humanitarian laws of armed conflict are
more often than not observed in the breach. The German
blitz on London and the night time Allied bombings of
Bremen during the Second World War exposed some of the
hypocrisy behind the stated concerns about the
protection afforded to 'civilians'. Hiroshima
and Nagasaki as well Shock
and Awe in Iraq stand as continuing examples of
'acts of war necessitated by overwhelming military
considerations'.
"War is the exercise of force
for the attainment of a political object,
unrestrained by any law save that of expediency.."
Carl von Clausewitz
An armed
conflict is no afternoon tea party
An armed conflict is no afternoon
tea party - and it is in that armed conflict that the
LTTE is engaged. Those of us who by choice stand
outside the armed conflict (and who have not accepted
the risk involved in being a part of it) may want to
begin by recognising that guerrilla warfare cannot be
directed from the outside. It can be directed only
from within, by those who have accepted their
full share of the risks
involved.
"...guerrilla warfare is
essentially political, and that for this reason the
political cannot be counter posed to the military...
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 -Pelican Latin
American Library, Penguin Books,
1967)
Here, it may also not be remiss to
repeat something that I said in Thyagam & the Tamil Expatriate in
1993 -
"...Sometime ago, the Harvard
University Graduate School of Business
Administration, sent out a letter seeking new
subscribers for one of its publications. The letter
read:
"The professional practise of
management is as challenging and complex as the
practices of medicine and law. Yet we never hear of
a 1-minute trial lawyer. One minute is about how
long the physician or attorney who tries it will
last. The quick fix. The too simple solution. The
latest fad. They have no more place in your office
than in the operating room or the court
room."
That which is true in relation
to the corporate office, the operating room and the
court is perhaps even more true in relation to an
armed struggle for freedom. Answers to the deeper
issues which confront the Tamil national liberation
struggle are unlikely to come from those who devote a
few moments of their undoubtedly busy lives to
suggest the 'quick fix', which they believe has
somehow escaped the attention of those who have taken
the struggle forward on the ground during the past
several years.
A busy expatriate Tamil
professional in Australia once remarked to a Tamil
activist: ''You know, the trouble is that the 'boys'
have brawn but no brains''. The reply from the Tamil
activist was perhaps, overly sharp but it was
telling:
''My dear friend, the trouble
with you is that you have neither the brawn nor the
brains - neither the brawn to go to Tamil Eelam and
join the struggle nor the brains to look deeper
into the issues that confront the struggle and make
a useful contribution from outside. If you had done
the latter, you would have hopefully, begun to
learn that to a leadership which has gone through
the university of the liberation struggle on the
ground, much of what you say will seem to come from
the kindergarten''.
The 1-minute 'political adviser'
is not very different from the 1-minute brain surgeon
or the 1- minute trial lawyer. One minute is about
how long he will last in the struggle before
succumbing to the forces ranged against
it."
Those of us who by choice stand outside the armed
conflict may want to ask ourselves truthfully: what
is it that dictated our
choice?
Those of us who by choice stand
outside the armed conflict may want to ask ourselves
truthfully: what is it that dictated our choice? Were we, for instance,
dictated by our repugnance of violence? If so, were
our feelings similar to the feelings of the 'kind
hearted lady' in the story related by the fictional Prince Andrew Bolkhonsky in
*Tolstoy's War & Peace
- the kind hearted lady 'who faints when she
sees a calf being killed but enjoys eating the calf
served up with sauce' -
".. 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... 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..."
Ofcourse, the real moral question
may not be the methods of war but war itself. The words
of Harry L. Stimson, US Secretary of State 1929-1933
quoted, appropriately enough by Hitler's Arms Minister,
Albert Speer in Inside the Third Reich
merit our careful attention -
"...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-defence,
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..."
And Aurobindo's remarks 'On the
Passing of War' addressed some of the fundamental
issues that are involved -
"...Man's illusions are of all
sorts and kinds... The greatest of them all are those
which cluster round the hope of a perfected society,
a perfected race, a terrestrial millennium... One of
the illusions incidental to this great hope is the
expectation of the passing of war. This grand event
in human progress is always being confidently
expected, and since we are now all scientific minds
and rational beings, we no longer expect it by a
divine intervention, but assign sound physical and
economical reasons for the faith that is in us...
(however) ...only when man has developed not merely a
fellow feeling with all men... when he is aware of
them not merely as brothers that is a fragile
bond but as parts of himself, only when
he has learned to live, not in his separate personal
and communal ego-sense, but in a large universal
consciousness, can the phenomenon of war, with
whatever weapons, pass out of his life without the
possibility of return.. Meanwhile that he should
struggle even by illusions towards that end, is an
excellent sign; for it shows that the truth behind
the illusion is pressing towards the hour when it may
become manifest as reality... "
If they are
concerned to secure freedom, what are they prepared
to put on line - albeit, in a non
violent struggle for freedom?
Again, admittedly, there are those
who, unlike the kind hearted lady in the Tolstoy story,
may be true vegetarians and they may take the view that
there are no circumstances
which justify a people to resort to violence to secure
freedom. It may be that they do not agree even with
Mahatma Gandhi when he said in 'The Doctrine of the Sword' in
1920:
"I do believe that when there is
only a choice between cowardice and violence.... I
would rather have India resort to arms in order to
defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly
manner become or remain a helpless victim to her own
dishonour..."
But then the question arises: are
those who take the view that there are no circumstances which justify a people to
resort to violence to secure
freedom, willing to accept the permanent rule
of one people by another admittedly alien people -
a people who speak a different language and who trace
their
heritage to different origins? Would they agree
that if democracy means the rule of a people by the
people and for the people, then no one people may rule
another? And, if they are concerned to secure freedom,
what are they prepared to put on line - albeit, in a
non violent struggle for
freedom?
Subramaniam
Sivanayagam's words on the Role of Tamil Expatriates in
1999 spring to mind
-
"..A child of the new millennium
asks: "Grandpa, where were you when the Tamil people
were fighting for freedom in Sri Lanka?". "Well, I
was minding my own business, darling, and making pots
of money, here in England". "What was grandma doing
then grandpa? "Why, she was doing the same thing,
minding her own business, honey, and helping me to
spend that money". That was an imagined futuristic
dialogue. How about the present?.."
Are those who are committed to non
violence simply concerned to mind their own 'business'?
Or perhaps they are content to become petition writers
and pleaders for justice? But then would they agree
that -
"..It is a vain dream to suppose
that what other nations have won by struggle and
battle, by suffering and tears of blood, we shall be
allowed to accomplish easily, without terrible
sacrifices, merely by spending the ink of the
journalist and petition framer and the breath of the
orator..." Sri Aurobindo in Bande
Mataram
Again the words of the retired
British civil servant, A.O.Hume who founded the Indian
National Congress in 1885 (after 'appropriate'
consultation with the British Viceroy) may not be
without relevance -
"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."
Are the hopes of petition writers
and pleaders for justice (where ever they may reside -
whether in cyberspace or on land) based on the
goodwill of their host governments and is it that they
will do nothing to invalidate those hopes and anger
their rulers? Do petition writers and pleaders act the
way they do because they recognise the validity of
something that Michael Rivero said many years ago
-
"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.
Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the
critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an
excuse not to think at all."
in What Really Happened
Do they act the way they do
because "to choose to do nothing is to surrender one's
self-image of standing for principles" and because to
take meaningful "action in the face of a corrupt
government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones
"?
And if they are not content to be
simply petition writers and pleaders for justice, would
they be prepared to put their own lives and their own
freedom on line in a non violent
struggle in the way that Martin
Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi did? And if they are not
prepared to put their lives and their freedom on line,
are they prepared to put their 'life style' and of
those near and dear to them at risk in a non violent
lawful struggle for freedom?
Or is it that
those who abhor violence prefer to
offers their services as go
betweens?
Or is it that those who abhor
violence prefer to play the role that Frantz Fannon
spoke
about in the Wretched of the Earth
"..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 (alien rulers) 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, that very party of people who have
never ceased to be on the other side in the fight,
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..."
Shut off
between the 'terrorists' and the alien ruler he offers
his services as a 'go between' and engages in
'lobbying' without pausing to reflect on the question:
who is lobbying whom?
Sarvan relates his advice to Sri Lanka President
Ranasinghe -
"Ranasinghe Premadasa was a
Sinhalese chauvinist. I met him on several occasions.
"I argued that his objective must be to deprive the
terrorists of popular support by offering the Tamils
autonomy", but he was convinced he could destroy the
Tigers. Under his successor, Chandrika Kumaratunga,
the war continues."
Shut off as he
was between the 'terrorists' and an alien
'chauvinist' ruler, Sarvan
found that his 'objective' advice was
spurned.
Here, may I say that I myself lay
no special claim to wisdom. It is often
all too easy to offer the rationalisation of one's own
existence as a panacea to the people to whom one may
belong.
I remember a conversation that I
had with Sathasivam Krishnakumar (Kittu) in Geneva in
the early 1990s. After a couple of days of talks, and
after he had cooked a meal for me, he looked at me
directly and said: "Annai, may I ask you something
straight?".
I laughed because I recognised
that when any one puts it in that way, the question may
often go to the core - and the answer is not always
easy. I replied: "Yes, go ahead" partly because I had
considerable regard for Kittu's own integrity. Kittu
replied:
"Annai, during the past two
days, we have discussed many matters and there is
much that I have gained from the interaction. But can
you tell me why it is that during the 1960s, you did
not involve yourself in the Tamil struggle, at least
in the ahimsa way?"
I could have answered that
question in many different ways. However, I felt that I
owed Kittu a direct and honest answer. I
replied:
"The fact is that having been
born in a middle class family, and aspiring to make a
'success' of my life in the context of the Sri Lanka
state, and also achieving a measure of what was
generally regarded as 'success', I felt that all
Eelam Tamils could do the same - and that there was
no dividing line which could not be crossed with
effort and diligence."
For myself, the events surrounding
the burning of the Jaffna Public Library in
1981 and later the Thangathurai & Kuttimuni trial in 1982
were the turning points, which compelled me to take
stock - and see the dividing line more clearly. They
were my Konstradt.
To others, it may have been something earlier -
the Sinhala Only Act of 1956, the riots of
1958, or the Satyagraha of 1961 or the Standardisation of 1972 or the pogrom of
1977. To yet others, it may have been something
later - Genocide'83 or today's continuing genocide - the extra judicial killings, the systematic torture of Tamil civilians and,
above all, the open (and oftentimes virulent) belligerence of Sinhala Buddhist
fundamentalism.
Sarvan's Essay is an
exploration (and, it is true that each one of us
are engaged in an exploration of one kind or
another)...
As a refugee myself, I can sense
the despair and anguish in the conclusion that Sarvan,
as a refugee in Germany, reaches -
"...I offer no solution but have
merely sketched some of the problems, including what
I term the Tamil dilemma and, in that way, tried to
make a contribution to awareness...Mired in the past,
we take myth for fact; distort Buddhism; believe in
essentialism and "race", exclusivity and superiority;
in Aryanism and divine election. There is little
desire to recognise what is common and shared, while
celebrating - even encouraging - variety and
equality. Posthumous restitution is not practical,
and perhaps it is too late for the present, but for
the sake of the children of the present and future,
the long reign of anomy must be ended."
Sarvan's Essay is an exploration
(and, it is true that each one of us are engaged in an
exploration of one kind or another).
"... 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 the
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
T.S.Eliot's oft quoted words also
come to mind -
"We shall not cease from
exploration and the end of all our exploring will be
to arrive where we started and know the place for the
first time."
At the end of all our exploring,
we may need to arrive at the beginning and 'know the
place for the first time'. Ranasinghe Premadasa's
response to Sarvan underlined a fundamental truth - the
truth that so long as the Sinhala people believe that
they can conquer and rule the people of Tamil Eelam
(through their armed forces and with the help of
mercenaries, quislings and collaborators) so long also
will they refuse to see the need to talk to the people
of Tamil Eelam on equal terms and structure a polity
where two nations may associate with one and another in
equality and in freedom.
At the end of all our exploring,
we may need to arrive at the beginning and recognise
the truth of something which Sathasivam
Krishnakumar (Kittu) understood very well in 1991
-
" Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism has been
institutionalised in Sri Lanka and today it has
become more powerful than the politicians themselves.
Indeed even if the Sinhala politicians seek to settle
the conflict, Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism may try to
prevent such a settlement. This is the political
reality that those who are aware of the Sri Lankan
situation are well aware of... This Sinhala
chauvinism which was nurtured by Sinhala politicians
for their electoral advantage, has grown
into a Frankenstein monster which now has the
power to destroy and make politicians. This we
understand very well..." Sathasivam Krishnakumar, June,
1991
A change in the
Sinhala mindset will not come by recourse to
Freud
A change in the Sinhala mindset
will not come by recourse to Freud and bringing out in
the open the repressed fears of a Sinhala ethno nation which continues to
deny its own existence, which dare not speak its own
name and which seeks to masquerade as a Sri Lankan 'civic' nation in its
effort to assimilate and digest the people of
Tamil Eelam. That it is suffering from indigestion
should not be a matter for surprise. Be that as it may,
as Freud himself found, (psycho) analysis is not always
a sufficient cure for repressed fears. There may be
need to have recourse to the methods of the
behaviourist school of psychology. And the answer may
be blowing in the wind.
"Yes, 'n' how many times must
the cannon balls fly
Before they're forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.
How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he
knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind." Bob Dylan
It was Kittu who once said:
''Orators do not become leaders but leaders may become
orators.'' The same is perhaps true of writers as well.
Here, Kittu's own example may serve us well. Kittu
belonged to the true intelligentsia of Tamil Eelam. He
abstracted and conceptualised his own life experience,
read widely, sought to integrate that which he read
with his life and then set about influencing a people
to action. To him, theory was a very
practical thing - and therein lay the strength
of that which he said.
"...The error of the
intellectual consists in believing that it is
possible to know without understanding and especially
without feeling and passion... that the intellectual
can be an intellectual if he is distinct and detached
from the people-nation, without feeling the elemental
passions of the people, understanding them and thus
explaining them in a particular historical situation,
connecting them dialectically to the laws of history,
to a superior conception of the world... History and
politics cannot be made without passion, without this
emotional bond between intellectuals and the
people-nation. In the absence of such a bond the
relations between intellectuals and the people-nation
are reduced to contacts of a purely bureaucratic,
formal kind; the intellectuals
become a caste or a priesthood...'" Gramsci
quoted in James Joll's Gramsci, Fontana,
1977
And to those who despair (and it
is human to despair), we may want to say with Mahatma
Gandhi -
'..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...'
Mahatma Gandhi's Pledge of Resistance in
Transvaal, Africa, 1906
Velupillai Pirabakaran did not put
it very differently when he said - "Our success depends
on our own efforts, on our own strength, on our own
determination."
Our success
depends on our own efforts, on our own
determination
It is around the actions of each
one of us that the unity and strength of the Tamil
Eelam struggle for freedom will grow. And here, the
first question that we may want to ask ourselves is
whether that unity and strength can be accomplished by acquiescence
in alien Sinhala
rule?
"...It is a common cry
in this country that we should effect the unity of
its people before we try to be free. There is no cry
which is more plausible, none which is more hollow...
The first question we have to answer is - can
this practical unity be accomplished by acquiescence
in foreign rule? ... a state created by the
encampment of a foreign race among a conquered
population and supported in the last resort not by
any section of the people but by external force, is
an inorganic state... the tendency of the intruding
body is to break down all the existing organs of
national life and to engross all power in itself. ...
if the middle class could be either tamed, bribed or
limited in its expansion, the disorganisation would
be complete...The organs of middle class
political life can only be dangerous so long as they
are independent. By taking away their independence
they become fresh sources of strength for the
Government...The dissolution of the subject
organisation into a disorganised crowd is the
inevitable working of an alien despotism..."
Sri Aurobindo - Shall India be
Free?: Unity and British Rule
Today's Sri Lanka is a 'unitary
state' which owes its continued existence to the
encampment of a foreign Sinhala army in Tamil Eelam.
The tendency of the intruding body is to break down all
the existing organs of Tamil national life and engross
all power to itself. We may want to
recognise that 'the dissolution of the subject
organisation into a disorganised crowd is the
inevitable working of an alien
despotism'.
Reason tells us that therefore
that the unity and strength of the Tamil people will
never be secured by acquiescence in alien rule. It can be secured only by
those who choose freedom. What matters is not what
'others' may be doing (or not doing) in relation to the
struggle for freedom. What matters is what we ourselves
feel impelled to do in relation to the struggle. What
that lawful action is, is something which each one of
us has to decide for himself or herself - and will
depend heavily on one's own capacity, on one's own
limitations and above all else, on what each one of us
is prepared to put on line. Here, many will find the
reflections of a Tamil mother, wife, daughter and a
refugee in "What can I do? -
Sharing my thoughts with the Tamil Diaspora"
(written in January 2008) do touch a chord. She said
-
"..I firmly believe now, that if
we all do our little part and started working towards
a common vision, that vision will and must
materialize. .. (I want to share) my simple
suggestions at the end of this article, with other
ordinary people who, like I used to be, are a bit
lost when it comes to how they can help... Let our
fighters carry on with what they are doing but
meanwhile, I decided that I need to do my part - in
whatever small ways I can.
When we look at the Tamil
Diaspora, some of us still lay our hopes on the
International Community - I am not
saying it's a bad thing but it
should not be the only thing. Some of us wait
for some sort of miracle to happen. Some of us feel
absolutely hopeless and pessimistic. Some of us feel
tortured to live this way - reading the news of our
homeland, feeling angry and depressed - then only to
get distracted by trivial things in daily life.... I
have friends who simply sigh and change the topic or
don't talk about it anymore. Even worse, I have
friends who don't even give it a second thought. They
like to believe that they have lots of rights in
Canada. They thrive in the small things of daily
lives and happily chat in English with their
kids...
... Small things can make a big
difference. Hence, I share my thoughts with and for
the people who might have adopted a "hands-off"
approach (like I did before) or "looking the other
way" approach.
Act 1 - Get in touch
with the North East. Help relatives and friends in
North East.
Almost all of my close
relatives are living abroad. But I took some
trouble to get contact details of distant relatives
in Sri Lanka. I contacted my mother's second
cousin's family in the North, whom I met only once
in my life when I visited them as a child. They
were just so happy that I remembered them and
called. Now we are in touch at least via mail. I
called a long lost relative in Batticaloa. For two
decades, the people of the East have experienced
the worst of Sinhalese brutality in terms of large
scale massacres. This is due to geographical
proximity as well other factors which has made them
more vulnerable. My relative in Batticaloa was
ecstatic that I called. As far as I am concerned, a
two way communication was helpful to both parties.
I feel connected. Also, sending a small amount of
money goes a long way. In these horrific times,
they need all the help that they can get.
Initially, I felt ashamed that I didn't contact
these people before. But better late than
never.
Act 2 - Help the
charities that do work in the North East
About 5 years ago, I realised
if I can afford to spend $20 a month on McDonalds,
I can sponsor a child. So I sponsored this little
girl through Foster Parents Plan. The country they
chose was Bangladesh. 5 years on, I still felt so
happy of my decision whenever I got a letter or
picture from her. So later, I started to donate to
the orphanages in Vanni directly through a friend
who is personally involved with the orphanages. I
allocated a small percentage of my salary for this
purpose. I also started contributing in Tamil
events and through Tamil organizations using common
sense and a bit of trust. In doing so, I brushed
aside a long felt concern - "I really need to know
how and where my money is going". A quote from one
of my favourite writers comes to mind.
"You often say, 'I would give,
but only to the deserving'.
The trees in your orchard say not so, nor the
flocks in your pasture. They give that they may
live, for to withhold is to perish" - Kalil
Gibran
I felt that if we don't give
now (our time, money and energy) to our people back
at home, our culture and our nationhood might
perish eventually. Once I started giving my time,
money and energy in small ways, I felt more
confident in terms of futures results.
Act 3 - Boycott Sri Lankan goods
Self explanatory - just check
the label of whatever you buy. For example, I
stopped buying MD brand that I used to use a
lot.
Act 4 - Write to local
MPs, NGOs and to the media.
Get details of your local MP
and engage them. Write to them regularly or
schedule a fact to face meeting so that after a
while, they get to know you and a relationship can
be formed. I started writing to NGOs and the media,
and was amazed at some of the responses that I got.
They really like to hear from ordinary people. I
feel that I doing my part educating people. This
takes maybe 1 or 2 hours of my time per week. And I
do believe, if many people start doing this, it
could be a powerful factor.
Act 5 - Teach our
children Tamil language. Teach them
the ancient and recent history
of Tamil homeland.
This is a very important point
for two reasons. The next generation of children
needs to be aware. They will have to carry on the
struggle of rebuilding our nation once we are no
longer here. Also, teaching our children our
language and history is not only beneficial for our
people back home, but also good for
our children's self concept, self image and
identity (regardless of age).
Act 6 - Don't imagine
the worse or NOT try something out because of an
assumption.
I have a friend who says with
gloom "even if Tamil Eelam materialises it'll be a
bad state. We will destroy ourselves". Would you
give a 10 months old child a can of coke just
because "he's going to be doing that anyway when he
is 18" (I actually heard a father say that and I
feel sorry for both him and the kid!). This kind of
logic is flawed. We can't give up on things by
imagining a bad future. You nurture and nourish a
plant so that it'll be bear good fruits. We'll just
have to heal with love and hope.
Act 7 - Think
collectively and truly identify with North East as
Tamil Eelam.
We need to think collectively
and truly identify with North East as Tamil Eelam.
Our thoughts and actions stemming from this
identity will have far reaching consequences.
Freedom is ours to take - not something that we
need to ask from somebody else. Once we start
believing in Tamil Eelam, it will materialize.
Meanwhile, I feel better when I introduce myself as
a "Tamil from the North East of Sri Lanka now
referred to as Tamil Eelam by us" - a rather long
winded answer to the simple question "where are you
originally from?" But I still feel good saying it.
I used to say "Sri Lankan".
We might have a few dilemmas.
For example, we might not have a flag and song that
is recognised by others. Recently, the Principal of
my daughter's school had a bright new idea. In
order to reflect the cultural diversity at the
local school, he wanted to display the different
flags of the different nations the children's
families were coming from. It was an extremely nice
thought! But I did not feel like giving the Sri
Lankan flag nor could I give our flag with the
Tiger emblem on it since it may not be perceived as
a national flag. I felt really troubled and at the
end had to tell the Principal that we didn't want
any representation by flags. So we do have road
blocks in this area and we need to work on that but
I still rather identify with our unborn nation than
to be identified with Sri Lanka - even for
formalities. This was an important psychic
change.
Act 8 - Positive
visualisation
Positive visualisation is not
just day dreaming or just hoping, but actually
visualising the final goal in mind so that we can
work towards it. I have practiced this in my
personal life with good results. Once I drew a
picture of a goal that I wanted (a seemingly
impossible goal at that time), put it in my study
room, and every day reflected on it for couple of
minutes. This clarified things in my mind. This
helped and kept me in focus on what I wanted to
achieve and what needs to be done on a daily basis
- all the small steps that I had to do in order to
achieve this big goal.
Nowadays, I also visualise
visiting my hometown (now the home of a big army
camp) and see what has to be done from my part in
order to achieve this. This last point (positive
visualisation) kind of encompasses all of the above
points:
Visualise -> Get Proactive
-> Act
I visualise my family visiting
my mother's cousin's family in Jaffna and having
lunch with them. I visualise my kids playing
together with theirs! This may seem a bit far
fetched but I truly believe that the Universe will
respond to my thoughts as well as my actions. I
believe we can create our own future if we really
want to. We just have to start off this process by
being proactive first. The rest will
follow.
Some skeptics might call me a
dreamer. But I rather dream than despair. I rather
believe than be cynical.... I rather act and
consequently feel good about myself for the small yet
powerful deeds that I am doing in helping out my
people. It's all worth it in the end."
Yes, there is much that each one
of us can lawfully and meaningfully do.
"We are building a road," Kittu
would often say. "I do not know whether I myself will
be alive to see the road being completed. But that
does not matter. Others will arise to take the road
further."
It seems to me that it is only
when we are truly prepared to give of
ourselves for that which we believe, that we
contribute. Otherwise we make noise. We need to look no
further than Velupillai Pirabakaran for proof of that.
In a conversation with an Australian expatriate in the
Vanni in 2004, Pirabakaran said -
"உயிரைக்
கொடுக்கத்
தயாராய்
இருக்கிறவர்களைத்
தான்
அவர்கள்
வேட்டையாடுகரார்கள்"
"It is those who are prepared to
give their lives that they are engaged in
hunting."
It is this thyagam, it is this
willingness to suffer to bring about change, which has
made Velupillai Pirabakaran the undying symbol of the
resistance of the people of Tamil Eelam to alien
Sinhala rule - an alien Sinhala rule to which Sri
Lanka Army Commander Lt. General Sarath Fonseka
recently gave belligerent expression -
".. In any country the majority
community is running the administration. We cannot
prevent that situation... In any democratic country
the majority should rule the country. This country will be ruled by the
Sinhalese community which is the majority
representing 74 percent of the population."
Sri
Lanka Army Commander Lt. General Sarath Fonseka
in the Sri Lanka State Controlled Daily News, 19 July
2008
And to those who would speak loftily about the 'One
World' but who continue to live with seeming
contentment in a world divided by nation states, we may
want to say..
And to those who would speak
loftily about the 'One World' (and decry
'national' divisions) but who continue to live with
seeming contentment in a world divided by nation states
('one
world' for the Tamils but 'our nation' for the American, the
Canadian, the French, the British, the German and so
on), we may want to say with Frantz Fannon
-
"... the building of a nation is
of necessity accompanied by the discovery and
encouragement of universalising values... It is at
the heart of national consciousness that
international consciousness lives and
grows..."
Frantz
Fanon at the Congress of Black African Writers,
1959
"A true
transnationalism will not come by the suppression of one
nation by another. A true transnationalism will come
from nationalisms that have flowered and matured;
from peoples who have grown from dependence to
independence to inter-dependence. It is only the
independent who may be inter-dependent. And to
work for the flowering of the Tamil nation
is to bring forward the
emergence of a true trans nationalism. ...In the
meantime, Tamils have no cause, to be apologetic
about their togetherness as a people. As a people, we
too have much to contribute to the rich fabric of the
many nations of the world - and to world
civilisation..." Nadesan Satyendra in One World & the Tamil
Nation, 1998
