Concerning Selvarasa Pathmanathan
(KP)
"I
myself do not take the view that KP is moved by
motives of personal advancement. If that was so, I do
not believe that KP would have committed more than
25 years of his life to do the things that he did to
further the Tamil Eelam struggle for freedom. Nor for
that matter would KP have received the blessings and
support of Velupillai Pirabakaran... Be that as it
may, it is not that I do not have my own concerns.
But those concerns arise for a different reason...
The undeniable fact is that international actors and
agencies who conspired to defeat the Tamil armed
resistance movement, continue to devote their
energies to influence the way that the Tamil diaspora
responds in the future. ... KP will therefore have to
secure his own integrity (and the integrity of the struggle)
against the pressures that he will be undoubtedly
face... I fear that given his personal situation
(evidenced for instance by the restrictions placed on
his travel) KP will be particularly vulnerable to
such pressures � and presumably he
recognises that the rug can be pulled from under his
feet should he stray too far outside the 'permitted'
line."
A long
standing supporter of the Tamil Eelam freedom struggle
and a friend wrote to me about a month ago -
"I picked up the
Pathmanathan Pages from tamilnation.org
When I read the first piece it gave the impression
that KP was trying more to project his image,
appearing to claim as his prerogative the future
leadership of the movement, instead of emphasizing
the sanctity and importance of the movement and its
mission, the merits of the leadership efforts,
strategies, sacrifices, and the compelling need for
concerted future efforts to achieve the goal of
freedom. If the latter approach is followed, there
might be greater probability of securing continued
and more invigorated participation from those who
were already involved in the
Movement�s campaign in the past, and
more people may join in the renewed, if different,
future strategy to achieve Tamils�
freedom. In the process, there might be a greater
possibility of KP ending up as the chosen future
leader in carrying out the campaign. KP's current
narrative could lead to a public perception that KP
is trying to stifle internal competition, leaping
forward to be the successor, adding weight to
anti-Tamil propaganda about dissension within the
Movement and the fight for the
�booty�. "
I felt that it might be helpful to state my response
in this forum to the concerns expressed - concerns
expressed by a friend whose commitment to the struggle
I have never questioned.
I myself do not take the view that KP is moved by
motives of personal advancement. If that was so, I do
not believe that KP would have committed more than 25
years of his life to do the things that he did to
further the Tamil Eelam struggle for freedom. Nor for
that matter would KP have received the blessings and
support of Velupillai Pirabakaran.
Said that I do agree that KP�s
first blog may well have given the impression that he
was trying to project his own image. But I feel that
this may have been the result of KP's felt need to
secure, in the first instance, his own legitimacy
particularly in the context that much of the work he
was involved in during the past several decades may not
be in the public domain. At the same time, I agree
that in the end legitimacy will be sustained only by a
deep commitment to the work that has to be done - a
commitment shown in deeds rather than in words.
Be that as it may, it is not that I do not have my
own concerns. But those concerns arise for a different
reason. The undeniable fact is that international
actors and agencies who conspired to defeat the Tamil
armed resistance movement, continue to devote their
energies to influence the way that the Tamil diaspora
responds in the future. States do not have permanent
friends. They have permanent interests. KP will
therefore have to secure his own integrity
(and the integrity of the
struggle) against the pressures that he will be
undoubtedly face in the months ahead. I fear that
given his personal situation (evidenced for instance by
the restrictions placed on his travel) KP will be
particularly vulnerable to such pressures
� and presumably he recognises that
the rug can be pulled from under his feet should he
stray too far outside the 'permitted' line.
I am not privy to KP's thinking but I would
imagine that he and those around him may have taken
the view that given the need of the 'international
community' to pressure President Rajapaksa away from
too great a linkage with China, the international
community may regard the Tamil diaspora as an useful
weapon in its armoury - additional, that is, to
promised (and suitably calibrated) IMF loans and
veiled (and not so veiled) threats of war crime
trials. It may be the thinking of KP and those
around him that this political space can be used by
the Tamil diaspora to advance the interests of the
Tamil people. I imagine that it is this which KP
refers to as the path of 'diplomacy'.
But ofcourse the Tamil people have been there
before. In the 1980s Indira Gandhi used the Tamil
militant movement to move Sri Lanka back into India's
orbit. Again, more recently Anton Balasingham was
'permitted' to function in a limited way (and address
for instance Maveerar Naals, albeit called 'National
Remembrance Day' functions in London) in the United
Kingdom though the LTTE itself was banned
by UK in 2001. Clearly it served UK's foreign
policy objectives during the
Norwegian sponsored Peace Process to adopt what may
have seemed to some as an 'ambivalent' approach.
Constructive ambiguity enables one to advance ones
strategic interests - and that is a general rule in
international relations. Here I am reminded of
something that the Shah of Iran said many years ago
�
"...The Shah of Iran once said that in his role as
the gendarme of the region he had two main weapons
for dealing with the revolutionary threat which
existed in the region. First, was direct
intervention. This was applied in the case of Oman in
1973, and also in the case of Baluchistan when the
Shah provided armaments and military finance for the
Pakistani state's repression in the area. The second
weapon was internal subversion of the national
liberation movements among the various
nationalities. This method was applied in
Kurdistan. The goal, ofcourse, was to allow the
national movement to grow in a particular direction
in order to defeat it. The case of Kurdistan was
classic. The Shah said openly that the Kurdistan
operation was relatively cheap for him. With 30
million dollars the job was done. He simply supported
Kurdistan to destroy it. " (Murad Khan of the
Baluchistan People's Liberation Front, speaking to
Raymond Noat - Interview quoted in Tariq Ali's 'Can
Pakistan Survive')
The role of the US in relation to the Kurds was
interesting - and educative. Iran was the primary
supporter of the United States in the Persian Gulf and
in May 1972 President Nixon visited Iran. The Select
Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. House of
Representatives (under the chairmanship of Otis Pike)
disclosed, on November 1 1975, that the Shah had been
able to convince Nixon during the visit that the United
States should provide covert aid to the Kurds.
After the visit Nixon ordered the CIA to deliver
millions of dollars worth of Soviet
and Chinese arms and ammunitions (some of which
were collected in Cambodia) to the Kurds. The use of
Soviet and Chinese arms was intended to mislead Iraq
into thinking that even their then allies such as the
Soviet Union were covertly helping the Kurds. The Pike
Committee Report charged:
"The President, Dr. Kissinger and the Foreign head
of state (the Shah) hoped our clients (the Kurds)
would not prevail. They preferred instead that
the insurgents (the Kurds) simply continue a level
of hostilities sufficient to sap the resources of our
ally's neighbouring country (Iraq). This policy
was not imparted to our clients (the Kurds) who were
encouraged to continue fighting. Even in the context
of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise."
The goal was simply to continue a level of
hostilities sufficient to sap the resources of Iraq -
and had little to do with Kurdistan and the freedom of
the Kurds. The plan was to allow the national movement
to grow in a particular
direction so that it may be more easily managed.
And when the strategic interests of the international
community are secured, if the national movement does
not fall in line, annihilate
it. To do that the international community will
at all times be vigilant to prevent the national
movement from building its strength from its own
people.
Here, I am not unmindful of the fate of the
(permanent?) Tibetan Government in Exile. Fifty years
after the formation of the Tibetan Government in Exile,
Tibet is no closer to securing its freedom from Chinese
rule - though ofcourse the Tibetan Government in Exile
has been a useful 'human rights' weapon for the US to
beat China with from time to time. Meanwhile, Tibet
itself has been settled (colonised) with Chinese and
its demography radically changed. And the Tibetan
Government in Exile with a Tibetan Parliament in Exile
(elected by a 'grass roots' Tibetan diaspora) is left
with websites which promote the justice of the Tibetan
cause. Unsurprisingly there is no shortage of websites:
Government of Tibet in
Exile, Central Tibetan
Administration, Tibetan Parliament in
Exile, London Office of the Government
of Tibet in Exile, Office of Tibet in New
York, Office of Tibet in
Pretoria, South Africa and so on. The
short point is that Tibet will not get freedom until
the Chinese empire (like the Soviet empire and the
British empire before it) disintegrates.
Again I do understand the point made about
�internal
competition� faced by KP. That
internal competition may have arisen from the
structural deficiencies within the LTTE itself -
structural deficiencies of an armed resistance movement
driven by the primary need to collect funds and secure
arms. The fund collection division of the LTTE headed
by Castro and the 'political division' of the LTTE
often appeared to be acting on parallel lines. The
incarceration of Tamil activist
Rajasingham Jeyadevan on the orders of Castro and
Jeyadevan's subsequent release is a case in point.
Presumably, the parallel lines did meet in Velupillai
Prabhakaran. But today, without Velupillai Prabhakaran,
some of that �internal
competition� may have its own sponsors
in the so called international community
� after all, the international
community is not monolithic. Also the international
community has not shown itself averse to playing the
Jeff and Mutt Act i.e. the good cop, bad cop
routine. Twin tracks are better than one. Norway and
the United Kingdom may sometimes appear to adopt
different approaches but the goal of advancing the
interests of the trilaterals (US - EU - Japan) will
always unite them.
Here, I have to say that despite the efforts of the
BBC and such like institutions, I do not believe that
the future leadership of the Tamil people will come by
English speaking Tamils speaking to each other in
English - or for that matter from 'part timers' whose
full time occupations are heavily dependent on
retaining the goodwill of the 'establishment' in the
states in which they reside. If such a 'leadership'
does emerge from English speaking Tamil 'part timers',
it will be a rootless wonder - and being rootless will
all the more readily become a willing tool (whether
knowingly or unknowingly) of international actors and
agencies who are concerned to advance their own
interests in the Indian Ocean
region. The words of the British civil servant,
A.O.Hume who helped found the Indian National Congress
in 1885 come to mind -
"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 same is true today of many Tamil disapora forums
and organisations. Their hopes are based upon the state
in which they reside and they will do nothing to
invalidate these hopes and anger that state. Again the
notion of a �liberal�
national news media is one of the most enduring and
influential political myths of our times.
"The notion
of a �liberal�
national news media is one of the most enduring and
influential political myths...the larger fallacy of
the �liberal media�
argument is the idea that reporters and mid-level
editors set the editorial agenda at their news
organizations. In reality, most journalists have
about as much say over what is presented by
newspapers and TV news programs as factory workers
and foremen have over what a factory manufactures.
That is not to say factory workers have no input in
their company�s product: they can
make suggestions and ensure the product is
professionally built. But top executives have a much
bigger say in what gets produced and how. The news
business is essentially the same. News organizations
are hierarchical institutions often run by
strong-willed men who insist that their editorial
vision be dominant within their news companies. Some
concessions are made to the broader professional
standards of journalism, such as the principles of
objectivity and fairness. But media owners
historically have enforced their political views and
other preferences by installing senior editors whose
careers depend on delivering a news product that fits
with the owner�s prejudices.
Mid-level editors and reporters who stray too far
from the prescribed path can expect to be demoted or
fired. Editorial employees intuitively understand
the career risks of going beyond the
boundaries..." Robert Parry in
Price of the 'Liberal Media' Myth, 2003
Here the case of Anita Pratap is in point. [see
Anita Pratap
on 'Lessons to be learnt from the rout of the LTTE' -
Et Tu Anita Pratap, 31 May 2009]
The Tamil struggle for freedom is in for the long
haul � and we must learn from our
past. To do this we must first admit to and openly
discuss our own past mistakes. It is not enough for the
Tamil people to simply put the blame on the
machinations of the �international
community�. After all did we not know of
those machinations? And what was our response to those
machinations? To do the same thing and expect
different results is a test of insanity. Here, I firmly
believe in something which Aurobindo said many years
ago �
"Our appeal, the appeal of every high souled and
self respecting nation, ought not to be to the
British (read international community) 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 (read Tamil Eelam) . 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."
We will not go forward by becoming a nation of
petition writers and pleaders �
whether on the web or elsewhere. Websites have a
minimal role to play - and that includes tamilnation.org
"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."
"அலங்கார
மேடைப்
பேச்சுகளினாலே,
தமிழ்த்
தேசியத்தை
வனைந்தெடுக்க
முடியாது.
அடிப்படையில்,
அது
நிபந்தனையற்ற
தமிழர்
சுயாதீனத்தை
வலியுறுத்துவது.
தமிழ்மொழி
மூலம்
தமிழருடைய
வாழ்வையும்,
வளத்தையும்
அரண்
செய்வது;
அணி
செய்வது.
கலை-இலக்கிய
வாழ்க்கையிலே
தமிழ்ப்படைப்புகள்
மூலம்
சுகம்
பெறுவது.
தமிழின்
வளத்தையும்
ஞானத்தையும்
புதிய
உச்சங்களுக்குக்
கொண்டு
செல்ல
உதவும்
அந்த
மகத்தான
உந்துதலுக்கும்
உணர்ச்சிக்கும்
பெயர்தான்
தமிழ்த்தேசியம்.
அது
தமிழர்
சமூகத்தை
ஊழல்களிலிருந்து
மீட்கும்
மந்திர
சக்தி
பெற்றது"
Said that it is also true that the internet allows
people to escape from the constraints of the doctrinal
systems, to explore and investigate and discuss crucial
issues with one another, and to plan and organize.
"...Popular movements are the hope for a decent
future. They of course have to have access to
information and modes of interaction. In addition to
alternative print and video, to a very large extent
they have relied on the internet, which allows people
to escape from the constraints of the doctrinal
systems, to explore and investigate and discuss
crucial issues with one another, to plan and
organize...another world is indeed possible..."
Another World is indeed
Possible - Noam Chomsky Appeal for Z-net, September
2004
I am heartened by the fact that among Tamil speaking
Tamils some of the issues that confronts us as a nation
of people are being discussed openly and fearlessly
� and I believe that it is from them
that the future leadership of the Tamil people will
emerge. Meanwhile, in the short term, where no way
forward is clearly seen, every way may seem the right
way. Deprived of direction some may be intent on
getting there fast. But experience is a strict
instructor. And we will learn. We will learn that
freedom is never given - it is taken. We may then find
the need to pay more careful attention to the words of
Subhas Chandra Bose, some 76 years ago in 1933 in
Friars Hall, London -
".. Every great movement starts from small
beginnings.. Our first task
will be to gather together a group of men and women
who are prepared to undergo the maximum sacrifice and
suffering which will be necessary if we are to attain
success in our mission. They must be whole-time workers -
'freedom-intoxicated' missionaries - who will not be discouraged by
failure or deterred by difficulty of any kind and who
will vow to work and strive in the service of the
great cause till the last day of their
lives.
When these 'morally prepared' men and
women are available they must be given the requisite
intellectual training, so that they
may be able to realize the magnitude of their
task.
They will have to make a
scientific and critical study of the freedom movement
in other lands, so that they may understand how
similar problems have been solved in other countries,
in spite of similar difficulties.
Side by side with this they must
also make a scientific and critical study of the
rise and fall of
empires in other ages and climes.
Armed with this
knowledge, they should proceed to make a
scientific examination of the strong and weak points
of the British Government in India in relation to the
Indian people and a similar scientific examination of
the strong and weak points of the Indian people in
relation to the British Government. ..
When this study is completed -
and not till then - shall we
be able to form a conception of the magnitude of the
task that awaits us... When this intellectual
training is completed we shall have a clear notion of
the plan of action that will be necessary for
the conquest of power and also of the programme that
should be put into operation when the new state is
brought into existence after the seizure of
power." Presidential Speech by Subhas Chandra Bose at
the Third Indian Political Conference
at Friar's Hall, London, on Saturday,
June 10, 1933
And today we may need to make a
scientific examination of the strong and weak
points not of the British empire (which is no
more) but of an Indian empire which seeks to masquerade
as a 'nation' and as a 'state'. India is an empire in
denial. And it is in the disintegration of the
Indian empire that the freedom
of the Tamil people lies - just as much as it was in
the disintegration
of the British empire that the freedom of India
lay. But just as much as the disintegration of the
British Empire did not come from the efforts of the
Indian people, and just as much as the disintegration
of the Soviet Union did not come from the efforts of
the Ukranians, Latvians and Lithuanians, the
disintegration of the Indian empire will not come from
the efforts of the Tamil people. Subhas Chandra
Bose was right to urge 'a scientific
and critical study of the rise and fall of empires in
other ages and climes'. Gramsci was right when he said -
"..Man can affect his own
development and that of his surroundings only so far
as he has a clear view of what the possibilities of
action open to him are. To do this
he has to understand the historical situation in
which he finds himself: and once he does this,
then he can play an active part in modifying that
situation." Gramsci (quoted in James Joll's
Gramsci, Fontana, 1977)
And Mahalingam Maha Uthaman was right when he
pointed out many years ago -
"..One aspect of the deprivation of the Tamil
nation is the paucity of intellectual investment made
at a local level. Like capital on a global scale, the
intellectual resources of the Tamil people too have
been drawn towards metropolitan centres, within Sri
Lanka and abroad, leaving the peripheral Tamil nation
impoverished and void of knowledge. However, the
dialectics of oppression is such that, even as
impoverishment is imposed at every level, vigorous
resistance and the emergence of self confident
patriotic consciousness has been nurtured by the same
process. In spite of this heroic response, the
existence of an intellectual void within the nation
has not only been obvious but its effects highly
damaging...There are two models ... The first model
emphasises theoretical excellence and originality;
the second effectiveness in making a practical
intervention. The first could dismiss the second as
eclectic; the second could
criticise the first for being elitist. However, each of the two
approaches are indispensable, for effective action is
impossible without guidance by sound ideas, and sound
ideas alone are useless if not accessible for the
process of social transformation." Mahalingam Maha Uthaman,
1988
