|
Thimpu Declaration: The Path
of Reason
"Two nations may agree to live
together by force of reason.
They cannot be compelled to live together by force
of arms"
15 February 1987
[including Note on 17 August
2005 - 20 years after the collapse of the Thimpu
Talks on 17 August 1985]
[see also The Thimpu Talks - July/August
1985 ]
| Summary: "...a
'genuinely federal Constitution', will not
come as a by-product of a political horse
deal. It will come only when an honest and
open answer is found to the preliminary
question: who will federate with whom? Who
are the two peoples who will federate to form
a 'genuine' federal union? It was to this
basic question that the
Thimpu declaration addressed itself.
Because it is this which goes to the root of
the conflict in the island of Sri Lanka. All
else is secondary....Two nations may agree
to live together by force of reason. They
cannot be compelled to live together by force
of arms. It is the rejection of reason by
successive Sinhala governments which also
constitutes the rationale for the continued
armed struggle of the Tamil people for an
independent Tamil Eelam...The Thimpu
declaration which represented the unanimous
will of all six Tamil Liberation
Organisations was not an exercise in
rhetoric. Too many lives had been lost and
too many lives were at stake to have
permitted that particular luxury. The Thimpu
declaration was founded on reason and time
will testify to the validity of that
reasoning. Because reason, even if it be
denied, will continue to influence and direct
and to give coherence and legitimacy to the
aspirations of the Tamil people." |
At Thimpu, in July 1985, all six Tamil
Liberation Organisations, consisting of the Eelam
Peoples Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF), the
Eelam Revolutionary Organisation (EROS), the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the
Peoples Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam
(PLOTE), the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation
(TELO), and the Parliamentary Tamil United
Liberation Front (TULF),
jointly and unanimously declared:
"It is our considered view that any
meaningful solution to the Tamil national
question must be based on the following four
cardinal principles -
1. recognition of the Tamils of Ceylon as a
nation
2. recognition of the existence of an
identified homeland for the Tamils in the island
of Sri Lanka
3. recognition of the right of self
determination of the Tamil nation
4. recognition of the right to citizenship
and the fundamental rights of all Tamils who look
upon the island as their country.
"Different countries have fashioned
different systems of governments to ensure these
principles. We have demanded and struggled for an
independent Tamil state as the answer to this
problem arising out of the denial of these basic
rights of our people... However, in view of our
earnest desire for peace, we are prepared to give
consideration to any set of proposals, in keeping
with the above-mentioned principles, that the Sri
Lankan government may place before us."
The Thimpu declaration continues to represent a
watershed in the Tamil
national liberation struggle because apart from
anything else, it was the expression of the joint
and unanimous will of all six Tamil Liberation
Organisations engaged in the struggle and it
therefore served to crystallize the political
issues of that struggle.
Sinhala chauvinism's denial of Tamil
nationalism
But, the negotiating process initiated at Thimpu
floundered and continues to flounder because of the
continued refusal of the Sri Lankan government to
recognise the existence of the Tamil nation in the
island of Sri Lanka. The stand of the Sri Lankan
government was enunciated by Dr. H.W. Jayawardene,
the leader of the Sri Lankan government delegation
to the talks:
"...it is clear that a political settlement
of the Tamil question cannot be made either on
the basis of the claim to be a separate nation or
nationality distinct from other racial groups
that are citizens of Sri Lanka or on the basis of
a claim to be heirs to a territorially demarcated
area styled the 'traditional homelands of the
Tamils' transcending the provincial boundaries of
the Northern and Eastern Provinces, since both
such claims are inconsistent with and
contradictory to a united nation"
And, ten months later, in presenting the so
called 'peace proposals' of the Sri Lankan
government to the Political Parties Conference on
the 25th June 1986, President Jayawardene
reiterated that 'the proposals of the Sri Lankan
government have to be examined within the framework
of the principles to which the Sri Lankan
government subscribes' and these included, not only
'the maintenance of the unity, integrity and
sovereignty of Sri Lanka', but also 'the
maintenance of the unitary character of the Sri
Lankan constitution'.
and, pragmatic approach?
Recently, Lord Avebury, a member of the
International Emergency Committee on Sri Lanka has
been moved to comment:
"...I may be wrong in my interpretation,
but it is not helpful for either side to lay
down, in advance of negotiations, conditions
which are absolute...If there is a genuine
willingness to negotiate, the fairest solution
would seem to be one that demands equal
concessions, however that can be measured. On the
other hand, there has been so much bombastic
rhetoric about 'legitimate expectations' on the
Tamil side, and so much bloodshed in the struggle
for 'liberation', that some elements would find
it emotionally impossible to accept anything less
than unconditional surrender from the
government..." (Lord Avebury: Keynote Speech
of the International Alert USA Seminar on Sri
Lanka, Los Angeles, 25th October 1986)
The view that it is not 'helpful for either side
to lay down, in advance of negotiations, conditions
which are absolute' and the further view that
'given the willingness to negotiate, the fairest
solution would seem to be one that demands equal
concessions' are views that do have a certain
pragmatic appeal. It is a pragmatic approach which
may also be described as the 'shopkeeper's
approach' to the resolution of conflict - that
which is fair is the bargain that is struck. But it
may not always be easy to determine where
pragmatism ends and the slippery path of expediency
begins. The negotiating process may then descend
into a political horse deal, which at best may
serve the immediate self interest of some of the
negotiators, but will be unrelated to the central
issues of the conflict. Again, political horse
deals quickly become unstuck.
A political negotiating process is concerned
with securing the interests of large numbers of
people and that which is fair and therefore
acceptable to large numbers of people, cannot be
determined without crystallizing, beforehand and
with some care, the central matters that are in
issue. Strange as it may seem to some, the Tamil
Liberation Organisations took the view that an open
discussion about the framework for the negotiating
process would help, rather than thwart, the
negotiating process.
Thimpu Declaration: rhetoric or path of
reason?
Be that as it may, comments such as those made
at the International Alert Seminar and the
continued refusal of the Sri Lankan government to
accept the framework suggested at Thimpu focuses
attention on the need to examine the rationalities
of the Thimpu declaration.
Did the Thimpu declaration represent bombastic
rhetoric or did it seek to concretise the
political reality which had moved both the Tamil
guerrilla movement and the Sri Lankan government
to 'peace talks'?
Did the Thimpu declaration prescribe
'absolutist' pre conditions to the negotiating
process or did it set out a principled framework
intended to advance the negotiating process?
Was the Thimpu declaration a reflection of an
'emotional' attitude which would not 'accept
anything less than unconditional surrender from
the Sri Lankan government' or,
on the contrary, did the declaration recognise
that 'different countries have fashioned
different systems of governments' to secure the
principles set out in the declaration and did the
declaration therefore seek to construct a
rational basis for discussions about an
acceptable political solution?
what does reason show?
Reason shows that a political resolution of the
conflict between the Sinhala people and the Tamil
people should, after all begin by recognising the
existence of the Sinhala people as a people, and
the Tamil people as a people. Otherwise we shall
all be engaged in an exercise in cuckooland. And
central to the
Thimpu declaration was the claim for the
recognition of the Tamils as a nation. And it was
this which led the representatives of the Tamil
Liberation Organisations to declare at the Thimpu
Talks on the 17th of August 1985:
"...we say, very respectfully, please
understand that we too are a people and please
deal with us on that basis, or not at all. Please
do not give us the niceties of legal
interpretations. Please tell us straight: do you
regard us as a people or not? We are here because
we seek to engage you in the serious business of
talking about the problems that have arisen
between the Sinhala people and the Tamil people.
And that is why, as a reasonable people, we say
at the beginning, please tell us with whom do you
say you are talking with?... And for our part, we
declare here at Thimpu, without rancour and with
patience, that we shall speak at Thimpu, or for
that matter any where else, on behalf of the
Tamil nation or not at all..." (Statement made by
Nadesan Satyendra at Thimpu on behalf of the
Tamil Liberation Organisations on the 17th of
August 1985)
a nation is not a state
What, then is a
nation? It is useful to begin by recognising
with Professor Seton-Watson that the belief that
every state is a nation or that all sovereign
states are 'national' states has done much to
obfuscate understanding of political realities:
"The belief that every state is a nation,
or that all sovereign states are national states,
has done much to obfuscate human understanding of
political realities. A state is a legal and
political organisation, with the power to require
obedience and loyalty from its citizens. A nation
is a community of people, whose members are bound
together by a sense of solidarity, a common
culture, a national
consciousness..."(Professor Hugh
Seton-Watson: Nations & States - Methuen,
London 1977)
The continued assertion of the Sri Lankan
government that the demand for the recognition of a
'Tamil nation was inconsistent with and
contradictory to a united nation' is an attempt to
obfuscate an understanding of political realities.
It is an assertion which confuses by using the term
'nation' in two different senses at the same time.
It is an assertion which prefers to cloud the
reality that not 'every state is a nation' and that
not 'all sovereign states are national states'. And
it is an assertion which refused to face up to the
question whether Sri Lanka today is a multi
national state consisting of both the Sinhala
nation and the Tamil nation.
the political force of Tamil
nationalism
But, perhaps, more than matters of
constitutional or international law (though, these
are not without relevance and do have their place)
that which must be confronted in a search for a
political solution, is the political reality. What
is the political force of Tamil nationalism today?
Again, what does reason show?
Reason shows that the Tamil nation is a deep and
horizontal comradeship which exists amongst the
Tamil people - deep because it is rooted not only
in their cultural identity but also in their
suffering: horizontal because it prevails despite
the inequalities amongst them. It is a stubborn
togetherness born out of a process of
differentiation and opposition. Distress has bound the
Tamils of Ceylon together. Suffering is a great
teacher. That, after all, was the lesson that was
taught by Gautama, the Buddha.
And the suffering of the Tamil people,
appropriately enough in Buddhist Sri Lanka has
served to educate them about their identity - that
it did not matter whether they were Jaffna Tamils,
or Colombo Tamils, or Batticaloa Tamils or
Trincomalee Tamils or Badulla Tamils or Indian
Tamils - that it did not matter whether they were
Hindu Tamils or Christian Tamils or Muslim Tamils -
that it did not matter whether they were so called
'high caste' Tamils or so called 'low caste' Tamils
- that it did not matter whether they were public
servants, professionals, teachers, students or
farmers, employees or employers, well educated or
ill educated, qualified or not - that which did
matter to the environment in which they lived was
that they were Tamils.
And, it was the political force constituted by
this togetherness which took the representatives of
the Tamil people to Thimpu in July 1985. A nation
is an idea - but it is more.
And they err who conceive the nation as a mere
intellectual platform. On the other hand, they also
err who see the force of nationalism as simply the
thrust of a people to better their material
conditions of existence. These latter fail to
recognise that ideas too have a material force. And
'work without ideal is a false gospel'.
A nation is an amalgam of the 'ideal' with the
'material' and it is this interplay, evidenced in
the cultural identity of a people, which gives
nationalism its strength in the political arena -
its power to influence and direct the conduct of
millions. To fail to understand this is to fail to
understand the well springs of human action. It is
also to fail to understand that which has made
possible the colossal sacrifices so willingly
suffered by so many thousands of young Tamils
during the past several years.
linked to the Tamil homeland
And, nations do not come into being in the
stratosphere. It is land which constitutes the
physical base of the life of a people and it is
around land that the togetherness of the Tamils of
Ceylon has grown. The homeland of the Tamils in the
North and East of Ceylon did not come into
existence overnight. The togetherness of the Tamils
of Ceylon has grown, hand in hand, with the growth
of their homelands in the North and East of Ceylon
where they lived together, worked together,
communicated with each other, founded their
families, educated their children, and also sought
refuge, from time to time, when subjected to
physical attacks elsewhere in the island of Sri
Lanka.
Without an identified homeland, the Tamils in
the island of Sri Lanka would not have become a
people with a separate culture and a separate
language and without an identified homeland, the
Tamils of Ceylon will cease to exist as a people in
the future. And, these were the rational concerns
which found expression in the second claim at
Thimpu - the claim for the constitutional
recognition of an identified homeland for the
Tamils in the North and East of Ceylon - a claim
which, after all, the 1978 Sri
Lankan Constitution had itself, by implication,
partially recognised when it made
provision for the use of the Tamil language in the
Northern and Eastern provinces.
the right of self determination
And, the third claim at Thimpu - the claim for
the recognition of the right to self determination
of the Tamil nation was intended to secure an open
recognition of the equality of the parties to the
negotiating process. The Tamil people do not deny
the existence of the Sinhala nation in the island
of Sri Lanka. The question is whether the Sinhala
people are ready and willing to recognise the
Tamils of Ceylon as a nation and to deal with them
on that basis.
On the answer to that basic question, depends
not only the political status of the negotiating
parties, but also the nature and content of any
political solution, and the political will of both
the Tamil people and the Sinhala people to work for
the implementation of that which may be agreed.
The concerns of the Tamil people for their
'physical security, employment and education'
cannot be resolved by a negotiating process
unless the Sinhala people recognised the Tamils
as a people and the two people, together fashion
a constitutional structure on the basis of such
recognition. It will be idle to pretend that
equity will be achieved through a negotiating
process which does not itself commence on an
equitable footing.
exaggerated Sinhala nationalism
Sufficient, perhaps, has been said to establish
the rationalities of the Thimpu declaration. But,
there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
And, the Sinhala political leadership refuses to
see the existence of the Tamil nation. They refuse
to see the existence of the homeland of the Tamils
in the island of Sri Lanka. They refuse to
acknowledge the right of the Tamil people to sit as
equals with the Sinhala people and negotiate a
political solution to the conflict between them.
They continue to compete with each other to nurture
an exaggerated Sinhala nationalism, which claims
that it is the Sinhala majority who should
rule.
which has sought refuge in the
'Constitution'
And, if patriotism is the last refuge of the
scoundrel, then, the Sri Lankan Constitution has
today, become the first refuge of Sinhala
chauvinism.
"...Under our Constitution...the powers of
government inhere in all the People of Sri Lanka
and this sovereignty is itself declared to be
inalienable. A federal system which implies a
divided sovereignty is therefore inconceivable in
Sri Lanka..."
It is true that in a democracy, sovereignty is
vested in the people and is inalienable. The people
are sovereign and they rule. But people do not rule
anyhow. They rule through the instrumentalities of
a constitution. They exercise legislative power
through an elected Parliament. They may exercise
executive power through a directly elected
President or through an indirectly elected Prime
Minister and a Cabinet. They exercise judicial
power through judges appointed under laws enacted
by Parliament.
The circumstance that a people exercise power
through a number of different instrumentalities
does not have the result that their sovereignty is
'divided' or that their sovereignty is eroded. On
the contrary, it is the checks and balances between
the different instrumentalities which secures for a
people their true sovereignty. And so too, the
checks and balances in a federal system of
government, secures for a people their true
sovereignty.
A federal constitution does not somehow 'divide'
the sovereignty of a people - on the contrary, it
enhances their sovereignty, by helping them to
exercise their power and their influence more
effectively, and by helping them to cooperate and
work with each other on an equitable basis. And in
the end, a federal constitution, when enacted by a
people, will itself be the expression of their
sovereign will.
But, the Sri Lankan government would have the
Tamil people and the world believe that the federal
constitutions of the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R., India,
Australia, Canada and Switzerland are all instances
of a 'divided sovereignty' and, for that reason,
'inconceivable' in 'democratic' Sri Lanka.
and 'democracy' to Sri Lanka means rule by a
permanent ethnic majority
To the Sri Lankan government, democracy means
rule by a permanent ethnic majority within the
confines of an unitary state.
"The Tamil United Liberation Front cannot be
unaware of the long standing opposition of the
two major political parties of the Sinhala
people, who represent nearly 74% of the
population, to a federal form of
government.."(Statement of Observations dated
the 30th January 1986 by the government of Sri
Lanka on the Proposals of the Parliamentary Tamil
United Liberation Front)
Whilst democracy may mean acceding to the rule
of the majority, democracy also means government by
discussion and persuasion.
It is the belief that the minority of today
may become the majority of tomorrow that ensures
the stability of a functioning democracy.
But in the island of Sri Lanka, where a unitary
state, has sought to govern a territory inhabited
by two peoples, the arithmetic of democracy has
resulted in the continued and permanent dominance of
one people by another.
The reality of democracy in Sri Lanka is that no
Tamil has ever been be elected to a predominantly
Sinhala electorate and no Sinhalese has ever been
elected to a predominantly Tamil electorate. And so
the practise of democracy within the confines of a
unitary state has inevitably resulted in rule by a permanent ethnic
majority.
It was a permanent ethnic majority which through
a series of legislative and administrative acts,
ranging from disenfranchisement,
and standardisation of
University admissions, to discriminatory
language and employment policies, and state sponsored
colonisation of the homelands of the Tamil
people, sought to establish its hegemony over
the Tamils of Ceylon. These legislative and
administrative acts were reinforced from time to
time with physical attacks on
the Tamils of Ceylon with intent to terrorise
and intimidate them into submission. It was a
course of conduct which led eventually to the
rise of Tamil
militancy in the mid 1970s with, initially,
sporadic acts of violence.
The militancy was met with wide ranging
retaliatory attacks on increasingly large
sections of the Tamil people with intent, once
again to subjugate them. In the late 1970s large
numbers of Tamil youths were detained without trial
and tortured under emergency regulations and later
under the Prevention of Terrorism
Act which has been described by the
International Commission of Jurists as a 'blot on
the statute book of any civilised country'.
In 1980 and thereafter, there were random killings of
Tamils by the state security forces and Tamil
hostages were taken by the state when 'suspects'
were not found. Eventually, in the eyes of the Sri
Lankan state all Tamils were prima facie
'terrorist' suspects. And in 1983, the Tamils were
deprived of the effective use of their vote by an
amendment to the Constitution which the International
Commission of Jurists has declared to be a
violation of the International Covenant of Civil
and Political Rights and which has rendered
vacant the Parliamentary seats of the elected
representatives of the Tamil people.
It is to this democracy that the Sri Lankan
government refers, when it invites the attention of
the Tamil United Liberation Front to the views of
'the two major political parties of the Sinhala
people, who represent nearly 74% of the population'
and who have expressed a 'long-standing opposition'
'to a federal form government'. And it this
'democracy' which the Sri Lankan government seeks
to preserve - by armed force, if necessary.
a Sinhala chauvinism which denies the
existence of the Sinhala nation!
The Thimpu declaration sought to question openly
and directly the claims of an exaggerated
Sinhala nationalism - a Sinhala chauvinism
which has sought to feed on the latent fear of the
Sinhala people of the Tamils of neighbouring Tamil
Nadu and which has sought to encourage the belief
that a 'Sinhala identity' can be secured only at
the expense of erasing the identity of the Tamils
as a 'people' in the island of Sri Lanka if not
now, at least at some future date - a Sinhala
chauvinism which has sought to subjugate the Tamils
of Ceylon by attempting to
'assimilate' and 'integrate' the Tamil people
into a so called 'Sri Lankan nationality' within
the confines of an unitary state whose official
language is Sinhala, whose official religion is
Buddhism and whose official name was itself changed
to the Sinhala 'Sri Lanka' without the consent of
the Tamil people.
It is a Sinhala chauvinism which in pursuance
of its objectives, has logically, sought to deny
the existence of the Tamil nation in the island
of Sri Lanka and which, in addition, seeks to
masquerade as a 'Sri Lankan nationalism' by
denying the existence of the Sinhala nation as
well. And, nothing, exemplifies the intellectual
dishonesty of the Sinhala political leadership
more, than its continued denial of the existence
of its own constituency namely, the
Sinhala nation in Sri Lanka.
the basic question
In this context the comments of Lord Avebury in
his key note speech at the International Alert
seminar may not be irrelevant:
"...Would the Sri Lankan government be
prepared to go as far as a genuinely federal
Constitution, and would the majority of the Tamil
community settle for something less than total
independence? The outsider might be attracted to
the idea, on the grounds that it would lie
somewhere in between the positions taken up by
the parties." (Lord Avebury: Keynote Speech
of the International Alert USA Seminar on Sri
Lanka, Los Angeles, 25th October 1986)
But, though it may be true that an 'outsider'
might be attracted to the idea of a genuinely
federal Constitution because it would hopefully lie
'somewhere in between the positions taken up by the
parties', a 'genuinely federal Constitution', will
not come as a by-product of a political horse
deal.
It will come only when an honest and open
answer is found to the preliminary question: who
will federate with whom?
Who are the two peoples who will federate to form
a 'genuine' federal union?
It was to this basic question that the Thimpu
declaration addressed itself. Because it is this
which goes to the root of the conflict in the
island of Sri Lanka. All else is secondary. It is
to this question that agencies such as the
International Emergency Committee on Sri Lanka may
also usefully address their minds. Hopefully, they
will also attend to the comments of Professor Leo
Kruper in 1984 - comments which have today, assumed
an urgency and an immediacy:
"...genocide
continues to be an odious scourge on
mankind... there are also at the present time
many immediate issues related to genocide which
call for the most urgent action... (such as)
the
communal massacres in Sri Lanka...some of
these genocidal massacres arise out of struggles
for greater autonomy, and might be regulated by
recognition of the right of self
determination..
...there is a great need for delegations of
member states with a strong commitment to human
rights, and for non governmental organisations
with consultative status, to continue their
efforts to recall the UN to its responsibilities
for international protection against genocide and
consistent violations of human rights. These
efforts would include. attempts to develop norms
for humanitarian intervention, for the exercise
of the right of self
determination..."(Minority Rights Group
Report: International Action Against
Genocide)
It is not enough to continue to report, ad nauseam,
on the 'gross and consistent violations' of human
rights in Sri Lanka without at the same time
openly recognising that a threatened genocidal
situation has arisen out of a struggle for greater
autonomy.
Informed liberal opinion which is not content
with 'bombastic rhetoric' should, perhaps, also see
the need to act on the reports of Amnesty
International, the International Commission of
Jurists, the Lawasia Human Rights Standing
Committee, the International Human Rights Law
Group, and the United Kingdom Parliamentary Human
Rights Group, on the 'gross and consistent
violations of human rights' in Sri Lanka and to
recognise the underlying reasons for these
violations. A reluctance to be seen as espousing
the division of a sovereign state should not lead
to a refusal to recognise that Sri Lanka today is a
multinational state.
Two nations may agree to live together by
force of reason. They cannot be compelled to live
together by force of arms. It is the
rejection of reason by successive Sinhala
governments which also constitutes the rationale
for the continued armed struggle of the Tamil
people for an independent Tamil Eelam.
The Thimpu declaration which represented the
unanimous will of all six Tamil Liberation
Organisations was not an exercise in rhetoric. Too
many lives had been lost and too many lives were at
stake to have permitted that particular luxury.
The Thimpu declaration was founded on
reason and time will testify to the validity of
that reasoning. Because reason, even if it
be denied, will continue to influence and direct
and to give coherence and legitimacy to the
aspirations of the Tamil people.
Time will show that Tamil nationalism will not be
easily snuffed out. It will not quietly and
obediently go away and disappear from the political
scene. Faced with the continued intransigence of
the Sinhala political leadership, it will
inevitably seek broader channels for expressing
itself.
In the end, it will be around reason that peace
will come - not only for the Tamils and Sinhalese
of Ceylon, not only for the peoples of the Indian
region but also for people, everywhere - and, in an
increasingly small world it will be increasingly
difficult to separate the so called 'insiders' from
the so called 'outsiders'. The words of Lila Watson
come to mind: "If you have come to help me, you
are wasting your time... But, if you have come
because your liberation is bound up with mine, then
let us work together."
|
