Dear Mr.Editor,
Your recent Comment on 'Tamil Intellectuals' makes
interesting reading. But then, the views of a paper
such as yours, as to what it is that Tamil
intellectuals should do and should not do, will always
be a matter of absorbing interest - if only because it
is a paper controlled by a State which is today,
engaged in a sustained genocidal onslaught
on the Tamil people.
Again, the intemperate language in which you have
chosen to couch your editorial, indicates that, that
which was said at the Norwegian Institute of
International Affairs on the 19th of March 1991, has
struck home and has proved unpalatable to a
government which would prefer to be allowed to get
on, unhindered, with its task of digesting and
assimilating the Tamil people within the
constitutional frame of a unitary Sinhala
Buddhist Sri Lanka.
You state:
"The failure of Tamil intellectuals to contribute
in a dispassionate and objective way to the process
of building bridges between the two major ethnic
communities is seen clearly in the outlandish and
outdated theories mouthed by Nadesan Satyendra who
travels widely as a salesman for Eelam. In his
address to the Norwegian Institute of International
affairs (NUDI) on Monday, the main thrust has been to
argue a case for cutting off aid to Sri Lanka.
This is the ultimate weapon that the entire Eelam
lobby abroad is hoping to use in their campaign to
divide Sri Lanka"
However, presumably overcome with concern for the
well being of the suffering Tamil people,
you add:
"Those Tamil intellectuals who are genuinely
seeking a solution, deserve the respect of this
nation. Their voice must be heard."
But what type of 'solution' should Tamil
intellectuals espouse to deserve the respect of 'this
nation'? Again, when you say
'this nation', Mr.Editor, to which nation do you refer
? Do you mean the Tamil nation, or the Sinhala
nation or do you mean Sinhala chauvinism masquerading
as a so called Sri Lankan nation? Which nation's
respect should Tamil intellectuals seek?
It was Professor Seton Watson who declared in
1977:
"...States can exist without a nation, or with
several nations, among their subjects... 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]
But then, perhaps you regard Professor Watson's
views as 'out-landish and outdated' and you prefer to
equate the Sri Lankan state to a so called 'Sri Lankan
nation'. Or is it that you and the Government of Sri
Lanka would prefer to 'obfuscate human understanding of
political realities' by denying that in the island of
Ceylon today, there are two nations, the Sinhala nation
and the Tamil nation - each of whose members are bound
together by a sense of solidarity, a common culture and
a national
consciousness.
You appear to suggest that the claim that in the
island of Ceylon there are two nations is somehow
contrary to the 'realities of
history, geography, demography and ethnicity.' But
whilst you pay lip service for the need for 'cool
reasoning', you choose not to give reasons for the
views that you assert. You prefer to dismiss as
'outlandish and outdated' that which you cannot reason
with. Or, perhaps you believe that the people of Tamil
Eelam should accept, without question, the words of
wisdom which fall from the mouths of their would be
Sinhala rulers.
But, notwithstanding the arrogance of Sinhala
chauvinism that your editorial displays, by all means,
let us examine the 'realities of history, geography,
demography and ethnicity.' After all, the people of
Tamil Eelam are a reasonable people and they do welcome
'cool reasoning'.
What then, are the realities of history and
ethnicity, Mr.Editor? As a propagandist for Sinhala
chauvinism, you are, ofcourse not unaware of that which
a Sinhala chauvinist, D.C.Vijayawardhana wrote in
1953:
"The history of Sri Lanka is the history of the
Sinhalese race... The Sinhalese people were entrusted
2500 years ago, with a great and noble charge, the
preservation... of Buddhism.. in 1956 will occur the
unique three fold event - the completion of 2500
years of Ceylon's history, of the tie of Sinhalese
and Bud-dhism... The birth of the Sinhalese race
would thus seem to have been not a mere chance, not
an accidental occurrence, but a pre-destined event of
high import and purpose. The nation seemed designed,
as it were, from its rise, primarily to carry aloft
for fifty centuries the torch that was lit by the
great World-Mentor (the Buddha) twenty five centuries
ago..." (The Revolt in the Temple, by D.C.
Vijayawardhana, 1953)
You are aware, are you not, Mr.Editor that it was
this potent mixture of legend and superstition, passed
off as historical fact, which was cultivated, refined
and utilised by successive Sinhala political leaders to
secure for themselves the support of the Sinhala
people. It was a belligerent Sinhala chauvinism which
has often found open and shameless expression:
"...The time has come for the whole Sinhala race
which has existed for 2500 years, jealously
safeguarding their language and religion, to fight
without giving any quarter to save their
birth-right... I will lead the campaign..."
(J.R.Jayawardene, Sinhala Opposition Leader reported
in Sri Lanka Tribune: August 1957)
"I am not worried about the opinion of the Tamil
people... now we cannot think of them, not about
their lives or their opinion... the more you put
pressure in the north, the happier the Sinhala people
will be here... Really if I starve the Tamils out,
the Sinhala people will be happy." (President
J.R.Jayawardene, Daily Telegraph, July 1983)
The reality of the so called democracy of Sri Lanka
was that no Tamil was ever elected to a predominantly
Sinhala electorate and no Sinhalese was ever elected to
a predominantly Tamil electorate. The practise of
democracy within the confines of a unitary state served
to perpetuate the
oppressive rule of a permanent Sinhala ethnic
majority.
It was a permanent Sinhala 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,
has sought to establish its hegemony over the people of
Tamil Eelam.
These legislative and administrative acts were
reinforced from time to time with physical attacks on the
people of Tamil Eelam 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 rendered vacant the Parliamentary seats of
the elected representatives of the Tamil people. Though
elections were subsequently held in 1988 at a time when
the Indian army occupied the Tamil home-lands, the
Sixth Amendment continues in force up to the present
day.
So much, Mr.Editor, for the 'realities of history
and ethnicity'. Distress has bound the people of Tamil
Eelam together and thus united they have found their
strength. Tamil Eelam is a deep and horizontal
comradeship which exists amongst hundreds of thousands
of the Tamil people - and that includes Tamil
intellectuals as well. It is a comradeship which has
prevailed despite the differences and inequalities
amongst the people of Tamil Eelam and it is this
comradeship which has made possible the colossal
sacrifices of the past several years. As the
propagandist for a state which is engaged in a murderous genocidal
attack on the people of Tamil Eelam, you may find
all this difficult to understand. But please do
try.
Again, by all means let us examine the 'realities of
geography and demography'. The group identity of the
people of Tamil Eelam did not grow in the stratosphere.
You will agree, Mr.Editor, that it is not 'outlandish'
to suggest that it has grown on land. The group
identity of the people of Tamil Eelam has grown, hand
in hand, with the growth of their homeland in the North
and East of Sri Lanka, where they lived together,
worked together, communicated with each other, founded
their families, educated their children, and also
sought refuge, from time to time, from physical attacks
else-where in Sri Lanka.
You will, perhaps agree, Mr.Editor, that the words
of Malcolm Shaw in Title to Territory in Africa are not
'outlandish' but are very much rooted in the reality on
the ground:
"Modern nationalism in the vast majority of cases
points to a deep, almost spiritual connection between
land and people. This can be related to the basic
psychological needs of man in terms of the need for
security and a sense of group identity... the concern
for the preservation of habitat exists as a
passionate reflex in all human communities. Territory
is the physical aspect of the life of the community
and therefore reflects and conditions the identity of
that community."
But ofcourse, Mr.Editor, these aspects of geography
and demography are not unknown to Sinhala chauvinism.
Sinhala chauvinism has understood only too well that
without an homeland the people of Tamil Eelam will
cease to exist as a people. You are aware, are you not,
Mr.Editor that Sinhala colonisation of Tamil home-land
for forty years and more, was the outcome of a strategy
carefully planned by successive Sinhala governments?
After all, it is easier to digest and assimilate a
people, if they are divided into smaller assimilable
units.
You cannot be unaware of the frank statements of the
Sinhala Mahaveli Ministry Official, Herman Gunaratne in
an article which appeared in the Sri Lanka Sunday Times
of the 26th of August 1990:
"All wars are fought for land...The plan for
settlement of peo-ple in Yan Oya and Malwathu Oya
basins was worked out before the communal riots of
1983. Indeed the keenest minds in the Ma-haveli, some
of whom are holding top international positions were
the architects of this plan. My role was that of an
executor... We conceived and implemented a plan which
we thought would secure the territorial integrity of
Sri Lanka for a long time. We moved a large group of
45,000 land hungry (Sinhala) peasants into the
Batticaloa and Polonnaruwa districts of Maduru Oya
delta.
The second step was to make a similar human
settlement in the Yan Oya basin. The third step was
going to be a settlement of a num-ber of people,
opposed to Eelam, on the banks of the Malwathu Oya.
By settling the (Sinhala) people in the Maduru Oya we
were seeking to have in the Batticaloa zone a mass of
persons opposed to a separate state...Yan Oya if
settled by non separatists (Sinhala people) would
have increased the population by about another
50,000. It would completely secure Trincomalee from
the rebels..."
Yes, Mr.Editor, the people of Tamil Eelam, including
Tamil intellectuals, are well aware that wars are fought
for land and you will agree that to assert that
proposition is not 'outlandish'. You are aware, are you
not Mr.Editor, that by the mid 1980s, state sponsored
colonisation gave way to state sponsored attacks on the
people of Tamil Eelam leading to the forced evacuation
of Tamils from their traditional homelands. It was,
ofcourse, a natural progression for Sinhala
chauvinism.
In 1985, Robert Kilroy-Silk, M.P. and Roger Sims,
M.P, who visited Sri Lanka as members of a United
Kingdom Parliamentary Human Rights Group, reported:
"Witnesses also confirmed allegations made to us
that whole villages (in the Eastern Province) have
been emptied and neigh-bourhoods have been driven by
the army from their homes and occupations and turned
into refugees dependent on the govern-ment for dry
rations... The human rights transgressed in such a
course of action do not need to be detailed
here...
More important is that rightly or wrongly it tends
to lend credibility to the view so frequently put to
us that it is the Government's objective either to
drive the Tamils out of the north and east in
sufficient numbers so as to reduce their majority in
the north and in the east, a process that would be
aided by the Government's announced policy of
set-tling armed Sinhalese people in former Tamil
areas...or to drive the Tamils out altogether. We
cannot make a judgement on this issue. We can say,
without doubt, that the Government is driving Tamils
from their homes and does intend to settle Sinhalese
peo-ple in these areas. This, at least, lends support
to the more ex-treme version believed by most
Tamils." (United Kingdom Par-liamentary Human Rights
Group Report, February 1985)
So much, then, for the 'realities of geography and
demography'.
You appear to be concerned with that which you
regard as 'a basic failure of Tamil intellectuals
like Mr. Satyendra' and that is that they 'overtly
promote human rights but covertly use it' to advance
their Eelam cause.
But, please rest assured, Mr.Editor, that the
Tamil people, including Tamil intellectuals, not only
overtly and openly promote human rights but also,
equally overtly and equally openly promote the cause
of Tamil Eelam as well. There is nothing covert in
their support for the struggle of the people of Tamil
Eelam for national self determination.
Indeed, the Tamil cause represents the very essence
of the cause of human rights. It was this which led
human rights lawyer, Ms.Karen Parker of International
Educational Development, to declare at the 42nd
Sessions of the UN Sub Commission on Protection of
Minorities, August 1990:
"The Sri Lanka situation has shown that for the
past forty years, the Sinhala controlled government
has been unwilling and unable to promote and protect
the human rights of the Tamil population, and the
Tamil population has accordingly lost all confidence
in any present or future willingness or ability of
the Sinhala majority to do so. Are people in this
situation required to settle for less than their full
rights. Can the international community impose on a
people a forced marriage they no longer want and in
which they can clearly demonstrate they have been
abused? We conclude that in order for the human
rights of the Tamil peo-ple and others in a similar
situation to be realised, the interna-tional
community must invoke the principle of self
determination as it arises from persistent non
fulfilment of the rights of minori-ties who have been
subsumed into larger states."
Again, it may be that you do not regard this
approach of a human rights lawyer as being sufficiently
'objective and dispassionate'. But, please, what does
'cool reason' show?
Reason shows that the 'realities of history,
geography and demography' confirm that Professor
Virginia Leary was right when she declared in her
Report on the Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka in 1981
that the Tamils could be considered to a people with
a distinct language, culture and to an extent, a
defined territory.
Reason shows that the Tamils are a people who have
been ruled for more than four decades by an alien
Sinhala people, who do not speak their language, who
do not share their culture and their heritage, and
who, today, seek to perpetuate that rule by armed
might.
Reason shows that the law of nations declares that
a people who are subjugated by an alien people are
entitled to the right of self determination.
And, reason also shows that 'the process of
building bridges' between the Tamil people and the
Sinhala people must begin with each people
recognising the existence of the other as a people,
and thereafter sitting as equals, to agree upon
constitutional structures within which such equality
may be sustained.
That is why, Mr.Editor, Tamil intellectuals do
not seek to 'deserve the respect' of an arrogant
Sinhala chauvinism which masquerades as a so called Sri
Lankan nation. That is why Tamil intellectuals who seek
to stand up for that which is right and just, will
continue to identify themselves with the national
liberation struggle of the people of Tamil
Eelam.
That is why, Tamil intellectuals everywhere will
continue to declare that the denial by the Sri Lankan
Government of the right of
the people of Tamil Eelam to self determination is
itself a violation of a human right enshrined in
Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, which Article declares:
"All people have the right to self determination.
By virtue of that right they freely determine their
political status and freely pursue their economic,
social and cultural development."
These were the self same considerations which
impelled 17
non governmental organisations to declare at the
hearings of the UN Sub Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in August
1990:
"It has become a matter of urgent importance to
act on the reports of several Human Rights
organisations on the gross and consistent violations
of Human Rights in Sri Lanka and to initiate steps to
satisfy the aspirations of the Tamil people within
the framework of Human Rights and the Right of Self
Determination."
But Sinhala chauvinism would have the world
believe that such considerations, founded as they are
on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human
rights are both 'outlandish and outdated'.
Ofcourse, we do understand your concern, Mr.Editor,
that the efforts of the Sri Lankan Government at
obfuscation have increasingly failed and that the
international community has increasingly begun to
recognise the political reality of the Tamil nation in
the island of Ceylon. We do also understand your
concern that the international community has become
increasingly reluctant to give aid to a Government
which is guilty of gross, consisting and continuing
violations of human rights.
But please rest assured, Mr.Editor that this
change of perception has not been brought about by
the efforts of 'travelling salesmen' for Tamil Eelam.
Tamil Eelam is not a commodity for sale whether in
the international market or elsewhere. Tamil Eelam is
an existential political force which demands
recognition in the name of the inherent dignity of a
people.
Tamil intellectuals are well aware that even as you
wrote your Comment, the genocidal attack by the Sri
Lankan Government on the people of Tamil Eelam,
continued unabated and with increased ferocity . In the
North of Tamil Eelam, bombs are regularly targeted on
refugee camps, whether they be situated in temples,
churches or schools. Even hospitals with clear red
cross markings have not been spared.
"Barrel bombs - 210 litre cast iron barrels packed
with explosives, rubber and saw dust - rain down on
residential areas with the most devastating effect;
each bomb can destroy 20 houses. By its haphazard
bombing of civilian targets in the Northern
penin-sula of Jaffna, the airforce is imposing an
unofficial blockade which is bringing some parts to
starvation. Helicopters, equipped with rockets and
machine guns hover day and night over Jaffna city and
the surrounding towns and villages, ready to strafe
any moving civilians or vehicles... The hospital has
also been bombed and three weeks ago, a helicopter
fired into the operating theatre, killing a doctor...
In an effort to dent civilian morale, they have also
been showering the area with human and animal
excrement." [The London Daily Telegraph, 13th
September 1990]
There has been an embargo on the transport of
essential medical, food and fuel supplies into Tamil
Eelam. Hundreds of sick and wounded have died without
medical attention. Many thousands of the people of
Tamil Eelam, face death by starvation. The education of
Tamil youths has been grievously affected and their
safety is always in peril. Arrests and torture of Tamil
children as young as thirteen is commonplace and occurs
in Colombo as well.
The Sri Lankan Government is carrying out this
onslaught on the people of Tamil Eelam under the
pretext of carrying on a war against the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam. However, Tamil intellectuals are
well aware that the genocidal intent of the Government
was made clear when it rejected the uni-lateral
ceasefire declaration made by the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam on the 31st of December 1990 on the
specious ground that there had been violations of the
ceasefire by the LTTE. When the LTTE denied such
violations and offered to participate in talks to set
up a suitable mechanism to monitor the ceasefire, the
Sri Lankan Government rejected that offer out of
hand!
In a carefully crafted paragraph, you state
Mr.Editor:
"If Mr.Satyendra, who describes himself as a human
rights lawyer condones the mindless terror of the
Tigers and even justifies their actions in the name
of a dubious 'liberation struggle' then he is not
only betraying the fundamental principles of human
rights but also exposing himself as an irredeemable
hypocrite."
The use of the word 'if' is significant, because
Mr.Editor you were presumably aware that, in fact at no
stage during the meeting at the Norwegian Institute of
International Affairs (or for that matter anywhere
else) did the speaker condone the violations of human
rights by some members of the LTTE. On the contrary,
the speaker stated expressly that he cannot and did not
condone such violations and stated that an armed
struggle was not a carte blanche to kill but was a
struggle in the defence of the integrity of the Tamil
nation.
However, the speaker did point out that it was
important to carefully sift the facts about such
alleged violations by members of the LTTE. He pointed
out that in June 1990, a report in the world media that
more than fifty Muslims were killed by the LTTE in the
Amparai District, was later rejected by the
government's own Muslim Superintendent of Police, and
the newsreport was subsequently withdrawn. But the fact
that such a report was initially 'planted' in the world
media was evidence of the cynical nature of the
disinformation campaign carried on by the Sri Lankan
government.
The people of Tamil Eelam are well aware of the
need to purify and in that way, strengthen their
struggle for national self determination against a
Sinhala dominated government which seeks to subjugate
and rule them.
But they need no lessons on human rights from those
who seek to undermine their struggle for self
determination.
They need no lessons on human rights from the
servants of a state whose horrendous record on human
rights led Amnesty International to launch a three
month world wide Sri Lanka campaign in September
1990.
They need no lessons on human rights from the
servants of a state which has subjected the people of
Tamil Eelam to 'shit bomb' attacks and which has bombed
Tamil civilian population centres and hospitals with
clear red cross markings.
They need no lessons on human rights from the
servants of state which has so institutionalised
violence that 60,000 of its own Sinhala people have
'disappeared' during the past two years.
It is well known that the Sri Lankan government
has engaged the services of Tamil quislings to help
its armed forces and to assist its political
initiatives and seeks to pass them off as 'rivals' of
the LTTE. Your editorial shows that the Sri Lankan
Government is now in search of quisling Tamil
intellectuals who will 'deserve the respect' of a
Sinhala chauvinism which masquerades as the so called
Sri Lankan nation.
You suggest 'that in the absence of a rational
leadership among the Tamils', such intellectuals,
'could be the only ones who could help to end the
senseless carnage'. You would have your readers believe
that the people of Tamil Eelam are without 'rational
leaders' and that the ever so helpful Sinhala rulers,
who are engaged in aerial bombardment of the people of
Jaffna with 'shit bombs', are somehow concerned to 'end
this senseless carnage' and encourage the rise of a
'rational leadership' for the Tamil people!
Please, Mr.Editor, please do refrain from insulting
the intelligence of the people of Tamil Eelam and
please do refrain from this humbuggery. Instead, please
do try and wake up your masters to the reality that the
struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam for their right
to self determination is rational, that it is just,
that it is lawful, that it is not outlandish but rooted
solidly on the ground - and that it will succeed. But,
then, perhaps, as the leader of Tamil Eelam, Velupillai Pirabaharan has
very rationally remarked:
'You can wake up some one who is asleep, but you
cannot wake up some one who is pretending to be
asleep.'
