The Brahmins of old did not rule. They advised the
rulers. They were rarely kings. They aspired to be king
makers. Some (but not all) modern day Tamil Brahmins
follow that tradition. Not so much by choice but by
force of circumstance.
Alienated from the mainstream of Dravidian Tamil
nationalism which grew in Tamil Nadu, the Brahmin
without political power in his own land, has sometimes
found recompense by walking in the corridors of power
in New Delhi. Walking in the corridors of power is a
seductive substitute for those who are unable to occupy
its seat.
You find the Tamil Brahmin everywhere in the
corridors. In the Research Analysis Wing, in the
Strategic Studies Centre, in the higher echelons of the
Indian Civil service. At Thimpu
for instance, both the Deputy Directors of RAW who
were present on a daily basis, talking with members of
the Tamil delegation as well as with the Sri Lanka
delegation were Tamil Brahmins.
And when the Indo
Sri Lanka Agreement was mooted, who else but a
Tamil Brahmin played a significant role, moving with
Presidents and Ministers and not losing the 'common
touch' - Mr.N.Ram of the Madras Hindu, the media pillar
of the Brahmin establishment of Tamil Nadu.
And recently, this
particular Tamil Brahmin has aired his views to the
Sinhala owned Sri Lanka Sunday Island, which in its
introductory blurb to the interview found it relevant
to let its readers know that Mr.Ram as 'a scion of the
Kasturi Ranga Iyengar family which own the prestigious
Hindu media group.' Of course Mr.Ram's views have
received, unsurprisingly, the widest publicity in the
September issue of the Tamil Times. The message of the
head line came out loud and clear: 'Eelam is a pipe
dream, says Mr. N.Ram'.
Ofcourse, the Tamil Times does not itself take the
view that 'Eelam is a pipe dream'. At any rate it does
not dare say so. But it seems that the Tamil Times
would have its readers believe that it is so committed
to that great defender of liberty, Voltaire, that it
was simply defending to the death Mr.N.Ram's right to
say that 'Eelam is a pipedream'. So much for
background.
Now let us examine what Mr.Ram says. The implication
of Mr.Ram's profound conclusion is clear. If Eelam is a
pipe dream, then the thousands who have given their
lives for Tamil Eelam are misguided fools who have died
for 'a pipe dream' - fools who should have listened to
the disinterested advice of the best Brahmin brains.
"This is the trouble with these commoners - they never
know what is possible and what is not possible".
But then, what about the views expressed by an
eminent panel of political geographers (sponsored by
the US State Department) that the "coming changes
in the world's frontiers will be among the most
profound in history" and that during this decade
"in Asia, India loses Punjab and part of Kashmir and
Northern Sri Lanka becomes a separate Tamil homeland".
What would Mr.Ram tell Mr.William B.Wood, the State
Department's Chief geographer to do with the panel's
prediction - put it in
their collective pipe and smoke it?
'Not a nationality question but a democratic
question' says Ram
Mr.Ram has sought to buttress his conclusion by
giving expression to his views on nationality and self
determination. Says he:
"(The ethnic divide in Sri Lanka) is not a
'nationality question'. It is a democratic question.
You need not define any nationalities so you don't
recognise any right to self determination. The two
sides in the dispute must approach it as a democratic
question which means you are talking of the structure
of government."
You need not define any nationalities and then there
is no need to recognise any right to
self determination. Hey Presto! You define away the
Tamil national struggle! But, if you do not define any
nationalities, who are the 'two sides' to the dispute?
And, as for the twenty and more non
governmental organisations including the
International Commission of Jurists who recognised the
'national struggle' of the
Tamil 'people' at the recent sessions of the UN Sub
Commission on Minorities in Geneva - well, they too do
not know what they are talking about. After all they
have not had the advice of the Brahmin establishment of
Tamil Nadu.
To Mr.Ram of the Hindu the conflict in the island
is a 'democratic question' and all you need to do to
resolve the conflict is talk about the 'structure of
goverment'. But how does one talk about 'structures of
government' without talking about the political reality
on the ground to which such structures must of
necessity relate. And what is the political
reality on the ground?
The political reality is that no Tamil has ever been
elected executive head of Government in Sri Lanka
whether as Prime Minister or President. The political
reality is that no Sinhalese has ever been elected to a
predominantly Tamil electorate. The political reality
is that no Tamil has ever been elected to a
predominantly Sinhala electorate. The political reality
is that democracy within the confines of a single state
consolidated rule by a permanent Sinhala majority.
It was a permanent Sinhala majority, which through a
series of legislative and administrative acts, ranging
from disenfranchise-ment, and standardisation of
University admissions, to discriminatory language and
employment policies, and state sponsored coloni-sation
of the homelands of the Tamil people, sought to
establish its oppressive rule over the
Tamil people. Tamil opposition to these tyrannical
measures was met with open Sinhala
violence directed to terrorise and intimidate the
Tamil people into submission. It was a course of
conduct which eventually led to the rise of the
armed resistance of the Tamil people which is today
led by the LTTE.
| The Tamil people in Eelam are
not simply an ethnic group. They are an ethnic
group which has acquired a political
consciousness and a political identity and that
is why they constitute a nation. The 'ethnic divide'
has had everything to do with the political
consciousness of the electorate on the ground -
and it is mischievous to deny that. The political
reality today is that there are two nations in
the island, the Tamil nation and the Sinhala
nation. |
Assertion of guilt before trial according to
law
Not altogether surprisingly, it seems that Mr.Ram's
opposition to the Tamil nation extends to his
opposition to the Liberation Tigers who are the leaders
of that nation. In a revealing comment on the Rajiv
Gandhi assassination, he says:
"The investigators have established a consistent
pattern of LTTE operatives and sympathisers carrying
out the assassination. It is absolutely clear that
the order came from the top. To prove this,
Pirabaharan has to be brought to trial. Extradition
becomes necessary. This will no doubt make
negotiations more difficult. It introduces practical
restrictions."
Clearly Mr.Ram is not inclined to agree with the
views expressed by Dr. Baker (in
article which appears elsewhere) that "the euphoria
among the ruling political parties (the Congress at the
Centre and the AIADMK in the state) to 'get the LTTE',
the past record of the police, security and
intelligence agencies of doing the bidding of the
ruling parties even if it amounted to illegalities, the
real or perceived bias in the investigation and the
court's refusal to grant permission to the suspects in
custody to consult a lawyer for many months, all shed a
shadow of doubt on the integrity of the
investigation".
But more to the point, Mr.Ram asserts on the
basis of material which has
yet to be tested in Court proceedings, that "it
is absolutely clear that the order came from the top"
and that "to prove this, Pirabaharan has to be
brought to trial." Surely a case of the cart before
the horse if ever there was one. Mr.Ram is
'absolutely clear' of Pirabaharan's guilt even before
the trial. In his view, it is simply to prove that
guilt that Pirabaharan has to be brought to
trial.
He clearly does not agree with those who may have
thought that a trial is where the guilt or otherwise of
an accused is determined. So much for the presumption
of innocence until proved guilty according to law. What
is more, Mr.Ram has no qualms in giving public
expression through the media on a matter which is sub
judice.
Like the white supremacists of the Ku Klux Klan, the
Brahmin establishment of Tamil Nadu seems to prefer
lynch law to the rule of law. A 'show trial' to prove
guilt that is already decided upon, is all that is
needed. And, of course, that is
what the Changleput trial is - a show trial. And to
what end?
Mr.Ram lets the cat out of the bag with his somewhat
smug remark:
"This will no doubt make negotiations more
difficult. It introduces practical restrictions."
The IPKF
adventure having failed, the trial is intended to
serve the political ends of India by helping it to
influence any negotiatory process intended to resolve
the conflict in the Island.
PMK is 'fringe group' with no popular influence
but threatened with ban
And, in the meantime, ofcourse, on no account is
Tamil nationalism to be encouraged. Mr.Ram
is dismissive of the Tamil Nadu response to the
struggle for Tamil Eelam. He says:
"Nedumaran is in clear sympathy with the Eelam
cause.
These are individuals on the fringe who don't
represent any kind of popular opinion... People
like Ramadoss are only a fringe. (PMK) (If there
is a military thrust into Jaffna), I would say there
would
be a deafening silence (in Tamil Nadu)."
Readers
looking at the photo alongside may well wonder at
the 'deafening silence' of the marchers at the Pattali
Makkal Katchi demonstration in Tamil Nadu who hailed
Velupillai Pirabaharan as a leader, not simply of Tamil
Eelam but of the Tamil nation.(composite photo of the march in Madras on 12
September 1992) 
But then this was just one march by a 'fringe group'
which does not 'represent any kind of popular opinion.'
So much so that the Indian Government decided to accede
to the request of the Tamil Nadu government and sent
special troops into Tamil Nadu to assist in the arrest
of around 3000 Tamil activists on charges of sedition.
Not only that but Home Minister Mr.M.M.Jacob declared
that the Central Government was considering banning the
PMK. Why bother to ban 'fringe groups' which do not
'represent any kind of popular opinion'? What does the
Indian government fear?
The actions of the Indian government speak
louder than the words of Mr.Ram. But then again let
us recognise that Mr. Ram's comments reflect the
anxiety of the Tamil Brahmin establishment in Tamil
Nadu at the continued rise of Tamil national
consciousness. Mr.Ram's comments are therefore a
happy augury. They show that Tamil nationalism is not
dead, but alive, kicking, and growing - and has begun
to haunt the Brahmin establishment of Tamil Nadu.
Ram! O Ram!
]