|
Kumaratunga Package & Proposed
Referendum
21 January
1997 - 24 January
1997
21 January
1997
(from the Tamil Circle)
It is with regret that I am compelled to differ from
some of the views that Mr.Vasantharajah has expressed in
his letter to the Ceylon Daily News - regret, because of
the support that Mr.Vasantharajah has extended the Tamil
struggle for self determination but compelled because I
believe that some of his views are fundamentally
flawed.
Mr.Vasantharajah refers to the 'PA' s campaign to
convince the Sinhala majority to support the Package' and
comments:
"Irrespective of the Package's inability to meet the
Tamil aspirations, if the government succeeds in
getting the Sinhala majority behind it (by defeating
the extremist Sinhala chauvinist forces led by powerful
sections within the Buddhist clergy) then, that would
mark a significant break-through in the evolution of
the Sinhala consciousness in the right direction... I
do not hesitate to accept the sociological significance
of Sinhala masses giving the thumbs down to the Sinhala
extremist campaign."
I have several concerns about this approach. Is
President Chandrika Kumaratunga and the government she
leads less 'extreme' and less 'chauvinist' than the so
called 'extremist Sinhala chauvinist forces led by
powerful sections within the Buddhist clergy'?
The genocidal
onslaught launched by President Chandrika Kumaratunga
on the Tamil people in 1995/96 (assisted by her uncle and
Deputy Defence Minister Anuraddha Ratwatte), the medieval victory
ceremony on the fall of Jaffna, the continuing
economic blockade of the Tamil homeland, the continuing
disappearances and horrendous
rapes by the Sinhala army, the continuing Sinhala
armed occupation of the Tamil homeland, all give the lie
direct to any claim that President Chandrika Kumaratunga
is somehow 'less extreme' and I believe that it will be
unwise for the Tamil people to permit the promotion of
such a myth. Indeed, it may be difficult to imagine what
a more 'extreme' Sinhala leader would have done that
President Kumaratunga has not already done.
IPKF Lt.General Amarjit Kalkat interview in
Frontline on 29 December 1995 revealed the nature of
the attack that President Kumaratunga launched on the
Tamil people:
|
"…they (Sri Lanka) have… followed a
strategy of a broad front...it causes a lot of
destruction. You are actually steamrollering
through the area. Step by step. Do a certain
distance first, then clean up, converge on the
next one. Any building from which resistance
comes or where there is likely to be resistance,
bring it down with air bombing or with tank fire.
You clean up. But then as you pass -- you're
leaving behind rubble as you go. So that was the
other problem for which they have resorted to
censorship so that this doesn't come out. …
they have made sure that there is no adverse
publicity (world opinion, the press, doesn't know
what is happening there, because it's all
controlled). The strategy was different (to our
IPKF strategy). Here they followed a broad front,
we (the IPKF) followed -- I had no option -- a
narrow front strategy. …
Because, (a) a broad front would have taken a
long time, (b) it would need a lot of troops, I
did not have that, (c) it would have meant a lot
of destruction and civilian casualties, that
would not be acceptable to either to my
government or to me, and (d) we did not want the
civilians to leave Jaffna.
Our objectives were different to that
extent. We had gone there to assist their
rehabilitation, not to uproot them. So therefore,
if we were to go and reduce Jaffna in the
conventional manner, they would have been
homeless for all time to come after that!
"
|
That President Kumaratunga's strategy was deliberate
is shown by her interview with India Today on 30 April
1995:
"Q. Where do you go from here?
A. ...To defeat the LTTE you have to launch an all
out attack (which would mean a lot of Tamil civilian
casualties) and the place (Jaffna) will be wiped out.
Q. Is that possible? Can the Sri Lankan forces do it?
A. Ofcourse it is possible..."
Again, as Anton Balasingham declared in August 1995,
President Kumaratunga's political package was nothing
more than a
'peace mask' for her genocidal onslaught on the Tamil
people. I believe that it is wrong to suggest (as
Mr.Vasantharajah does) that 'irrespective of the
package's inability to meet the Tamil aspirations, if the
government succeeds in getting the Sinhala majority
behind it ...that would mark a significant break-through
in the evolution of the Sinhala consciousness in the
right direction.'
The contents of the package that the Sinhala people
are willing to accept must surely have everything to do
with the question whether 'Sinhala consciousness' is
evolving in the right direction.'
The political reality is that the
Kumaratunga package gives Buddhism a pre eminent
place in the Constitution and retains ultimate
legislative and executive control in the hands of a
Sinhala dominated centre - with, presumably, a Sinhala
army continuing to occupy the Tamil homeland for the
forseeable future. The package is not even a starting
point for a negotiating process because it denies the
equality of the parties to the negotiating process.
Furthermore, it is on the basis of an appeal to
Sinhala chauvinism that President Chandrika Kumaratunga
has sought to sell the package to her Sinhala
electorate.
The Sinhala owned Sri Lanka Sunday Times reported on
20 August 1995:
"Defending the devolution package, (President
Kumaratunga) said in no way would it erode the
supremacy of (the central) parliament... The President
said that since Policy Planning was a subject for the
centre, the central government had a hold in every
subject a region handled... the President said, even if
a Regional Council opposes, the centre has the power to
go ahead and allocate land for its purposes. The
President also moved to allay fears of a North-East
merger saying that the government did not have any idea
of merging the North with the East."
President Kumaratunga seeks to persuade the Sinhala
people that it is not the UNP but that it is she, the
conquering victor of Jaffna, who is the trusted guardian
of Sinhala Buddhist interests. If she succeeds in her
sales pitch, I fail to see in what way such success
'would mark a significant break-through in the evolution
of Sinhala consciousness in the right direction.'
Ofcourse, the question does arise: Why do the UNP and
sections of the Buddhist clergy oppose the political
package? The answer is not far to seek. The UNP well
knows that the package does not divide the country and
that on the contrary, the package ensures that control
remains in the hands of a permanent Sinhala majority. But
the UNP is not in the business of securing President
Kumaratunga's precarious hold on power. The UNP seeks to
bring her government down.
The opposition of the United National Party and
sections of the Buddhist clergy to the package and the
refusal of President Kumaratunga to abolish the executive
Presidency despite her election promise to do so within
an year of coming into power, have everything to do with
the struggle for power between the two major Sinhala
political parties - and very little to do with any
'evolution of Sinhala consciousness in the right
direction.'
But then, this is not a new scenario for the Tamil
people. In 1968, for instance, an
innocuous District Councils Bill presented by the UNP
was thwarted by the opposition led by the SLFP and
Mrs.Srimavo Bandaranike. Satchi Ponnamblam wrote
perceptively about this in 1991 and I quote:
|
"In order to put and/or maintain themselves in
power, the Sinhalese-Buddhist politicians, first
of the S.L.F.P. and then of the U.N.P., and each
in turn thereafter, wooed the Buddhist
Mahanayakes (Chief Prelates) of the different
Chapters and Sects and the Bhikkhus (Buddhist
monks) comprised in them and ushered these
organized religious men to the center stage of
politics and encouraged them to exert religious
pressure for political purposes...
I will now sketch how these old atavistic
memories and irrational fears embedded in the
psyche of the Sinhalese leaders and people
because of their belief in the truth of this
falsified Sinhalese-Tamil past history, prevented
the grant of even nominal concessions, by
reference to the attitudes and assertions made by
the Sinhalese Parliamentarians to the then Prime
Minister Dudley Senanayake's innocuous proposals
for District Councils, presented as a White Paper
to the House in 1968.. "
1968 June 5: A White Paper on proposals for
the establishment of District Councils under the
direction and control of the Central Government
is tabled in the House of Representatives:
According to a draft bill attached to the
White Paper, the government Agent of the District
would be the Chief Executive Officer and all
employees of these Councils would be public
servants under the control of the Government
Agent. The District Councils would not be local
authorities but would be extensions of the
Central Government taking over some of the
functions now performed by the Kachcheries. The
Councils, to be constituted in each
Administrative District, would consist of
ex-officio Councillors consisting of (a) elected
M.P.s for each electoral district which lay
within such administrative districts, (b)
appointed M.P.s, (c) Mayors of Municipalities and
Chairmen of local bodies within the
administrative district. There would also be not
more than 3 nominated Councillors. The Councils
would function under the language laws of the
country. The record of the Councils throughout
the island would be kept in the official language
(Sinhala). In the Northern and Eastern provinces,
records would be kept in Tamil also.
Correspondence with the central government would
be in the official language.
1968 June 8: Walk-out in Parliament. Burning
of copies of the White Paper on District
Councils. Beginning of Sinhala- Buddhist campaign
against District Councils The entire opposition
in the House, with the exception of three
members, walk out of the house burning and
tearing copies of the White paper within the
Chamber as P.M. Dudley Senanayake rose to
initiate the debate on the White Paper ... As
they were marching out of the Chamber, some
members tear the document and throw the pieces in
the air, while a leading member of the S.L.F.P.,
T.B. Tennekoon, burns his copy ... The members
who had earlier walked out, led by the leader of
the opposition Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike, gather
outside the precincts of the Parliament building
and make a bonfire of the copies before they
disperse.
1968 June 11: Debate on the White Paper.
Opposition coalitionists led by Mrs Bandaranaike
continue to boycott the debate, but a
Vice-President of the S.L.F.P., R.G. Senanayake,
defies the party's decision to keep away and
launches an attack on the White Paper. He says he
saw in the District Councils the distinct
possibility of the division of the Island into
two or three parts. The expelled F.P. member, V.
Navaratnam on the other hand, says that the
proposal now before the House was a very wide
deviation from the agreement that the Party had
entered into with the P.M. Not only did it not do
any justice to the Tamil people, but it contained
"obnoxious and pernicious sections" detrimental
to the Tamils. The most vehement attack on the
District Councils proposals came from a Tamil
member on the Government side, G.G. Ponnambalam,
the leader of the Tamil Congress. He calls the
proposals a "hideous hybrid monstrosity" and said
that the establishment of District Councils would
lead to the eventual segregation of the Sinhalese
and the Tamils, while the F.P. Members accuse Mr
Ponnambalam of betraying the Tamil people.
1968 June 13: Winding up the debate P.M.
Dudley Senanayake lashes out at the opposition
for "carrying on a false propaganda and spreading
communal hatred." He quotes from the speeches of
opposition leaders and points out how they had
earlier favoured the establishment of District
Councils and even incorporated the idea in
numerous Throne Speeches. They could not now face
the house and "ran away from the debate." He says
most people spoke very glibly of communal amity;
the communal harmony which his cousin R.G.
Senanayake was talking about was "the biggest
sham perpetrated on the people of the country."
The unity some people want is the subjugation of
the rest, subjugation of another's culture,
language and aspirations, to their dominant force
.... May the country be saved from those who
speak of national unity, and then do their utmost
to prevent it from being achieved."
Commenting on the bitter attack against each
other of the Tamil Congress and the F.P., Mr
Senanayake says: "The tragedy of the Tamil race
is the existence of a set of self-seeking
sycophants making the sweet speech of saviours.
If the Tamils are ever to regain their birthright
in Ceylon, they should sent away the present
saviours of the Tamil Congress and the Federal
Party."
The P.M. does not indicate when he proposes to
introduce the legislation in Parliament, which is
prorogued after June 18. Despite efforts made by
Dudley Senanayake to dispel what he called the
false propaganda against the proposed District
Councils Bill, the campaign both in the Press and
on platforms against the Bill increases in
tempo.
A section of the Press reports under banner
headlines that an influential section of the
Government parliamentary group would shortly
issue an ultimatum to the P.M. either to give up
the controversial District Councils Bill or to
face a revolt within its ranks. The S.L.F.P., in
a circular to its supporters describes the
proposed Bill as the consequence of a "secret
pact" between the P.M. and the Tamil leader
Chelvanayakam. Mass rallies are organized to whip
up opposition to the Bill. It is alleged that the
Bill was a "device to divide the country to the
detriment of the Sinhala people."
The Buddhist Mahanayakes of the Malwatte and
Asgiriya Chapters, as well as a deputation of the
All Ceylon Buddhist Congress meet the P.M. to
make known their opposition to the proposed
District Councils. Various local bodies in the
Sinhala areas as well as Sinhala political,
social, religious and cultural organizations pass
resolutions demanding that the Government give up
the proposal. With the mounting, orchestrated
campaign against it, it becomes doubtful with
every passing day whether the DC Bill would get
into the parliamentary agenda.
1968 July 7: No firm commitment is made on the
controversial district Councils Bill in the
Speech from the Throne - the policy statement of
the Government for the current session of
Parliament delivered by the Governor-General to
the joint session of Parliament today. A
watered-down reference that fullest consideration
would be given to the view expressed on the White
Paper, is widely interpreted in the country to
mean that the Government has already bowed to
pressure.
1968 July 25: Winding up the debate on the
Speech from the Throne, P.M. Dudley Senanayake
declares that the District Councils proposals
would be abandoned if a majority of the people
did not want them. He adds that he had tried to
bring together the different communities and that
he would continue his efforts." The District
Councils episode and the fiasco in which it ended
brings into focus the significant realities of
the Tamil problem or the national question.
Firstly, it epitomizes the resort of the
opposition Sinhalese politicians to "false
propaganda and the spreading of communal hatred",
as in the words of Dudley Senanayake, on any
measure even remotely connected to or
ameliorative of the enslaved and deprived of
"birthright" condition of the Tamil people.
Secondly, that false propaganda will accuse
the proposer of any such measure as the author of
a scheme "to divide the country to the detriment
of the Sinhalese", in order to heighten the
controversy over it so that the proposer himself
would jettison it, as did Dudley Senanayake.
Thirdly, the vociferous Buddhist lobby
consisting of the Mahanayakes, Bhikkhus and the
A.C.B.C. have become the keepers of the
conscience of the Sinhalese nation and the
custodians of the Sri Lanka Government's
positions over the Tamil problem, which the two
have created in the country.
Fourthly, the ultimatum threat of an
influential section of the Government
Parliamentary Group to the P.M. to give up or
face revolt shows that the Sinhalese politicians
do not divide on party lines on the Tamil problem
but on racial or ethnic lines and therefore it is
not possible for the P.M. to shore up support for
his proposals even within the ranks of his own
party parliamentarians.
Fifthly, living up to Dudley Senanayake's
predatory wish, the Tamil people have "sent away
... the Tamil Congress and the Federal Party",
but have yet not regained their "birthright in
Sri Lanka."
Lastly, and most importantly, the new status
quo of the Sinhalese and Sri Lanka Government -
Tamil position of rulers/ruled,
overlordship/subjugation has come to be cast in
such a rigid, impenetrable and immutable mould
that the Tamils have been left with no choice but
to break that mould by force to free themselves
to be counted as humans; otherwise, it was
slavery, revolting to any civilized conscience."
(
Tamils Right to Self Determination entitled to
international recognition - Justice Satchi
Ponnambalam, Judge of the Supreme Court of
Belize, Central America, July 1991)
|
I can do no better than end with Satchi Ponnambalam's
eloquent plea:
|
"From the foregoing statement of the
preliminaries, it will be evident that the
central fact that lies at the heart of the
national question and the Eelam liberation
struggle, and, in fact, that which has spawned
both and determine their turbulent and
indomitable course is that the Tamils are an
indigenous nation of people, who occupy their own
lands in Eelam from pre- and proto-historic
times.
That territory is their national inheritance,
their national patrimony, their separate
homeland, their motherland to which they are
bonded in all the strength and attachment as the
native people. They possess all the patriotic
love and yearnings and all other conscious and
unconscious bindings of any indigenous nation of
people to their own land, and, in particular, in
no way less and in no different manner from the
indigenous Sinhalese people to their part of the
country.
The Tamils right and claim to the Eelam
territory has to be bluntly, irrefutably and
crisply stated: the Eelam lands are inviolate and
Tamil nation's sovereignty over that territory is
non-negotiable."
|
 24
January 1997
I would like to respond briefly to Mr.Vasantha Rajah's
posting in the Tamil Circle # 1016 of 23 January.
Mr.Vasantha Rajah says:
| "… in response to Mr.
Satyendra's (legitimate) concerns, let me reiterate
once again: No, I do not think President Chandrika
Kumaratunga and her government are any less
chauvinistic than the overt racists in Sinhala
society. On the contrary, I think she is trying to
use the Package as a devious formula to maintain
Sinhala hegemony over the Tamil nation. But this
does not rule out the possibility of leaps in the
right direction taking place in the mass Sinhala
consciousness. Ordinary people generally do not
understand the legal nuances of the Package, but,
if they REJECT 'overtly' chauvinistic appeals to
vote against the Package (on the grounds that it is
a "recipe for separation") then, yes, that would
mark a significant leap in the Sinhala
consciousness." |
My point was and remains that if ordinary people
(whether they understand the legal nuances of the
'package' or not), vote for the Kumaratunga package, on
the basis of her own campaign that the package does not
erode the powers of the centre, that Sinhala Buddhism is
safe in the hands of the conqueror of Jaffna, then their
vote would simply mean that they accept that which
President Kumaratunga says. I fail to see why that would
'mark a significant leap in the Sinhala consciousness in
the right direction'. It is not simply a matter of what
the voters reject - it is also a matter of what they
believe they are voting for.
Indeed, given President Kumaratunga's campaign
against the LTTE, their vote may well suggest that
'ordinary people' prefer a 'successful' chauvinist to a
not so successful one.
After all, the medieval victory ceremony on the fall
of Jaffna, was broadcast live on Sri Lanka TV, to secure
President Kumaratunga's image as the Sinhala Buddhist
conqueror of Yappana Patna - and that was by no means an
exercise in 'covert' chauvinism. Again, the continuing
overt propaganda by Sri Lanka that the LTTE is a
'terrorist' organisation is intended to deny the
legitimacy of the Tamil struggle, enhance President
Kumaratunga's credentials as the protector of Sinhala
Buddhism and take the wind off the UNP sails.
Furthermore, it is not difficult to foresee
the situation that will arise if and when President
Chandrika Kumaratunga wins support for the 'package' at a
referendum. The 'package' will then be promoted world
wide as the 'anti chauvinist' 'moderate' 'reasonable'
solution to the conflict - and as a 'package' which has
won the support of the 'moderate' Sinhala
people.
The LTTE's refusal to accept the package will be
trumpeted as 'continuing intransigence' and 'fanaticism'
in a further attempt to erode the justice of the Tamil
struggle for self determination. At the same time,
President Kumaratunga's Sinhala army will continue its
effort to annihilate Tamil resistance in an attempt to
further 'weaken the LTTE'.
In this effort she will seek and obtain the
support of sections of the international community to
apply pressure on LTTE offices and Tamil expatriate
groups to 'persuade' the LTTE to toe the 'reasonable
package' line. Tamil expatriate supporters will be told
that the 'package' has won the support of the 'Sri Lankan
people' and that though everything may not be perfect,
the 'package' is a useful starting point for a
negotiating process.
The deviousness of this approach is ofcourse that the
'package' denies the equality of the parties to the
negotiating process and the approach invites talks
between the ruler and the ruled whilst the Sinhala
ruler's army continues to occupy the Tamil homeland. Come
into my parlour, said the spider to the fly.
As for the Sinhala progressive forces, they may, by
then be persuaded to see the 'package' as the panacea -
after all, that is the message that is being drummed (and
will be drummed) into the Sinhala people by the Chandrika
government with its relatively large resources. And
President Kumaratunga is not about to relinquish power
voluntarily, after having won a referendum, simply
because some may suggest that the result of the
referendum showed that there 'was a significant leap in
Sinhala consciousness' in some other direction.
As Mr.Vasantha Rajah agrees, President Kumaratunga
'is trying to use the Package as a devious formula to
maintain Sinhala hegemony over the Tamil nation.' I have
merely spelt out some of the elements of that
deviousness. Events in the coming months will show
whether this analysis is right - that is, ofcourse, if a
referendum on the package is ever held.
The threat of a referendum may even persuade the UNP
to adopt a 'bipartisan approach' and support the
'package' anyway and sections of the international
community may encourage this as the 'dream ticket'.
I believe that since the package is a 'devious formula
to maintain Sinhala hegemony over the Tamil nation', the
Tamil expatriate response may be best directed to expose
that 'devious formula' from the outset and expose the
proposed referendum on the 'package' for what it is - an
attempt by President Kumaratunga to secure her hold on
power despite UNP opposition and in addition create an
acceptable 'mask' for securing international aid and
support for her continuing attempt to subjugate the Tamil
people.
In this context, I believe that nothing is gained by
giving a 'pseudo credibility' to the package on the basis
of a distinction between 'overt' and 'covert' Sinhala
chauvinism - and by suggesting that its acceptance at a
referendum would somehow 'mark a significant leap in the
Sinhala consciousness in the right direction'.
There is one other matter. Mr.Vasantha Rajah says:
"…we should be extremely alert to changes
within public opinion in the Sinhala South. If we get
pre-occupied with 'surface-appearances' and fail to
grasp the 'underlying trends' we can never work out the
correct strategy and tactics in relation to the newly
emerging forces in the South. These have
enormous potential and, if properly tapped,
can hasten the liberation of the Tamil nation."
In the end, the correct strategy and tactics for the
Tamil struggle is a matter for those on the ground who
are leading the Tamil struggle and who have committed
their lives to that struggle - and who, over the past
several years, have demonstrated their skill, acumen,
honesty of purpose and stead fast determination by taking
the struggle forward amidst tremendous obstacles. I for
one believe that it is they who are siezed of all the
nuances and 'underlying trends' in relation to both the
international and local frames of struggle - nuances
which may have escaped our attention. I would
imagine that an assessment of the strength of 'the newly
emerging forces in the South" is one of the matters that
may have engaged their attention. Perhaps, the
words of Velupillai Pirabaharan on Maha Veerar Naal on 27
November 1996 bear repetition:
|
"We are now facing a new challenge, a new war of
aggression. Our historical enemy, Sinhala
Buddhist Chauvinism, has taken institutional form
in the guise of Chandrika's regime and has been
conducting a genocidal war against the Tamil
nation. …This aggressive war that has been
launched in the guise of a "war for peace" and as
a "war for the liberation of the Tamils" has
seriously disrupted the peace of the Tamils,
reduced them to refugees, as subjugated people,
destroyed their social and economic existence and
brought them intolerable suffering.
"Though the Government of Chandrika has been
cheating the world with its theory of peace, in
practice it is conducting a brutal war against
the Tamil people. …The military atrocities
occurring in the occupied areas and the
anti-Tamil persecution taking place in the South
have exposed the real racist face of the
Government. Compared to previous Sinhala
Governments, it is Chandrika's regime which has
inflicted a deep wound in the soul of the Tamil
nation…
"Having unleashed an intense propaganda
campaign categorising our liberation movement as
a "terrorist" organisation and our freedom
struggle as "terrorism" this Government is making
every effort to ban our organisation locally and
abroad…. The Government may entertain a
notion that it has gained military hegemony by
the occupation of Tamil lands and that this
position could be used as a mode of pressure to
its advantage in the peace talks. As far as we
are concerned, peace talks under such conditions
cannot be free and equal…We cannot gain our
rights by pleading with the Sinhala rulers. We
must fight and win our rights. History has not
recorded any liberation struggle that has been
won without fighting,... without sacrifices."
|
|
