Unitary State must go for Real Sri Lankan Unity
By D.B.S. Jeyaraj
The single biggest achievement of Norway facilitated six rounds of talks between the Sri Lankan
Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was the Oslo declaration.
For the first time in modern Sri Lankan history the Government and tigers agreed in principle to
"explore" a federal solution at Oslo. This effectively meant that Colombo and Kilinochchi were
prepared to move away from entrenched positions of "unitary Statism" and "separate Statism " to
seek a new "Federal state "alternative.
Ways and means of restructuring the Sri Lankan state on federal lines were going to be discussed
and formulated.
The decision to explore a federal solution was a very significant development. Earlier the "Sinhala"
side had been insisting that the prevailing unitary structure imposed on the Tamils be maintained
without change. The Tamils of course had launched a bitter armed struggle to establish a separate
state in the face of stiff Sinhala intransigience to redress and accommodate Tamil grievances and
aspirations .
It cannot be forgotten that the Federal party led by SJV Chelvanayagam had been campaigning for
a federal state for more than 25 years. The party conducted several non - violent protests in
pursuance of this goal. The party was also prepared to negotiate with the governments in power
and opted several times for compromises falling far short of their original demands. To the eternal
shame of successive Sinhala administrations these pacts and promises were not honoured or
implemented.
Sinhala opinion makers and poiticians created a belief among the Sinhala people that federalism
or power sharing or devolving power to the periphery amounted to a break up of the Country.
Federalism became a dirty "F" word in Sinhala consciousness.The unitary state was insisted upon
as an absolute. The 1972 Constitution formally introduced the unitary state as an entrenched
clause. The 1978 Constitution followed suit. The Tamils felt that a unitary state was the anti - thesis
of true national unity. The Sinhala viewpoint in general was to the contrary.
Even the Indians came up against this stumbling block in 1987. The 13th amendment introducing
provincial councils in accordance with the Indo - Lanka agreement found it difficult to provide for
enhanced devolution because of this. So maximum devolution that was possible without affecting
entrenched clauses were provided for. Otherwise the courts (not regarded as minority friendly)
may have insisted on a referendum.Even with diluted devolution the Supreme Court approved the
amendment five to four. Interestingly three of the judges in favour were from the minority
communities while all four opposing were from the majority community.
The first Sinhala political leader of great stature and credibility to grasp emotionally and
intellectually that the unitary state was the greatest impediment to true national unity was
Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. Furthermore she had then the integrity and political
courage to articulate that viewpoint clearly to the Sinhala masses and her party. She got the SLFP
to move away from its previous Sinhala supremacist position. Her government acted on the
premise that the Presidential system as well as the Unitary state had to go if true unity was to be
established on the basis of justice and equality.
Kumaratungas Constitutional affairs minister Gamini Lakshman Peiris and the TULF's Neelan
Tiruchelvam worked together to evolve what was then called the devolution package. The
proposals released on Aug 4th 1995 was a milestone. It envisaged a change of the unitary state
into a union of regions. Later it was changed into an indissoluble region of unions. What was
central however to those efforts in Constitutionalism was the recognition that changing the unitary
state was imperative to any meaningful soluition. LTTE intransigience, the advent of war and lack
of Sinhala consensus prevented those efforts taking fruit. Neelan himself was brutally assassinated
by a tiger suicide killer.
It is against this backdrop that the Oslo resolution to explore federalism created contemporary
history. Both the Government and LTTE declared publicly to the world that they were prepared to
change the unitary state and explore a federal solution. Alas ! the LTTE once again began
backtracking. The Ranil Wickremasinghe government was reluctant to initiate efforts to change the
unitary state. The International community was keener on securing "benchmarks" shackling the
tigers than pressing for changes in unitary status. Sinhala hawks began clamouring that any
change to unitary meant Sri Lanka would be divided.
All possible progress on changing the unitary state reached a dead end. With the LTTE pulling out
of talks the peace process itself was stalemated. Nevertheless the Oslo resoltion binding Colombo
and Kilinochchi into exploring federalism remained. All true patriotic children of Sri Lanka who
genuinely desired unity of the Country were disappointed but plodded on in the hope that attempts
to change the unitary state would gather momentum in the near future at least.
The fifth Presidential election has seen Ranil Wickremasinghe laying emphasis on the Oslo and
Tokyo declarations. This meant that if elected Wickremasinghe would proceed on the path
exploring a federal solution. But the biggest bombshell was from Mahinda Rajapakse. He
surrendered to the JVP and signed a pact which among other controversial features included a
reiteration of the unitary state. The JVP has always insisted on centralisation and was opposed to
devolution. The shock however was in the SLFP premier and presidential candidate backsliding in
this fashion on the unitary state and accepting JVP dictates.. Rajapakse was also scheduled to
accept JHU conditions including the unitary state demand on Sep 13th.
Many demands made by the JVP and JHU will not be conducive to national unity. Chief among
these is the insistence that the unitary state remain unchanged and sacrosanct. This was to be
expected as neither the JVP nor the JHU have been favourable to devolution let alone federalism.
Nothing very shocking in this politics of the irrational. The shock however was that Mahinda
Rajapakse could accept this position. Of course there are frantic efforts in damage control and all
sorts of explanations, denials and rationalisations are proffered. The damage however has been
done.
Rajapakses pathetic performance has succeeded in instilling and evoking great resentment in the
Tamil psyche. The Tamil people are distressed and angered by this stupid and arrogant act. It is
not the tigers and pro - tiger elements who are greatly upset but the silent majority of "moderate"
Tamils who thought a bright futurein harmony with the Sinhala nation was possible in a non -
unitary but united Sri Lanka. Those hopes have been dashed. The tigers and their supporters are
naturally elated. It has been their stance that peaceful co - existence in a united Sri Lanka was an
impossibilty. The LTTE backtracking on exploring a federal solution after the Oslo accord would
now be justified.
Contrary to the stupid arguments put forward by the national socialist JVP and ultra - reactionary
JHU it is not separatism and the LTTE that are defeated by the insistence on a unitary state. The
peace - loving people on either side of the ethnic divide who thought an equitable and just co -
existence on the basis of federalism or quasi - federalism or greater devolution was possible are
the ones dealt a terrible blow. Rajapakse has shown the Tamils once again that the Sinhala
leadership is not to be trusted. Whatever the damage control done trust has been eroded. There
is a crisis of confidence here.
There has always lurked a strand of thought in the Tamil psyche that the Sinhala political
leadership was insincere about changing the unitary structure. Many countries concerned about
Sri Lanka too failed to comprehend this factor. These countries would say on the one hand that a
separate state was ruled out. But they would not be equally firm on what an alternative should be
and only insist on a solution acceptable to all sections of the people. Now Rajapakse and his JVP -
JHU consorts have shown that a powerful section of Sinhala opinion would not budge from the
unitary state concept. The myth that there had been a paradigm shift in the Sinhala psyche away
from the unitary state concept has been exposed in one swift stroke.
Against this backdrop what does the International community expect the Tamil people particularly
those desiring a unitary but non - unitary Sri Lanka do? Can they prevail upon the Sinhala political
leadership of both the UNP and SLFP to declare publicly that the unitary state will be changed?
Will the international community itself revise its stance and declare itself against the concepts of
both the separate and unitary states?
It is not the LTTE but Tamils desirous of living in a united Sri Lanka who want the unitary state to
be transformed. If Sinhala opinion refuses to accommodate this and insists on retaining the unitary
state there can be no basis for unity.If genuine national unity is to be achieved the unitary state
must go! The least that can be done is a powerful pledge by the dominant sections of the Sinhala
polity that the unitary state will give way to a non - unitary but united Sri Lanka.
The LTTE journal "Tamil Guardian" in its latest editorial makes a perceptive comment that is very
relevant in the current context
"What is clear to Sri Lanka's minority communities is that in the coming years we will face an ever
more uncompromising Sinhala nationalist bloc with a firm grasp on power. So will the international
community. Those still optimistic about a liberal peace in a united Sri Lanka need to seriously
reconsider the viability of their vision. Three decades of violence have not dulled Sinhala
nationalist aspirations, nor have four years of peace and increasing enmeshment in the threads of
globalisation. On the other hand, these - and a half-century of increasing Sinhala oppression -
have concretised a Tamil national consciousness. It is these polarised sentiments that are playing
out in the political developments today".
The writing then is on the wall! [MinorMatters-Morning Leader]