tamilweek.com/news-features

On 19th December 2006

GENERAL

The people in the peninsula do not show any aptitude or attitude in the celebration of the Christmas and New Year due to the prevailing situation in the peninsula. Festive crowds of purchases could not been seen in the city as there are no goods available in the trade centres.

Unloading activities from the cargo ships at Point Pedro and Kankesanthurai harbour has been affected due to unfavourable weather conditions in the sea. 700 Mt. wheat flour brought by ‘Jeniclip’ anchored in Point Pedro and 3500 Mt. essential items by Ruhunu are awaiting the unloading till the rough waves subsidise. It has been reported that two boats engaged in unloading in Point Pedro were heavily damaged on the 18th.
Mobile phones are still not functioning in Jaffna Peninsula and telephone contacts from Jaffna peninsula to Vanni are limited due to the function of few telephone lines in Vanni.

HEALTH

It is reported that students sitting the GCE O/L examination have fainted in the exam halls due to the severe attack of Chickengunya. On the request made by the Zonal Director of Education through the GA the Deputy Provincial director of Health Service arranged for mobile medical service to such students.

Thirty thousand patients has taken treatment for Chickengunya in the govt. hospitals alone in the Jaffna District. The situation has been brought under control now according to information from the Deputy Provincial Director of Health Services. He further stated that this is the number of patients treated in the 38 govt. hospitals in the district. Statistics are not available regarding the number of patients who had taken treatment in the private hospitals. He further added that a reasonable number of patients has been taking treatment while staying at home.

FOOD, NON-FOOD ITEMS & RELATED ISSUES

Scarcity of food items other than Shamba rice, dhal and flour are still continuing and scarcity of non food items also still continues.

DISPLACEMENT

Displaced life is still continuing in some areas.

INJURIES, KILLING AND DISAPPEARANCES

Tharmathas Mohanathas (21) of Kovilady, Point Pedro was shot dead by unknown person at about 12.15 on the 14th.

Nadarajah Jeyanthiran (40) a fisherman and father of three children of Kachchai was shot dead by unidentified persons while he was returning home after fishing on the 14th.

Murugesu Sathiyanathan (55) who was living near the security forces front line at Mirusuvil was found dead. His family has been displaced and living in Vadamaradchi. It is reported that a van which was in his possession was also missing.

M.Mahathevan an infant of two years was reported drowned by falling in a well. The members of the family were watching TV during noon of the 15th.

S.Lillymaral (48) of Saravanai, Kayts who was reported missing from home was recovered from a well as a corpse on the 16th morning.

P.Thanapal of Columbuthurai was waylaid while returning home by unknown persons and stabbed to death in the night of the 16th.

Santhan Sharmila, a girl of 3 years of ward 3 of Pungudutivu who was seriously injured in the claymore explosion on the 6th succumbed to the injuries on the 19th.

CURFEW LIFTED HOURS:

Curfew has been imposed from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. in Valigamam, Island, Thenmaradchy and Vadamaradchy divisions today.

Minimum “devolution” and maximum safeguards – Advisory Panel B:

By Dr. S. Narapalasingam

The Sunday Island 17 December 2006 reported that “the government is likely to throw away the so-called majority (Panel A) report which proposed far reaching constitutional amendments to facilitate the resumption of direct negotiations between the government and the LTTE”. It also mentioned that “the JVP opposed APRC Chairman Professor Tissa Vitharana’s stand that they would have to present a set of proposals acceptable to the LTTE”. There are many fundamental flaws in the knee-jerk reaction and the alleged stand of the APRC Chairman. Any sensible person would have expected the ‘expert panel’ appointed by the President, who has repeatedly expressed his government’s readiness to settle the national question based on maximum devolution of powers to recommend proposals accordingly. The proposals submitted by Panel A have also taken into consideration, the root causes of the problem and the measures needed to avoid their recurrence in the future.

The expertise of the members was not sought for finding a politically expedient solution to the ethnic problem or for tackling the ‘terrorist’ problem. Nor were they expected to consider the political currents in the South in their recommendations for a lasting solution. The extremists in the South should not expect the advisors to give weight to their views when extremism of whatever hue has no place in a fair and stable solution. JVP’s stand on the ethnic issue is influenced by Sinhala nationalism. The loyalty of the Tamil separatists to Tamil nationalism is well known. Electoral politics that played a destructive role since independence should also be shunned by the advisors. It is unfortunate the present conditions are not conducive for some to shun their prejudices and consider the problem from a broad national perspective. The renewed fighting this year has contributed to increased frustration and hardening of attitude among many Sinhalese. Ironically, this is what the LTTE also wanted for sustaining the case for separation.

Majority (Panel A) report

An analysis of President’s impulsive reaction to the majority report of the Advisory Panel appointed by him and the consequences to political settlement and lasting peace by Tisaranee Gunasekara is very useful for sensing the direction the country is heading. Her warning as well as the concern expressed by others on the recent disturbing developments, said to be in support of a political settlement and peace and the heightened uncertainty must be taken seriously by all who are genuinely concerned about the future of Sri Lanka.

Her article aptly titled “Repeat Performances” recalls the extremist forces that disrupted the early attempts to settle the ethnic problem by suitable policy and administrative changes before it escalated into a full-scale war for separation. 50 years of disappointing political, economic and social developments have not changed the attitude of some bigots masquerading as patriots. Today lawlessness, bribery and corruption, rising cost of living and fear have intensified the feeling of hopelessness and uncertainty of the vast majority of the people.

Tisaranee has said: “There is a tragicomedy in the making around the Expert Committee and its reports. The Rajapakse administration’s panicked reaction to the denunciatory cries of its extremist allies, reminiscent of the proverbial cat on a hot tin roof, would be comic if not for its tragic implications. The administration seems to be going several extra miles to prove that it has nothing to do with the Majority Report. But that is not all. And according to the front page lead of the ‘Lankadeepa’ of December 13th at the instructions of the President his Secretary summoned the three officials on the Experts Panel and asked why they ‘took a side’ at the Panel”. Did the President expect the three chosen for their expert knowledge on matters relevant to the issue to be resolved by constitutional reforms to be just his puppets in the expert panel? Was the panel told to look for some cosmetic changes within the existing structure? They deserve to be praised for having made a positive contribution towards the political settlement of the long-standing national problem.

If the current move is to dismiss the majority report as undermining the unitary system which provides the majority Sinhalese to have overriding powers over the entire island, then “it will merely become another missed opportunity. Such an outcome will strengthen the Tigers by demonstrating that the Sinhala polity lacks the will and the desire to come up with a political solution to the ethnic problem”. This is the often repeated charge of the LTTE leader used to justify self-rule for the North-East. In his recent Heroes’ Day address (November 27) too LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran reiterated his conviction – “the Sinhala leaders will never put forward a just resolution to the Tamil national question,” and the LTTE was left with “no other option but an independent state for the people of Tamil Eelam.”

Raj Gonsalkorale in his observation on Tisaranee’s article has also raised concern about the present confusion arising from the President’s disapproving stand on the majority (Panel A) report. He has said: “If the Rajapakse government fails to address this issue and present a reasonable set of proposals, it will strengthen the Tamil Diaspora who are far more powerful than what the administration and many others think, and they will capture the hearts and minds of not only more moderate Tamils, but the international community. If this sad game of brinkmanship and cat and mouse games continue within the Southern polity, many Sinhala moderates pens and voices will fall silent, further strengthening the case of the Tamil Diaspora and the
LTTE and fast tracking an eventual separate State in the North and the East. One cannot but wonder whether the extremist forces within the Southern polity are as uninterested in a political solution as the extremists amongst the Tamils, as both seem to be pursuing a goal of self-interest rather than the national interest”. Ultimately this will only lead to the destruction of what remains now as one island nation.

The LTTE

Had the LTTE been seen by the world as a truly liberation movement committed to democracy, human rights and pluralism and not as a terrorist outfit as declared by India, the U.S.A, the UK and other members of the EU and Canada, there would have been some vigorous support now for extensive regional autonomy. According to the Sunday Times 17 December, the US has apparently “endorsed the Committee ‘A’ report as one that could be built on, quickly”. International support cannot be ruled out, if the Sinhala polity continues to be influenced by extremists who want the majority Sinhalese to have supreme powers to protect their nation. It is this attitude that has led to the concept of two nations in the relatively small island.

The supreme LTTE leader has demonstrated time and again his firm commitment to the Eelam goal regardless of the losses and suffering endured by the Tamil community by rejecting the 1995 and the subsequent power-sharing proposals as well as the December 2002 Oslo Accord for exploring a federal solution to the problem. The late Anton Balasingham, LTTE chief negotiator agreed to “explore a solution founded on the principle of internal self-determination in areas of historical habitation of the Tamil speaking peoples, based on a federal structure within a united Sri Lanka”. This angered the diehard LTTE leader in Vanni and Anton Balasingham had to wriggle out of it by stating that the statement issued after the Oslo meeting by Norway was not a binding agreement. Another opportunity for ending the conflict and the suffering of the people was lost. The genuine interest of Anton Balasingham in going for early negotiated political settlement based on federalism is discernible in the Daily Mirror 20 December 2006 article – “Balasingham: the ‘silenced’ Voice of Tigers?”

The self-destructive process of the politically ambitious and influential leaders in the South is slow and subtle compared with the speedy and visible process of the Tamil separatists. The actions of both are not directed towards unifying the ethnically, politically and regionally divided people. In the case of the Tamil society, the powerful Diaspora is a strong force aiding the disintegrative process.

The ensuing comments on the report of Panel B highlight the recommended measures to halt the disintegration coming from one side only.

Paradoxically, the actions of the extremists in the North and South directed towards different political aims are producing the same disastrous result. Both are now seen by truly concerned farsighted persons as rendering mutual support justifying the existence and actions of the counterpart on the other side of the ethnic divide. The present Sri Lankan government by its inability or unwillingness to distance itself from Southern extremists is now seen as a partner in the mutually destructive process.

It is wishful thinking to assume that the rebels will negotiate for a political settlement within the present structure after they are militarily weakened. The leadership will rather prefer total self-destruction than submission. The continuation of the resistance despite the enormous suffering incurred by the people in the North and East is indicative of the determination not to yield to the enemy. The warring parties seem to find solace in the losses and distress caused to the opponent ignoring their own losses. It is the poor people who are enduring the high cost of this military strategy that has little chance of producing a definitive result.

SLFP-UNP MoU

Both New Delhi and Washington D.C. are hoping the MoU signed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa as leader of the SLFP and Opposition leader Ranil Wickremesdinghe as leader of the UNP last October will now help in seeking an agreed constitutional settlement based on meaningful devolution. The opportunistic and divisive politics of the two rival parties as well as the concerns of the leaders about their future rather than that of the country and the people have obstructed previous attempts to amend the constitution. However, there is no evidence yet to believe the MoU will be useful in meeting the challenge posed by the extremists on either side of the ethnic divide. Tisaranee is skeptical about the real intents of the two political leaders.

Commenting on the MoU she has said: “There are strong indications that the SLFP-UNP MoU will die a natural death, ere long. The President and the Leader of the Opposition were both motivated by private political needs rather than national and popular concerns in signing the MoU. Mr. Rajapakse needed to improve his image internationally, by bringing on board the ‘reformist’ Ranil Wickremesinghe. Mr. Wickremesinghe needed to kill the budding rebellion in his party. The MoU improved the President’s image internationally. It also ensured a stillbirth for the anti-Ranil rebellion in the UNP by according to the much defeated Mr. Wickremesinghe a badly needed new sheen and stature, elevating him to the status of a national leader above narrow political bickering. Once the MoU was signed and hailed by all and sundry as a great breakthrough, the anti-Ranil rebellion was lost”.

The fact that since October no joint effort has been made towards implementing the MoU lends credence to the above skepticism. The UNP leader has been saying the settlement proposals should take into consideration the 2003 Tokyo declaration which recommended the understanding reached at the Oslo talks in December 2002. The recommendations in the majority (Panel A) report being closer to the earlier expectation he should not have any difficulty in considering these as a basis for a new constitutional framework. Despite the President’s hastily expressed revulsion hurting the feelings of the members of Panel A who have worked tirelessly during the past few months, it is prudent for both leaders to consider the majority and minority reports as well as the statements of the two members of the Committee who have some reservations on both reports. Courage and the will to lead the country from the front are needed at this crucial time to pull the country out of the morass and give her a better life. Will this courage and determination be forthcoming now? This must be the 64 billion Dollar question that is in the minds of true patriots.

Some comments on Panel B report

The dissenting report of Panel B comprising H.L De Silva PC, Professor G.H Peiris, Gomin Dayasri and Manohara R De Silva PC contains a wide range of recommendations for Constitutional reform. These differ significantly from those contained in the eleven-member majority report (Panel A) in many ways. Panel B is also highly critical of the majority report. The full report of Panel B appeared in the Asian Tribune (December 11). It differs fundamentally from the majority report because of the members’ negative approach, different objectives, rigid adherence to unitary structure and the emphasis on decentralization instead of devolution. In fact, the intent to keep the provincial administration weak is clear from the dispersion of powers amongst the various local bodies right down to the village level and the many subjects included in the Concurrent List. Moreover, the discretionary powers of the President to intervene and assume control over the administration of any province contradict the very concept of ‘maximum’ devolution. The significance of devolution in regional autonomy in the specified fields has been dealt with in my previous article. The way the Parliament in Scotland functions with devolved powers, while the state remains an integral part of United Kingdom was cited as an example of a successful political arrangement to satisfy the aspirations of different ethnic groups and safeguard their regional interests. (Ref. Devolution and conflict resolution – Tamil Week December 10 -16)

The negative approach to constitutional reform stems from the overwhelming desire to obstruct moves towards secession and diminish the collective strength of the minority Tamils. Ironically, the special concern of Panel B for the Sinhalese in Tamil or Muslim majority areas is glaring. If the same concern had been there since independence for the minority Tamils in the entire country, the present crisis would not have arisen. Panel B seems to have focused more on preventing separation than on the resolution of the ethnic conflict. Panel A has rightly focused on eliminating the root causes of the problem and its subsequent escalation to the war for independent Tamil Eelam, while deterring moves towards separation. Extensive legal safeguards as laid down by Panel B to prevent secession are not necessary, if the devolution plan is fair and has the potential to meet the aspirations of the minority Tamils. Panel B has presumed that separation is the fixed aspiration of the majority of Tamils. Instead of focusing on building trust, Panel B has placed much emphasis on legal provisions for preventing secession. This will perpetuate the mistrust, which will not help to secure durable peace, sustain stability and safeguard the unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the island nation.

The following are the major recommendations in the Panel B (minority) report:

• Governmental power shall be divided into four lists, namely, Reserved, Provincial and Concurrent and Local. Reserved list includes powers that only the Central Government can exercise. The Provincial list contains powers that the Provincial Government can exercise.
The Local list includes the Powers that the Local Government of any relevant locality within a Province can exercise and the Concurrent List incorporates powers that both the Central Government and the Provincial Government could exercise.

• The report adds that the concurrent list is a useful tool to safeguard national interest in the province, namely, to introduce the element of uniformity where it is of paramount national interest. Furthermore, it will also safeguard the interest of provincial minorities whether they be Tamils, Muslims or Sinhalese. It permits the Central Government to intervene in the event of provincial government acting against the interests of the rights of Provincial Minorities.

• Unit of devolution to be primarily the existing ‘province’.

• Ethnicity and language should not be the criteria in the determination of the Province.

* Sinhala and Tamil languages should be the direct link between the two communities and therefore the two languages should be taught in schools from the earliest most appropriate point, without a reduction in the emphasis that must continue to be devoted to the acquisition of competence in English. The value of learning English is recognized but for constitutional requirements it does not deserve a greater status. Mindful of the dearth of teachers, the expansion of teaching Tamil/Sinhala languages may be only to a point of practicability; and would require time to be made compulsory subjects at the O level exam. The ultimate objective is to have Tamil/ Sinhala languages as compulsory subjects for the O/L Examination, so that parents at home will give sufficient emphasis to the study of languages from a child’s early days and language barriers will disappear in the coming generations. (The problem is in the implementation. The amendment to the official language act to include Tamil also as an official language has not been helpful to the Tamils.)

*The following are indicated as ‘Essential Controls’ in the report:

(i) The central government maintains a degree of control and supervision through the office of the Governor removable by the President who would generally act in accordance with the Chief Minister of the Province in the exercise of the executive power vested in him. The President may give directions to the governor in matters affecting security. (The clamour for abolishing the Executive Presidency has gone now!)

(ii) Statutes of the Province may be declared void by the Courts on the grounds of inconsistency with the Constitution.

(iii) The President may if he is satisfied that there is a failure of administration assume control over the functioning of the administration of the province and the parliament may confer on the President the power to make statutes for the province until normalcy is restored.

• The amalgamation of the Northern and the Eastern provinces was based on an erroneous and factually and historically flawed hypothesis that Northern and Eastern provinces form the homeland of the Tamil community. Northern and Eastern provinces stretches over almost the entire length of Sri Lanka from North to South, covering an area bordered by almost two-thirds of the island’s coastline and constituting 29% of its total territory. Each of the other provincial units will thus, on the average, cover only 10% of the total spatial extent of Sri Lanka.

• Central Territories: The Central government will be in complete charge and control in every aspect of harbours and airports, which is a matter of prime defence consideration. Panel B has repeatedly stressed throughout the report that national security is their prime concern.

* The following is a list of Central Territories:

1. Capital City/Ratmalana airport/Katunayake airport
2. Galle Port/Koggala airport
3. Hambantota Port/ Weerawila airport
4. Trincomalee Port/ Chinabay airport
5. Manner & Talaimannar
6. Kankasanturai & Palali

* A system similar to the Panchayat system of India with suitable modifications is recommended. Accordingly, the existing Pradeshiya Sabha/Municipal Council/Urban Council areas should be the 2nd tier of governance within the province. Villages within Pradeshiya Sabha/Municipal Council/Urban Council areas (in Divisional Secretaries Divisions) would form the 3rd tier of governance.

• Security concerns of all communities could be best achieved by having a National Police Force (as well as other armed forces) representative of all communities rather than having separate Provincial police forces controlled by Provincial administrations.

* Inclusion of fisheries, marine resources and aquatic resources within the Sri Lankan waters in the hands of a coastal Provincial administration would violate the equality Provisions of the Constitution in as much as land locked provinces which has no access to the Sea would be deprived of formulating policy and implementation of such policies pertaining to fisheries and aquatic resources due to its geographical placement. These resources should belong to all the people of Sri Lanka irrespective of their race or residence. Further, recent attempts made through the use of fishing boats to endanger national security should also be taken into consideration in deciding the allocation of powers pertaining to fisheries. Therefore, fisheries marine resources and aquatic resources are recommended to be a reserved subject.

The report states: “It is essential that these safeguards be maintained and if necessary strengthened to ensure the territorial integrity of the State as the separatist threat has not receded. This threat will be a permanent feature unless and until a proper decommissioning of arms is effected. Any rebel or terrorist group carrying arms is a permanent threat to national security and requires safeguards if the inherent objective is for a separate state”. This raises another fundamental question about the constitutional reform and the political solution to the ethnic problem sought by the Committees. It seems the Panel B proposals are for an interim nature, which will last at least until the ‘terrorist threat’ is overcome. When will Sri Lanka come up with a reliable Constitution having already found three constitutions unsatisfactory?

Incidentally, Panel B is critical of the recommendation in the majority report pertaining to the creation of temporary ethnic enclaves based on existing reality heightened by the violent activities in the East. To quote: “We consider that every part of the territory of Sri Lanka belongs to all people be they Sinhalese, Tamil or Muslim, and we consider the creation of ethnic enclaves will accelerate the disintegration of the country and contribute to further aggravation of ethnic tensions that could provide an impetus to secession. Our basic concern is that of reintegration of a nation suffering from the convulsions of secessionist violence”. The contrasting approaches of the two panels are also evident from the above statement. Panel A is also for reintegration but it hopes to achieve it by building mutual trust and not by legal means. Unity in diversity cannot be achieved by enacting laws and regulations under relevant constitutional provisions.

Panel B has ignored the settlement pattern that existed before the state-sponsored colonization schemes. The ethnic composition in the East and Vavuniya in the North changed after independence mainly because of these government schemes. The control of land is a sensitive issue in the light of past experience. Panel B wants to continue with the criterion used to justify the colonization schemes. The report states: “Allocation of land must be need-based and not ethnicity-based. …… we recommend the Establishment of a Land Commission with appropriate guidelines set out in the Constitution providing for any person, in any province, to claim land according to his needs. Land should be a reserved subject and the distribution should be done on the recommendation of the said commission”. The Tamils have bitter experience with the way Land Commission or for that matter any relevant commissions appointed by the government have functioned since independence. The existing ‘guidelines set out in the Constitution’ have not been strictly observed by the administration with regard to the interests, concerns and fundamental rights particularly the language rights of Tamils! Constitutional guarantees are important but these alone will not be a substitute for devolution of powers needed by the Sri Lankan Tamils to gain their legitimate rights and safeguard their interests and future well-being.

Conclusion

The agreed final political proposals should weaken and demolish permanently the case for separation and the recommendations of the Advisory Panel A (majority) in the preliminary report conform to this objective. However, there are some proposals in the Panel B (minority) that can be fused to strengthen the constitutional framework. In a nutshell, the grievances of Tamils can be ascribed to the unitary structure that installed majoritarian rule in a pluralistic society. Even the moderate Tamils will not accept any decentralized administrative arrangement within the fortified unitary structure as a permanent solution to the Tamil problem. Not only the Sri Lankan Tamils but also the whole world wants a political solution that goes beyond the confines of the present unitary constitutional framework.

Related article: “Devolution and conflict resolution” By Dr. S. Narapalasingam, Tamil Week December 10 – 16, 2006.

[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]

By Jamila Najmuddin

Civilians in Jaffna are planning a white Christmas as a mark of protest against the prevalent security and the humanitarian situation in the peninsula.

Civilians are planning to dress in all white devoid of any fancy jewellery during Christmas celebrations as a mark of protest.

“How can we celebrate when there are people dying daily. Many of our loved ones have been killed and abducted. We do not know where our relatives are. We have all been separated,” a civilian from Jaffna, Mary Theresa said.

Religious leaders in Jaffna have also advised the parishioners to halt all Christmas related celebrations and observe a sombre mood during the festive season.

“We have informed all the people that there should be no celebrations. There can be no celebrations amongst such suffering. There will only be the Christmas mass and no further celebrations,” the Parish Priest from the St. Nicholas Church in Jaffna, Father M.V.E. Ravichandra said.

He added that they would also welcome the move by the civilians to dress in full white as a mark of respect for all those who have suffered and died in the past few months.

The situation in Jaffna has deteriorated since August 12 when the A9 Highway was closed. Foreign aid agencies have pulled out foreign staff from Jaffna and aid workers have warned that the situation has hit rock bottom in the last month.

The Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies in its latest monthly assessment report said that the reign of terror had retuned to Jaffna with unidentified gunmen and armed groups roaming the streets without any hindrance.

Abductions and revenge killings have also been on the increase. The CHA said that there was an urgent need for medicine and essential items.

Law enforcement authorities should act with responsibility and be on the alert to bring culprits to justice, the CHA said.

“The trauma of being trapped inside a war zone should be erased from the minds of the people,” the CHA added. [thesundayleader.lk

We, the peace loving people of Sri Lanka of all communities, strongly condemn all kinds of terrorism inclusive of attempts on the life of your brother and the murders of several others.

Since nobody is above the law, order should be enforced strictly and the enforcing authorities should not misuse the law, humiliate or antagonise any section of our people because this will definitely create more problems.

The best thing is to win the hearts and minds of all the communities and find a political solution to the 56-year-old problem of our country for terrorism to die a national death without shedding the blood of innocent people.

Owing to the activities of anti-social elements, deserters, abductors, robbers and murderers the public is scared when midnight checks are being made.

If the authorities want to check during the night, please do so before 9.30 pm, and the officers should, on their own, prove their identity for the people to open their doors. They should be very polite because all the Tamils are not LTTE and all the Sinhalese are not anti-social elements. In some places checks are very often carried out without a single female officer being present to check the females.

Why can’t the security officers leave a note to say that the particular house has been checked thoroughly to avoid another group of officers checking the same place the following day? This agony is being repeated in several places and people are irritated.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act should help the government to prevent terrorism in the future but not to antagonise, humiliate or to put anybody in trouble. If you have a will there is a way and the only way to earn the respect, support and confidence of the people is by finding a political solution to the ethnic problem.

This is the wish of the majority of Sri Lankans.

Peace loving people
of Sri Lanka

[A Letter to the Editor, Published in the Daily Mirror]

Expert Committee Report: A golden opportunity for peace

By S. Thambyrajah
[Colombo 3]

Going back to the not too distant past, here are some facts to ponder over. Young S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike, just returned after a brilliant education abroad, held a meeting in 1927 where he promoted Federalism. The well known James T. Ratnam, trade unionist and journalist, walked out of the meeting in protest. Just before Ceylon got Dominion Status, the English rulers wanted to know what the Tamils wanted. The well known Professor Suntherlingam told them, “You leave us, we can settle our affairs”. SWRD promised Sinhala only in 24-hours and came into power. Then he wanted to right the wrongs done to the Tamil speaking people. Thus came the Banda-Chelva pact, torn and thrown into the dustbin. When SWRD was shot his words from the hospital death bed were’ “A foolish man in yellow robes shot me”.In a short period of history, from wanting to live together it has reached the extreme situation of wanting to live apart. ‘Eelam’ is Prabhakaran’s target for 25 lakhs of Tamils.

Our family members belong to the balance 15 lakhs. We, as well as the others have lived together amidst Sinhalese and Muslims. In spite of the grave setbacks and heavy losses, because of the mere fact of being Tamils, we still feel that living together is the best.

Expecting unanimity in the Expert Committee Report (ECR) is living in fairyland. The majority report is supported by representatives of the three communities. So it is fair enough to be basis on which to proceed. The devolution of power will go a long way to ease the prevailing tension. Dr. Tissa Vitarana is one of the very few- ministers who is serious on the job entrusted to him. Those who have followed his track record will know how much he is committed to unity of the country, welfare and rights of the different communities. He is the ideal person to have chaired the APRC.

The whole country knows how the present government came into power. The LTTE and the Tamil National Alliance’s gamble, depriving under dire threat, 4 lakhs of Tamils of the much fought for Universal Franchise, one of the greatest blunders of this century, has boomeranged on them. The time has come for a firm and final decision. If the government wants to reject the ECR then it will be another golden opportunity lost. On the other hand if the government wants to proceed on the path of war as the solution, then it is a gamble with the lives of innocent people and the last chapter on Sri Lanka will be written on the sands of time.

[A Letter to the Editor, published in Daily Mirror]

By K. Arvind
[via airmail, Toronto]

Victor Ivan’s interview of Dec 15 (Radically re-thinking the ethnic issue) is interesting reading. Ivan and C. A. Chandraprema belong to that genre in our current polity possessed of sufficient pluralistic political savvy that often inspires minority confidence – as did this piece by this duo. That they are able to articulate their views, free of ethnic prejudice and from un-entrenched positions, make both acceptable candidates, in minority eyes, to make proposals in an effort to realise a break-through in our continuing agony. I wish to make some comments on certain portions of the article.

The validity of the expression “Tamil-speaking people” in the North-East continues to remain today as it did decades ago – before the arrival of Ashraff and the SLMC. One recalls prior to that Muslim needs were expressed by distinguished leaders of the Muslim community as members of Tamil political parties – with a few exceptions through the UNP and Independent MPs. This is clear by the careful choice of words and expressions of young Rauf Hakeem, the incumbent SLMC chief, immediately after the Supreme Court pronouncement invalidating the Merger. The unfortunate so called “strategic temporary eviction” of those of the Islamic faith from Jaffna has been publicly disowned by Tamil leaders such as the late TULF President M. Sivasithamparam and in more recent times by the LTTE hierarchy itself. Various attempts to undermine traditional ties to divide the Tamils and the Muslims in the North-East have been made and have failed. While Tamils have no objection to Muslims heading political institutions in the Eastern Province where they are in the majority, both communities are satisfied that a merged North-East will, in the present and longer run, be in accord with the interest of both communities speaking the same Language. It is upto the political leadership of both Tamils and Muslims in the Province to ensure that other minorities amongst them, particularly the Sinhalaese, are in no way made to feel left out in the power-sharing arrangements that are now in the blue-print. Ivan should also look at the population figures of the EP from 1948 and satisfy himself whether today’s figures are distorted against the Tamils – all due to politically engineered Colonisation. If not for this Tamils would have continued to form more than 50% of the population of Trincomalee and much more in Batticaloa.

Thondaman (Snr) did not, in fact, secure any special “leverage” for himself, for the CWC or for the Plantation Tamils – as was the general impression created in the South and by the Press in an effort to discredit Thondaman in the eyes of the majority Sinhalese. If he did, there was no need for him to have gone on ‘Peaceful Strikes’ ‘Prayers’ and so on to secure higher wages for his workers. The CWC is still fighting for reasonable wages for their workers without dislocating the industry. Yes. He did get them Citizenship Rights but this was more a ‘restoration of rights’ that were lost in 1948 than any new rights that he surreptitiously secured through his position of advantage – as has often been suggested. In so far as the Vaddukottai Resolution is concerned while agreeing Tamils were deeply aggrieved he did not agree with the instrument of a Separate State. In his wisdom, he felt that path will bring great harm to the Tamil people in the long run. Similarly in the 1990s when both feuding sides remained unyielding after much bloodshed, he suggested it may not be a bad idea after all to give the LTTE a free run for 10 years to bring peace to the Tamils within the Sri Lankan State. He was denigrated for this in the South for years. CBK, seeing the vision in this thought repeated the suggestion. Today, it is part of the proposals made by the Experts Committee. And, as to Jaffna Tamils and their voting in the Citizenship issue in 1948 it must be said many of them did, in fact, vote against it. The Federal Party, if you recall, was formed by the Jaffna Tamils as a protest against the Citizenship Bill.

Ivan’s analogy of Prabahkaran and the political leadership in Colombo living in respective ‘Bunkers’ in their separate kingdoms is a valid indictment of what politics has brought our country today. Worse, which Ivan does not comment on, is the fate of tousands of motorists and road users in the Greater Colombo area consigned to their own bunkers in the road for hours – while our popularly elected politicians cruise about in their limousines with their near and dear ones.

Ivan’s comment on the enormously costly “White Elephants” – namely the Provincial Councils must be considered seriously. The PC system, while of little usefullness in the rest of the country, on the other hand, can be an instrument that can be used to bring the governed in the North-East closer to the government. This was, in fact, the vision of the framers of the 13th Amendment. It is still not too late to try this out in the majority Tamil-speaking areas in the North East so that the Tamil people, at the end of the day, are entirely responsible for the development of their areas and for the political harmony of their people – always a serious head-ache to governments in Colombo. As for the Merger itself this is much more to my acceptance than an outright Separate State. A merged Province will continue to remain within the Sri Lankan State subject to the laws of the land – as it was from 1987 to 2006.

One cannot fault Amirthalingam for not using his position as Leader of the Opposition to help the Sinhalese in 1977. How could he? The moment he was made Leader of the Opposition innocent Tamils in the whole country were attacked, their possessions looted and their homes desecrated – allegedly by thugs and supporters of the UNP and the SLFP. What more? They were transported from Colombo and elsewhere by the Government, then in power – by trains, by road transport and ship to ‘their areas’ so that they could be free from these marauding attackers (a repeat of 1958 under the SLFP Govt) And, now we are breaking our heads over the “Traditional Tamil Lands” issue.

You refer to the South African miracle, which I am afraid will not succeed in the nature of our political culture here. Nelson Mandela was a god-send. He was able to carry his people through to “forgive the Afrikaaner, who exploited the black majority for so long” and build a new South Africa. Here we have a Government formed of diverse political groupings and unable to find its way through to a solution to the National Question. The Government then chooses an escape route and appoints an Experts Committee. Characteristically in our political style the Committee breaks into three pieces. Once the reception of the Majority Committe comes under fire the very same Government that appoints the Committee – and by definition should stand by its Report – distances itself since the extremist fringe is on the war path.

Ivan is not wrong in stating the Tamil people do not share the LTTE’s continued stance of a Separate Tamil State. They are waiting for the Government to announce what it proposes to offer the Tamil people – other than an ambigous “Maximum Devolution” story that has been in our political lexicon since Premadasa’s “I will not give you Eelam – but Ellam” days. In case Ivan has forgotten, the LTTE did give its proposals – in the form of ISGA. One does not have to accept them in toto. But we failed to place this even for the courtesy of a formal discussion. So why blame the Tamil people and the LTTE?

I hope my comments get to be read by the author and readers. Because, quite unfortunately, the germs of communalism and lack of pluralism have now deeply infected the journalist community as well. Sadly, The Island has proved itself to be not entirely free of this un-wholesome malady.

[A Letter to the Editor, published in the island.lk]