tw news-features

By Col R Hariharan (Retd.)

Many people in Sri Lanka and friends of Sri Lanka everywhere are dismayed at the Eelam War - 4 now being waged under a façade of ceasefire. It is taking the country and the people away from finding a workable solution to the ethnic problem in the near future. The ostensible objective of this war of the government side is to “bring peace and freedom for the people” in areas not under the control of government. On the other hand the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have reverted back to their avowed military aim of “freeing Tamils from Sinhala racists” promised earlier by their leader Prabhakaran. It is clear that both sides have reduced ‘peace and ceasefire’ as nothing more than propaganda cliché for the consumption of the international community. It also saves the face of the Tokyo donors conference members, who appear to be helpless in controlling the events anymore. The reality is that the security forces are fighting to gain physical control of territories in the north and the LTTE is resisting it.

The series of military victories in the east have boosted the military constituency within the government, just as they have alarmed the LTTE which can relate to military operations more easily than political negotiations. So body count has become the order of the day of measuring success. Every dead body, regardless of its ethnicity, religion or language, leaves behind a family who would be scarred for ever. That means on an average five people affected by each death adding five more notches to the depth of ethnic divide. If lasting peace with honour is the objective of the nation,then it is time to examine military operations not in simple terms of who is winning or losing. Everyone concerned should do well to introspect why the war is being fought now, than merely applaud every victory or mourn mounting losses.

Many readers of my articles share their views on Sri Lanka situation with me. They include Sinhalas, Muslims, Tamils of all kinds and others. Majority are really concerned about what the future holds for the people. A small minority are hate mail specialists whose views are bound in ironclad dogmas, myths and half truths. Many beliefs expressed in the mails reflect historical prejudices, ‘hate’ reactions, and narrow loyalties, rather than objective analysis. (Unfortunately, many of these appear to be those perpetuated in the popular media coverage, which sensationalise issues without informed criticism.) Most of them seem to miss out to understand what everyone ultimately desires ? to create a society where all citizens live and lead a normal and secure life based on mutual trust and equality .A federal form of government adapted to Sri Lankan conditions offers the best chance of creating such a society without damaging the unity of Sri Lanka. in due course it will also help the nation outgrow narrow ethnic identities.

There are three stark truths emerging from the conflict in Sri Lanka:

(1) In spite of losing over 64,000 lives the conflict appears unending. Past experience indicates it could drag on forever unless there is a paradigm shift in mindset.

(2) Any lasting solution has to be equitable and fair to all parties.

(3) Except for a small number of chauvinists, all sections of society would like sincere implementation of an accepted solution to usher in lasting peace. As a corollary, the priority now is to find a solution based on commonsense, rather than gut reactions, with the single objective of how to achieve a win-win situation - that is to bring the ethnic conflict to an end so that peace can be restored permanently in a democratic society. (Many doomsday men on all sides may consider this naïve because it states the obvious. But from the feedbacks I receive I find increasingly the heart rather than the head is taking over the minds of people. As the war continues it is recharging the embers of hate.)

Based on Indian experience in handling insurgency and ethnic problems, I have tried to objectively analyse and answer some of the popular ‘notions’ expressed to me in the feedback. (Statements 9 to 11 given below are usually from Tamil readers, while others are mostly from non-Tamil readers):

1. As the security forces are winning the war, why can’t we eliminate LTTE to solve the Tamil problem?

LTTE is not the basic issue. LTTE’s violence is the manifestation of a long history of unattended grievances of Tamil population. Unless the basic Tamil grievances are addressed even if LTTE is not there some other organisation will take up the cause. Moreover, for the last 24 years the efforts to wipe out LTTE have not been wholly successful; so how long should the bloodletting continue?
India’s long experience in counter insurgency has shown that political process has to keep pace with military operations. One without the other will not resolve the issue permanently. Sri Lanka will have to address the issue of devolution of powers to Tamil population. It has nothing to do with unitary or federal form of governance or merger of the north and east. They are secondary to the basic grievances of the Tamil population. In other words, the proposed solution should be attractive enough to wean away Tamils from finding a solution through violent struggle.

2. If Prabhakaran is removed from the scene, can the problem be solved easily?

This question is partly answered in question 1.Tamil militancy is rooted in a cause and not in a personality. What will happen to LTTE after Prabhakaran is a $ 64 k question? At present Prabhakaran is spearheading it, so his absence from the scene will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on LTTE’s capability. However, downgrading of LTTE’s capability alone is unlikely to end Tamil militancy. It will gather momentum when another leader rises up. So a finding a solution acceptable to the people is the only viable option to end the relevance of armed struggle to the people. We have seen this in Indian experience in Mizoram and Nagaland.

3. Does this mean no military action should be taken against terrorist groups like LTTE even as they militarily challenge a legally elected government?

Undoubtedly the state has a responsibility to safeguard the lives of citizens and ensure territorial integrity. So use of security forces in such circumstances is legitimate. Military victories are essential to control insurgency, ensure national security, gain lost initiative in governance, and improve national morale. They also help in ramming home the futility of armed insurrection into the insurgent minds so that they become more amenable to examine other non-violent options to achieve their aims. But if military operations continuously threaten the lives of ordinary citizens and the State tramples upon human rights of the population, the basic grievances of the population will not be attended to and militancy will continue. So use of military should be judicious and pointed, essentially to further a political process. It is only a means to an end rather than the end in itself.

4. Sinhalas are the majority and Sinhala nationalism is the same as Sri Lanka nationalism; why do the media brand it as chauvinism?

Unfortunately in Sri Lanka from the colonial times the citizens have been classified on an irrational mix of ethnic, regional or religious (in the case of Muslims) basis. This classification has continued to divide the citizens and is reflected in all aspects of society. As Sinhalas form the majority, there is a lot of confusion between ethnic and national identities. Sri Lanka is not unique in this regard. India, Pakistan, Bhutan Nepal and to some extent Bangladesh also suffer from this aberration. In India we have tried to resolve it through devolution of powers to the local population in varying degrees using different structures suited to local conditions. This has partly enabled the minorities to feel confident that their identity would not be subsumed by the identity of the major segment of the population. However, this has not solved every internal conflict in India due pulls and pressures of politics. However, the structural mechanisms in place have diffused the sense of alienation that periodically builds up among minority population. So we have a Muslim President, a Sikh Prime Minister, a Sikh Army chief and a Parsi Air chief without ruffling the feathers of the majority community. Less emphasis on majority identity in social and public life would help in evolving a national identity.

5. Sri Lanka has to remain a unitary state because it is too small a state. So why talk of any other solution?

The priority for Sri Lanka now is to end the conflict and not to waste any more years in rhetoric. Everyone regardless of their beliefs or ethnicity is suffering either directly or indirectly due to the conflict. They need peace; so the need of the hour is to work out a formula that is acceptable to all parties and not merely the majority. Let academics debate the relative merits of unitary vs. federal/con-federal/quasi federal issues at least for the time being. Evolving solutions become easier when more and more people find a stake in maintaining peace. In any case, war is an inappropriate and inadequate tool to bring about unity. No nation has been unified only through arms. Size has nothing to do with the question of finding an appropriate form of government that meets the needs of the people. Small states with multi-ethnic populations can evolve mechanism to provide peoples participation in governing themselves. A federal form of government adapted to Sri Lanka’s needs perhaps will meet the aspirations of the aggrieved people.

6. India used the Tamil problem in Sri Lanka for selfish reasons and created Tamil militancy; so India should solve it.

This is a mixture of fantasy and half truth to oversimplify a complex issue.

(a) There was the Tamil problem festering politically in Sri Lanka for three decades when India did not intervene. The militancy grew when the political instruments available to Tamils failed because the rulers of Sri Lanka did not have the courage of conviction or vision to resolve it politically. On the other hand, it was used for political gains that culminated in the 1983 pogrom. After 1983 Tamil politicians lost their credibility and militants grew in strength as a visible alternative for the people. Due to the spontaneous surge of public opinion after the 1983 violence, the Tamil militants found refuge and succour in India and grew in strength in the 90s. At the same time, India made repeated efforts to help Sri Lanka resolve the issue peacefully. The Indo-Sri Lanka Accord 1987 was the culmination of such efforts. While it did not wholly satisfy the Tamils or Sinhalas, it met most of their aspirations and provided room for development of goodwill between the populations. However, it failed to resolve the issue because LTTE did not accept it and the Sri Lanka did not implement it in letter and spirit. LTTE had its own agenda for the creation of an independent Tamil Eelam and the ambition to emerge as the sole leader of Tamils. Indian troops were involved in armed conflict with LTTE in a bid to disarm them as per the Accord, and managed to restrict LTTE activity to a small area. However, President Premadasa for his own political gain colluded with LTTE to get the Indian troops evicted. Thus after sacrificing 1255 lives of its own soldiers in the aborted endeavour in Sri Lanka, India has perhaps realised that ultimately Sri Lankans only have to resolve the issue in their own wisdom. At the same time, those who hold India responsible for Sri Lanka’s maladies, should not be forgot that in India there is a large Tamil population with strong political and economic clout in the national scene. As they have living links with Sri Lanka Tamils, the political and military shocks of Sri Lanka situation will echo in Tamil Nadu. And to certain extent it will condition Indian attitudes towards Sri Lanka. This is inevitable in democratic polity, and has to be factored in building relations between the two countries. It is in the national interest of both the countries not to allow parochial considerations to overtake rational judgement.

(b) It would be futile for any country to expect another country to resolve a national problem. Each nation has its own self interest and national priorities; so it is in the national interest of Sri Lanka to try and resolve its problem, consciously with the help of other nations, if need be. For any solution to succeed all the people of the country should have a say. Then only national ownership of the solution and its faithful implementation are possible. If another country works out a solution and leads in implementing it, the effort could fail due to suspicion among the population as Indian experience of 1987-90 had shown.

7. Why are foreign countries (including the Four Co-chairs and India) ganging up against Sri Lanka? Are they trying to thrust their solution or perpetuate the crisis situation in Sri Lanka to serve their own self-interest or global agenda?

All countries in the world have their own interests and agendas. Often these dictate their foreign policy perceptions. Sri Lanka also has its own national agenda and interest and successive governments have tried to prosecute it in their own wisdom. So it is unrealistic to interpret international relations in black and white as Us Vs Them. They are usually in the realms of grey. Nations handle international issues with a mix of national interest and international accommodation to build a win-win situation. However, after 9/11 there is a genuine desire among global community to join hands to crush terrorism on an international basis. In conflict zones, international effort to usher in peace through mediation is part of this desire. It would be trivialising this effort on perceived secret agenda of global powers. Such accusations also do not give credit to the goodwill Sri Lanka enjoys among nations. This was the reason for so many nations to underwrite the development package for Sri Lanka as a part of the international mediation effort. Sri Lanka will dissipate this fund of international goodwill if xenophobia is allowed to take over and international opinion is totally disregarded.

8. Tamil Nadu supports LTTE.

Sri Lanka Tamils enjoy a great deal of sympathy and evoke fraternal feelings in Tamil Nadu. It is true the Tamil struggle for autonomy also finds wide support in Tamil Nadu. However, this does not translate automatically into support for the creation of independent Tamil Eelam. Tamil militant groups including the LTTE enjoyed widespread support in Tamil Nadu till the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord 1987 came into force. There were a number of reasons why the Tamil militants particularly the LTTE do not enjoy such support now. The Indo-Sri Lanka Accord was welcomed in the State. However, the decision of the Government of India to employ Indian troops to disarm LTTE and get involved in a long drawn war in Sri Lanka was not popular. LTTE failed to cash on this advantage by carrying out its turf war in Tamil Nadu even after the pull out of Indian troops. LTTE killed leaders of other Tamil militant groups in Indian soil. Tamil Nadu politicians’ reputation got sullied in these heinous acts for various political and non-political reasons. LTTE’s assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, a popular national leader in Tamil Nadu in 1991 was the final straw that dashed the public support for Tamil militants and LTTE . Since then LTTE never regained the clout it enjoyed in the 90s. The pro-LTTE political parties of Tamil Nadu are small and have only pockets of strength. Even they only pay lip service to the LTTE because it does not help vote bank politics. If Tamil civilians suffer at the hands of Security Forces in Sri Lanka, as it is happening frequently now, it will provide the opening for pro-LTTE parties to enlarge their constituency using the plight of Tamils rather than LTTE’s war as the rallying call.

9. The Tamil issue can only be solved militarily, because Sinhala chauvinists will never allow Tamils to live peacefully. Why object to it?

There are three reasons why this problem can never be solved even if theoretically Eelam is created with force of arms.

(a) Majority of the Tamils live outside the geographical region of Tamil Eelam made up of north and east. If Tamils ’solve’ the problem militarily, what will be the fate of those Tamils? If Tamils cannot tolerate Sinhalas and Muslims in their territory (as done by LTTE, which evicted them), how can they expect others to tolerate Tamils in their midst? Outside the north and east (even in the east to some extent) the Tamil community is dispersed and live as minorities. So to partition the country only on linguistic basis is not realistic. So military ’solution’ will only perpetuate the Sinhala-Tamil hostility rather than solve the problem.

(b) Militarily it does not make sense. Being a minority of less than a fifth of Sinhalas, it will be perpetual drain on Tamils to retain their military ‘conquests’. Israel surrounded by a large Arab population that has made a common cause with Palestine is a good example of a militarised nation. Israel despite its global money power, strong support and muscle power of the U.S, and the West does not enjoy the privileges of a peaceful nation.

(c) Both Sinhala snf Tamil population are tired of the prolonged armed conflict. Most of them would like to lead a normal life with social security, employment opportunities and peaceful family life. Over the last decade there had been a better understanding of the Tamil grievances among Sinhalas. However, political expediency of Sri Lanka politics has resulted in the use of the Tamil issue as a ploy to capture power. As a functional democracy support of majority of the population is needed to support any peace formula. Fortunately, Sinhala and Tamil chauvinists form only a small minority of the population. So Tamils and Sinhalas have to shelve their historical suspicions and try and work out a win-win situation. There is no other alternative.

10. LTTE is invincible; it was able to take on Indian army as well as the Sri Lanka forces. So why bother with peace talks?

No force is invincible. And LTTE is no exception. It is true the LTTE has grown in power and strength over the years. It had learnt its lessons after suffering heavy losses during 1987-90, when it had to collude with President Premadasa to get out of a desperate fight for survival with Indian army. Its operational performance on a number of occasions against Indian army and the Sri Lanka forces had shown that it was not invincible. Its performance in 2006 in operations has not been good. In any case, their victories and bloodlettings have not enhanced the chances of achieving an independent Tamil Eelam. LTTE itself knew this when it signed the Oslo declaration. There it had compromised on Tamil Eelam by agreeing to find a solution within a united Sri Lanka. This was a pragmatic decision because the emerging international counter terrorism regime was getting tough to beat. More countries than ever before have now banned LTTE. As the support from Tamil Diaspora gets throttled, LTTE’s fighting capability will be affected because waging war is a costly proposition; and war produces diminishing returns. Already it has lost the east, and is fighting with its back to the wall to retain its hold in the north.

11. LTTE represents the Tamils. So why bother about other Tamil organisations?

No. LTTE is not representative in character as understood in a democracy. LTTE has assumed the mantle of representing the Tamil constituency after liquidating a large number of Tamil political leaders, intellectuals, and militants of other Tamil groups. LTTE has never allowed the public to critically question or debate its views and actions. It is least tolerant of dissent among its own cadres. (Karuna is a recent example of this aberration.) Its vision is a vague autocratic socialist regime somewhat on the lines of Baath socialism (like Syria and Iraq under Saddam Hussain). Essentially a militant organisation, it has never participated in an election under its own banner, giving up its armed power. However, in the present context it does represent the military capability of a large section of Tamils who use it to guide their political decision-making. As the most powerful and dominant Tamil movement at present, LTTE has an important role to play in evolving a solution. But a lasting solution can only be evolved when the State and LTTE agree upon a structure of state where everyone including Tamils who do not agree with LTTE’s political and social perceptions, have an equitable role to play. LTTE and Tamils have to come to terms with this reality; otherwise Tamils will never enjoy the fruits of democracy. [Courtesy: saag.org]

(Col. R Hariharan, an intelligence specialist on South Asia, is a retired Military Intelligence officer. He served as the head of intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka 1987-90. E-mail: colhari@yahoo.com)

By Sydney Knight
[Rajagiriya]

The alleged ‘interference’ with the work of the Editor of a daily to my mind is an infringement of the freedom of the press. For me, it is not the persons involved but the office that they hold -one the Editor; the other the Defence Secretary.
This case is not the first incident of the State denying the freedom of the press. The sky is the limit for examples.

However, one cannot allow this to happen, for we in Sri Lanka celebrate the freedom of the press. Editors may come and go. Secretaries will come and go. But the freedom of the press is a vital tool for liberal democracy.

That group of newspapers, the daily and the Sunday edition, to my mind symbolize the freedom of the press and are the tools in a liberal democracy to create good public opinion. That is what the Editor and her group of newspapers are doing so well. Not only with the medium of words but also their cartoons so well done: very topical, contemporary and critical. Their cartoons have displayed great courage.

We in Sri Lanka, to use a hackneyed phrase, want to eat the cake and also want to have it. In the global village, we pontificate about the freedom of the press. We want to have it, but we want the press to fall in line. That will not do.

In the UK, in the context of the fiasco of the Iran Crisis, and the permission given to the fifteen UK Naval captives to sell their stories, the Defence Ministry had to face a lot of criticism. The BBC gave time to allow the Deputy Editor of the Daily Telegraph to criticise the establishment. The Minister himself had to face the Labour backbenchers on their return to the Commons after the Easter vacation. That speaks volumes for the UK and the freedom of the press.

All of us in Sri Lanka will not agree with all that is said, but we must together fight for the freedom to say that.
As a regular writer to the columns of the press, I plead that we in Sri Lanka do not lose that freedom.

I hope and pray that our President on his return from the Vatican will look into this.

Of course I must confess that the Vatican is not the best place to learn about the freedom of the press!

By Dushiyanthini Kanagasabapathipillai

The Peace building and Development Institute in Sri Lanka in partnership with Peace building and Development Institute – International Peace and Conflict Resolution Division of American University has arranged a week long training on “Youth & Conflict: Integrating Youth in Peace building Training” at Palm Village Hotel in Uswetakiyawa.

The training program was held from April 23rd to 27th 2007. It was the first annual International and Regional Peace building and Development training Program in Sri Lanka. Participants from all over Sri Lanka from all communities participated in the training program.

The views cast by the participants are compiled and reflected here:

Jude Sutharshan from Jaffna:

“Youth are the most vulnerable group in present war situation in Sri Lanka. Youth are being abducted, killed and disappeared on daily basis in Jaffna. Many youth are vacating their native land due to fear, and safety. The victims of the war can realize the brutality of the bloody war better than anybody. If the youth who suffer are given an opportunity in peace building, it will be more effective than any other initiative.”

Janaki Dias from Colombo:

“Youth have novel ideas and have the energy to implement their ideas. They are our future. I think youth should be entrusted with more responsibilities in peace building.”

A.C.M. Mahir from Kathankudy:

“The youth have the capabilities to create new thinking and make social changes, which lead to new ways for peace. They should influence the leaders, who have power in building peace. The leaders should be able to lead the society towards peace. The youth can create a relationship across dividing lines, and raise their voice for peace and against war.”

Jeyathevan Kaarththigeyan from Trincomalee:

“Sri Lanka will have more elders than youngsters in twenty years. We all are well aware of this issue, and the reason for it is cruel war . Therefore the youth who think about the country and the future of the development of the country should join hands in peace building, which will lead the rest of the society to think about sustainable peace.”

Christie Y.Jeyanandan from Batticaloa:

“Youth are the future leaders. They have to be identified and let take part in peace building. They can be manipulated easily and misused. The youth should be handled carefully and selected to share the space for peace. If we plant the seeds for peace in their minds, we can put the county on the path to peace. They are the key to peace of a country.”

Ponnuthurai Sivakumar from Kilinochchi:

“Today’s youth are tomorrow’s leaders. The youth should be motivated towards peace, not towards war. The grassroots level should be brought to the mainstream, and be given a chance in national level. The youth are committed, therefore make use of the force for the betterment of the country. We have to make them feel the country is theirs, and they have a duty to commit.”

A.G.Naushad Ahmed from Pottuvil:

“We have to understand the differences and work together on commonalities. The youth have this capacity to work. They are very enthusiastic. We have to create an environment for them to understand and coexist for all communities to live in peace and harmony. The youth can change things, they can either make or break. The leaders should give an opportunity to the youth to take part peace building, and listen to them.”

Stanislous Nimalraj from Jaffna:

“Youth are adventurous, and energetic. They can think with new ideas and relate easily with others in the community. Youth can break the barriers easily, unlike the adults. The chance should be given to them in building peace.”

Muhammed Sanoon from Valaichchenai:

“Youth are the backbone of a country and they are the leaders of tomorrow. They think differently and are creative, enthusiastic and more reliable to carry out certain tasks. They are the most vulnerable group, which could be easily manipulated in a conflict situation. They potentially play an important role in peace building”

Source: humanityashore

Contact: Dushi.Pillai@gmail.com

Is Rajapakse a full-fledged war-president?
GoSL and LTTE bunker down for protracted war

by Kumar David

If you believe that a military “solution” is desirable and possible you will be overjoyed, and if you think it a destructive delusion you will be horrified, but faint hypocritical echoes for the benefit of foreigners notwithstanding, GoSL is now fully committed to the military option. The Tiger for its part is not going to play pussy-cat, disarm, belly-up and purr in front of the Lion Army. The scene is set for several more years of debilitating war, humanitarian ruin in the North and East, and, in time, socio-political havoc in the South. As prices increase and economic hardship bites, as will in a prolonged military imbroglio, instability will swell. Let us take a long view and prognosticate about the next period in the likely history of this troubled island.

Is this a war-presidency?

A feature article in the Sunday Island of 8 April describes the Rajapakse Presidency as follows.

“Fighting the war half-heartedly is not a charge that even his worst enemy can credibly lay against President Rajapakse. The regime conducts its military operation undeterred by considerations about ‘collateral’ damage. The President’s brother is in charge of defence and the President backs him completely. Money and political support are available in abundance. The regime defends all actions of the Security Forces, unconditionally. This is the politico-military context . . . .”

That said, the brother has been frank enough to go on record portraying the cease-fire agreement as a fiction that GoSL disregards, and explaining the reason it has not been formally annulled is to pacify pesky foreigners. As Secretary for Defence he has also laid down a target of three years “to wipe out the LTTE”. Since military planners are congenital optimists, a three-fold correction factor is in order, hence we are facing about a decade of war to “wipe out the LTTE”, if it can be done at all.

There are those in the left and peace movements, who with the best of motives, unreservedly supported Rajapakse’s presidential candidacy in 2005. They argued that despite his Machiavellian deals with the JVP and JHU, Rajapakse was in truth a man of peace and we would see his true hue after the elections. After the elections, we were entertained by a new version of this legend. ‘Mahinda is good and peace loving, though weak’, the yarn went, ‘but he is surrounded and misled by a bunch of nasty warmongers and crooks’.

How much credence does this version hold? There is indeed a tightly knit ‘Presidential Cabal’, consisting of brothers Gotabhaya and Basil, perhaps Army Commander Fonseka and the JHU’s Ranawaka, and a few sleazy businessmen gathered around the President. It is known that this cabal, not the Cabinet of Ministers, is the true centre of essential decision making. The members of the cabal are on the whole intelligent and competent, a far cry from the menagerie of 100-plus kleptomaniac Cabinet and non-Cabinet Ministers, once described by one of themselves as a carnival of clowns.

Against this backdrop, if the ‘good Mahinda, bad cabal’ hypothesis is to hold it would also require a corollary hypothesis, namely, that President Rajapakse is not an integral ingredient of the cabal. The Sunday Island feature writer seems to reject this corollary, and so does this correspondent. Are there grounds to deny any longer that Mahinda-Gotabhaya-Basil, plus dubious business characters, and perhaps Fonseka and Ranawaka, constitute a single, united, tightly knit, political, military and business clique? A Marcos Marshal Law regime reborn!

This correspondent is one among those who did not rush to this judgement and in these columns and elsewhere, repeatedly asked for something different from the Rajapakse Presidency. Explicitly, previous editions of this column have said that President Rajapakse has the trust of the Sinhala people, the short-term parliamentary and military upper hand, and UNP support, to boldly propose full-fledged devolution as a basis for a political solution. Though never an uncritical supporter, this included exhorting him, after his election, to exercise his leadership before the window of opportunity closed. Now, after eighteen months in office, the window has all but closed, and he has, together with his cabal, regrettably, signalled a commitment to the military option.

The APC-ARPC melodrama, though, is still on-stage, now running to a half empty house; mostly to distract the Co-Chairs and India, all whom are glad to play along with the charade and refrain from penalties which may secure humanitarian or peace objectives.

What about the LTTE?

The LTTE reached its apogee of support among militant Tamil youth in the late 1980s and early 1990s. There were two reasons for this timing; the anger and frustration in the Tamil community had festered during previous decades and boiled over in young people reaching their late teens and twenties at this time, and secondly, it systematically exterminated all other Tamil militant movements and murdered the traditional Tamil leaders, thus assuring for itself a monopoly position. This enabled it to conduct a successful military campaign and blunt the army, to build a strong position in the diaspora and to cleverly exploit the cleavages between Sinhalese political parties and between the Sri Lankan and Indian governments during the Indira Ghandi and Premadasa periods and the Wickremesinghe-Kumaratunga dispute.

The Tigers have emerged as a formidable war machine and the recent air attack on the Katunayake airbase has displayed a quantum leap in technological capability. Only a foolish person, bereft of strategic thinking, could fail to appreciate the utmost importance of the modern knowledge-based, human-capital resources, it has acquired and demonstrated. Despite gaining the ability to fight large conventional battles the LTTE has also retained its guerrilla warfare capability as other events of the recent months have shown. This is one reason why despite GoSL procuring much better armaments, airpower and logistics, and despite clearly improved strategic talent, a military solution, that is a knock-out defeat of the LTTE, is not on the cards. In adversity the LTTE will switch and combine modes of warfare and keep going for a long time.

Notwithstanding all this, the real reason for the strength of the LTTE within the Tamil community lies elsewhere. Many commentators, and certainly not Sinhala nationalists alone, have pointed out that the Tamil community is oppressed by the near dictatorial mandate that the LTTE has conferred upon itself. Nevertheless, the rule of thumb, the one-third rule that Tamils use in the absence of meaningful elections to estimate Tamil political allegiance, is a reasonable guideline. Not much less than one-third of the community supports the LTTE, somewhat more than two-thirds sees the LTTE-TNA combination as the principal Tamil voice, and the rest remain relatively disinterested. Douglas, Anandasangaree and Karuna are minuscule and in truth the second largest ‘Tamil Party’ in Sri Lanka is the UNP.

Why despite the repression does the LTTE retain considerable Tamil support? Clearly most Tamils don’t want Tamil Eelam, and know in any case the likelihood is a myth. So it’s not that. The reason is simple: the LTTE stood up and fought. Everybody, whether Sinhalese, Tamil or Moor, knows that the South would not so much as stop to give the Tamils the time of day, let alone negotiate devolution, if the LTTE had not fought GoSL to a standstill. That is the lesson of fifty years of Sri Lankan ethno-politics.

Hence, though indeed the Tamils have messy and unfinished accounts to settle with the LTTE, the Tamil people will not, and cannot, settle their accounts with the Tigers until they have first settled their accounts with the Sinhala State.

Imagine if the LTTE is militarily wiped out tomorrow. What talk will there be of devolution, power sharing, or any such thing, on the day after tomorrow? Nothing! The Rajapakse Presidential Cabal (not to mention the JVP, JHU and the SLFP majority) knows this. So do the Tamils and the LTTE; such are the stakes. Hence, a military settlement is impossible. Any significant military gain by one side will only open a new phase, and perhaps a new form of military, social and political conflict. Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley are more intelligent than our home-baked halfwits in learning this lesson.

Nevertheless, the LTTE is finding recruitment ever more difficult both because of demographic changes in the Tamil areas and because today’s Tamil youth have not experienced the personal trauma that so embittered those of a generation ago. Whether GoSL ’solves’ this problem for the LTTE by embittering the populace by bombardments and perpetrating egregious humanitarian calamities, remains to be seen.

What is the end-game?

If on the one hand Thamil Eelam is impossible; and on the other a military solution is also impossible, that is, if the civil war in some form persists until the Sinhala State grants that which the Rajapakse Administration has set its face against granting, then what is the end-game? The only foreseeable end-game is a prolonged middle-game, a protracted war with no particular endpoint in sight. A regime change is not on the cards in the short-term, astrology aside, given the degree of Sinhala support for Rajapakse playing rough. A huge military reversal for GoSL may force a change of heart in Colombo, but that too is unlikely in the foreseeable future - the LTTE is, after all, now in retreat. Overall, this conjuncture adds up to prolonged, pernicious and inconclusive war.

Forgive me for closing with these frank but unhappy thoughts. Yes unhappy; my intention is not to lull you into deluded and vacuous bliss. Marx coquetted that the entrance to science must be festooned with the same inscription Dante used to sign-post the gates of hell:

“Here all suspicion must be abandoned

Every craven thought must be here erased”+ [island.lk]

Sri Lanka’s continuing crisis:
Dr. Colvin R. de Silva’s 1984 warning rings true in 2007

(Excerpts presented by Rajan Philips)

[The tireless chroniclers of Sri Lankan Left history, Wesley Muttiah and Sydney Wanasinghe, have brought out as a new publication the Selected Speeches and Writings of Dr. Colvin R. de Silva. The book includes twenty seven of Colvin’s speeches and writings spanning the fifty three years (1935 to 1988) of his political life, and a wide range of topics from India’s independence to the nationalization of Sri Lanka’s plantations. Chapter 25 of the book reproduces what Colvin wrote in 1984 and was published as a pamphlet, entitled “The UNP Government and the Crisis of the Nation.” Although written against the UNP Government of the day, Dr. de Silva’s castigation, diagnosis and prescriptions ring just as true and relevant to the Government of today. Excerpts from the 1984 writing are presented here with new subtitles.]

Tracing the roots of the crisis

The purpose of this pamphlet is to point out to halting the current slide to national disaster for which we hold the present (UNP) Government principally responsible – to halt and reverse it.

Regarded in historical perspective, it is the trend of a whole period that we are called upon to arrest and reverse. That period goes back to the fifty-fifty demand of Mr. G.G. Ponnambalam and the federal demand of Mr. Chelvanayakam. It advanced through the decitizenising of the Indian Tamils by Mr. D.S. Senanayake and the Official Lanaguage Act which is popularly known as the Sinhala Only Act, and comes right down to the Eelam demand by the TULF, led by Mr. Amirthalingam. The TULF coming to Parliament under that slogan and the emergence of the armed Tiger movement mark the last phase of that period.

The basic feature of the trend that has to be arrested and reversed is the drawing apart politically of the Sri Lankan Tamils from especially the Sinhala community, which of course, is the majority community in Sri Lanka – their drawing apart and their organizing themselves as a separate entity politically in the parliamentary arena.

Mr. Ponnambalam was the first major political figure in Sri Lanka who saw his way to parliament and power through an appeal to the Tamils as Tamils. Manifestly, the Tamil Congress (that Ponnambalam founded), with the Tamils only as their mass base, could never come to power on its own. One fateful reaction to Mr. G.G. Ponnambalam’s political line was the opposing line of the Sinhala Maha Sabha launched by Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranike. The vital difference in Mr. Bandaranaike’s effort lay in the fact that the Sinhalese community could by itself, command the overwhelming majority of voters at General Elections to the legislature on the basis of universal adult franchise. No other community in Sri Lanka could have that opportunity or perspective.

It was of course the selfsame Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike who, leading the SLFP-dominated MEP, came to power in 1956 with the battle cry of “Sinhala Only” as the Official Language in Sri Lanka’s state, to be effected moreover in twenty-four hours. The contribution of the resulting situation to the ultimate emergence of the Eelam demand requires no demonstration today. What we have to say is that the Sri Lankan Tamils cannot be held within a single Sri Lanka without this trend in Sri Lankan politics being arrested and reversed.

May we remind the majority community that we (the Left) pointed out in the days of the Sinhala Only Act that we could have one language and two nations, or two languages and one nation. The integration of the diverse groups in Sri Lanka into an organic unity which does not straitjacket the minority is in the interest of the majority community itself and of national independence.

Terrorism, not the real cause

The (UNP) Government is shrieking from the housetops that our country is in the gravest crisis of its history since independence. That contention is true. But the crisis of which the Government is shouting is not the true crisis.

The crisis, to meet which the Government is summoning the Nation to rally round it, is a military crisis. The cause of that crisis is presented as Tamil Terrorism. The task before the country is formulated as the task of defeating, destroying and rooting out that terrorism.

That terrorism is a major element in the present crisis is true. But terrorism neither constitutes that crisis nor is its prime cause.

The crisis we are facing today is a crisis of the nation. The roots of that crisis lie in what history may characterize as our failure in the post-independence period to build a Sri Lankan nation. We apparently have not achieved the degree of unity in diversity, which is essential to the survival of the single Sri Lankan state. The point that has to be made at this juncture with regard to this situation is that the major responsibility for the extent of the failure rests on (this) Government … What is more, the faith placed by the Tamils themselves in the (UNP) Government to lead the country into a new unity of the diverse racial and linguistic groups has been weakened, probably to the point of destruction.

One fateful consequence of this development has been to place the (UNP) Government more and more openly in the position of a negotiator representing the majority community in the Sri Lankan state’s relations with the Tamil minority. The state itself tends to gain the appearance of being primarily a state of the majority community rather than the state of all communities in the country.

There is another aspect to the matter, which adds to the acuteness of the national crisis. What should have been an entirely domestic question of the relations of the Sri Lankan Tamil community with the Sri Lankan state has been decisively internationalized in the handling of the question by the (UNP) Government. The outcome has been a serious deterioration of Sri Lanka’s relations with India … The friendship of India is vital to the peaceful settlement of our island’s problem.

The real cause: Government not making up its mind

If we look at the present situation in the above context it will be clear that what is being presented by the Government as an all-embracing political crisis which should preoccupy all sections of opinion and bring about a universal rallying to the support of the Government, is really a crisis resulting in a major way from its own policies. It is idle to hide behind a barrage of hysterical propaganda the palpable truth that we have got to where we have got to principally because the (UNP) Government has long been engaged in trying to solve an essentially domestic and wholly political problem of majority-minority relations by predominantly military means.

Despite much talk and sheer dilly-dallying in action about the need for a “political solution”, … what we have seen under the (UNP) Government is a steady, systematic and ever sharper stepping up of military (and police) action in the North and East, and now, in the rest of the country, not only against the elusive armed Tamil “Tiger” organizations, but also, sadly and repressively against the general mass of the Tamil people. From a political point of view, there has never been a bigger failure in a search for a military solution of a problem which required and continues to require primarily a political settlement or handling. We seem only to have got to insensate mutual killing on an ever widening scale. The most vivid commentary on the whole process is what is happening in the North (and East) today, with its “prohibited zones” and “security zones” and a Jaffna cut off from the rest of the country like an occupied city in enemy territory.

Is there a way out of this disastrous logjam in the national political process? In our view, the first need is actively and openly to renew the negotiation process which was the true purpose for which the All Party Conference was originally called … No more putting off of decision by the Government, which putting off has been the only real cause of the delays that have made deliberations drag on in an atmosphere of pointlessness. It is necessary to say that the delay has not been due so much to the need to reconcile intransigent rival positions of participants as to the inability of Government to make up its own mind as to what it will undertake to do. And thereby hangs a tale.

The immediate task: Government must put forward its own proposals

In the field of Tamil relations with the Sri Lankan State, the scene is littered with broken pledges in respect of negotiated settlements … It is not entirely to be wondered, therefore, that both the militant Tamil youth and the UNP Government have turned in a major way to other ways – violent military ways – for a “solution” of the problem of Tamil relations with the Sri Lankan State. But it must be recognized that the aggravation of open military clash … imperils the resumption and continuation to a satisfactory conclusion of the negotiating process. Fruitful negotiations demand the balm of peace! But let it be remembered that quietly negotiated settlements have ended many a war. There are many roads to peace by settlement than to victory in war and an imposed peace.

This no doubt is what lies behind the call to the Government from some quarters to call the Tigers to the (APC) table. It is a call for peace negotiations between clashing armies.

The immediate task, however, is not to decide with whom to talk. The immediate task is for the Government to come forward with its own positive proposals – and to speedily implement them, as the only means of finding out whether they are (a) practicable and (b) adequate, if not to solve the problem at least to set going a process that can lead to a solution.

It must be said openly that the Government can take such a step only if it can make up its own mind … What has also to be said clearly, firmly and actively, therefore, is that if the Government cannot even now, in this urgent situation, make up its mind about the proposals required in the situation, then, the Government must go; for it would itself have become the major obstacle in the way of the peaceful negotiated settlement of the problem.

What is to be done? Radical devolution, the only way out

The answer is first of all to carry through the devolution of power from the centre to the peripheries, through popularly elected institutions of a new state structure which is built on the basis of self-management. Therein lies the crux of the matter. Only the devolution of power from the centre to the peripheries on the basis of self-management of the people’s affairs can provide the framework for the solution of the majority-minority problem in Sri Lanka within a single state which runs the whole of Sri Lanka as one country.

It will be appreciated that the vital question in respect of the new state structure … is the nature and function of the power and functions devolved (to these bodies) at each level. There must be a genuine devolution that enables genuine self-government in the areas covered at each level; and genuine self government requires that the Central Government’s relation with those institutions is much more that of an adviser assisting them than that of an upper controller.

Incidentally, it is to be stressed that the devolution proposed is not in anyway intended to be confined to the North and East. The richness of the concept is seen from the ready relevance of the scheme to the problem that has arisen in the North and East.

It is only when a system such as this is actually established and set going, with the participation of all sections willing to participate, that it will be possible to find a way of negotiating an end to the acute military confrontation to which all attention has been directed. To take the position that no radical changes can be set going until the confrontation is overcome is really to say there will be no radical change; only radical changes such as those proposed … can bring those fresh forces of peace into the arena of war which is the crying need for getting out of the present murderous situation. Nothing less will do.

The Canadian Tamils’ Chamber of Commerce celebrated its 10th Annual Awards Gala Ceremony at the Hilton Suites Hotel in Toronto Markham on April 21, 2007.

CTCC has fostered entrepreneurship in the Canadian Tamil community for the last 16 years. The Awards Gala is symbolic of how members of the Tamil community are contributing immensely to the very fabric that makes up Canada’s multicultural society.

Several distinguished guests were in attendance. Federal Minister for Human Resources and Social Development, Hon. Monte Solberg, was the Chief Guest. The Guests of Honor included, Ontario Minster for Government Services Hon. Gerry Phillips, Ontario Conservative Opposition leader Hon. John Tory, and Ontario Minster for Children and Youth Services Hon. Mary Anne Chambers.

Mr. Logan Velumailum, President of the CTCC, welcomed everyone to the event:

“This is our sweet sixteen. This night is a celebration of fulfilled dreams and continuing aspirations. Stories of individual success fill this room in its entirety. We are gathered here today to celebrate your achievements. But equally, this night is to celebrate the Chamber, and all of you who make up this organization.”

[Hon. Minister Monte Solberg]

Hon. Minister Solberg brought greetings from the Prime Minister:

“He has asked that I bring greetings on his behalf to recognize not only the Tamil Chamber of Commerce 10th Anniversary Awards Gala Dinner, as important as that is. But he also asked that I bring greetings this evening to acknowledge the tremendous contribution the Tamil Community to this country, not only for the economic contribution you make to this country, but to the contribution you make as citizens, the cultural contribution you make that makes Canada such a great country.”

[Hon. Minister Gerry Phillips]

Hon. Minister Gerry Phillips shared his experiences with the Tamil Community: “One of the schools in my area is called L’Amaroueux Collegiate; probably the best honour you can get is to be valedictorian. 3 of the last 4 valedictorians in that school were from the Tamil community. My own staff I have 20 staff, and 4 of them are from the Tamil community. That’s 20 percent. Why do I hire them, because they are the best and brightest”.

[Hon. John Tory]

Hon. John Tory talked about his trip to Sri Lanka. He described the contribution of the Tamil business community to the greater Canadian economy: “You are through your efforts, through your excellence, creating jobs, creating employment and economic activity. That employment and economic activity creates money for the healthcare, and roads and services that the government provides”.

Since its inauguration, CTCC has awarded 46 winners in various categories. This year the Chamber recognized six entrepreneurs for service and contribution in the business world. The distinguished award-winning recipients for 2007 are:

Best Entrepreneur: Sinnadurai Jeyakumar, Sriram Sivagnanam and Sundaramoorthy Vinayagamoorthy, co-owners of Innovative Detailing Services Inc. sponsored by RBC and presented by Regional Vice President Lisa Gallacher.

Young Entrepreneur Award: Bharathy Matheeswaran, co-owner of Alankar Décor, sponsored by Scotiabank and presented by District Vice President Christine Williams.

Award of Excellence: Santha Panchalingam, owner of Santha’s Electrical and Plumbing Services, sponsored by ICICI Bank and presented by Vice President Retail Banking Rajesh Ramakrishnan.

Most Outstanding Professional Award: I. Francis Xavier, a renowned and celebrated human rights lawyer and activist, sponsored by CTCC and presented by The Scarborough Hospital Foundation Vice President Christine Williams and Hon. Mary Ann Chambers, Ontario Minister for Children and Youth Services.

Best Woman Entrepreneur Award: Logi Mariathasan, a highly regarded Bridal Consultant. Sponsored by TD Canada Trust and presented by Senior Vice President Jim Coccimiglio.

Most Outstanding Community Service Person: Dr. Pushpa and Frank Seevaratnam, co-founders of Home for Hope, which has helped rebuild the lives of many Tsunami survivors in Sri Lanka, sponsored by TD Canada Trust and presented by Senior Vice President Jim Coccimiglio.

[Logan Velumailum, President of the CTCC]

To see the photos from the event, visit: CTCC Photogallery

Photos By: Gnane Gnanendran

[Full Text of CTCC Press Release]