On “traitors” and federalism: Beyond the hypocrisy, towards collaboration
Repost This ArticleBear with me and read the following carefully:
“The problems of the Tamil community are best known to the Tamils than any others. Any solution to our problems put forward by us should be taken into consideration by the other two communities – the Muslims and the Sinhalese. Furthermore the Tamils problems must have a Tamil solution and not a Sinhalese imposed solution. Even veteran politician Annan (eldest brother) V. Anandasangaree, leader of the Tamil United Liberation Front and senior cabinet Minister Douglas Devananda , leader of the Eelam Peoples Democratic Party, too has said time and again that they are for an Indian model.
It must be pointed out that today a federated unitary form with secularism enforced vigorously keeps India united, where as a theocratic unitary sectarian government, focusing on majoritarian numerical supremacy in Sri Lanka, has eroded the unity and pushed the country towards the brink of disintegration, dissension and division.
It is unfortunate that a section of the Sinhalese community has failed to understand the Tamils. They continue to suspects our genuine aspirations and try view our proposals always with suspicion. It is unfortunate that our proposals to maintain the unity and national integration of the country and keep it together are suspected and criticized.
It must be clearly told that without the cooperation of the Tamils, there cannot be peace and harmony in the country. Also the threat of division and separation cannot solve without the Tamils entering the main stream democratic process in the country. Therefore it is important that country should try to understand the genuine aspirations of the Tamils, address them by embracing them.”
Clearly, these words must belong to one who, according to the JHU, JVP and even sections of this Government, supports the vast NGO driven conspiracy to support the LTTE through the division of the country by advocating federalism? Surely, this person must accordingly be a traitor?
Yet, these words belong to none other than the Tamil hero of du jour of the Sinhala war-mongers, Col. Karuna, as reported in a recent interview. Colonel Karuna Amman, whose real name is Vinayagamoorthi Muralitharan (born 1966), is the President of the TamilEela Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP), a breakaway faction of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
Nobody has to date called Col. Karuna a traitor. Most recently, those who made representations on Sri Lanka’s gross human rights abuses at the Human Rights Council in Geneva were called traitors. Many leading NGO rights activists have been openly called traitors for advocating the very same principles that Karuna articulates above, for longer than he has.
I argue that the label “traitor” is an extremist reaction to democratic dissent. As I have noted earlier, many of those in power today including the President, by their own definition and based on what they have said in the past, can be called traitors. Yet this label persists to hound rights activists, especially from NGOs. As noted by Col. Karuna, Minister Douglas Devananda, V. Anandasangaree from the TULF, Col. Karuna himself and the APRC support federalism and a federal solution. Are they all traitors too? Why doesn’t the JHU or JVP brand these persons as traitors who are dividing Sri Lanka?
My article, in Sinhala, explores these issues further and I end by stating that it would be better to stop the hate campaign and mudslinging against NGOs and instead work with them to flesh out ideas on federalism that clearly commands the support of so many in politics today.
what i find amusing is those who take the moral stands on ‘terrorism’ have thus far failed to identify karuna as a terrorist. i cant recall a single protest, or even a squeak of resentment against Karuna or his TMVP.
trai·tor (trĒtər)
n.
One who betrays one’s country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.
If federalism erodes on Sinhala privileges and is therefore advantageous to the Tamil cause, a Tamil advocating federalism would not be a traitor to his community, while a Sinhalese would be, for the same reasons. Merits aside, the label is perfectly rational and appropriate. The question, as Terrence Deal said in a different context, is not what, but rather who and why.
“Any solution to our problems put forward by us”… etc.
The realisation of, as you may say, aspirations, proposals and what you have of the Tamils, is mutually exclusive to that of the Sinhalese on occasion – in fact virtually all the time – the problems being mutual and interrelated, and any “solution” that sees the Tamils as the only or primary stakeholder, will not have the go-ahead of the Sinhalese on the sole basis of “you must embrace Tamil aspirations without question”.
As for Deane, may I say that I’m more amused by the lack of bona fide protests (save for the token “squeak” as you say) by these saviours of human rights against the LTTE, when they’ve been engaged in worse abuses for a far longer time than Karuna has, yet most of their flak is directed at the latter, who is by far the lesser evil of the two. At least we are admittedly partisan, being the pseudo-patriots and war-mongers that you say we are, hence our temporary indifference to inconsequential indiscretions of a useful ally (although with all certainly he will be dealt with appropriately in due time), but your affected moral high ground comes with a responsibility to make an effort to avoid showing your true colours and loyalties with such gross flamboyance.
priv•i•lege [priv-uh-lij, priv-lij]
–noun
-Any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.en).
A federal constitution has the potential of ensuring that all ethnicities enjoy the same privileges which I guess is why you and so many Singhalese oppose it.
Why federalism? I like the following definition:
“Federalism is essentially a system of voluntary self-rule and shared rule. This is implied in the derivation of the word ‘federal’, which comes from the Latin foedus, meaning covenant. A covenant signifies a binding partnership among co-equals in which the parties to the covenant retain their individual identity and integrity while creating a new entity, such as a family or a body politic, that has its own identity and integrity as well. A covenant also signifies a morally binding commitment in which the partners behave toward each other in accord with the spirit of the law rather than merely the letter of the law.” – John Kincaid
You mentioned the Tamil aspirations are mutually exclusive to those of the Singhalese virtually all of the time. Can you specifically state what these are?
the ltte’s ar the tmvp are not fighting to prove that the tamils are needs to be more privilaged than the singhalese. They r fighting just to get back their basic self-respect for the tamils, which was prohibited by the singhalese. So. federalism, would create a wrap-over both the sides. Everything should be changed even the way we speak.evrybody r human beings with the same feelings and pride.so what is the need to divide the people by naming them, singhalese or tamils or indians or russian.
So, let us try to maintain a good brotherhood relationship, so that the forth-coming generations could lead a peaceful life.