Central to a practical approach must be the recognition that it has taken nearly 100 years for things to get to the present sorry levels, and similarly, it will take at minimum another 30 to 40 years for maturity in attitudes of cosmopolitan liberalism. I have lived in the US for nearly four decades and have experienced firsthand the snail-paced process of social attitudinal changes – and that is with an already established egalitarian framework.

We can argue until hell freezes over as to what kind of political system best suit the Sri Lankan nation. Whatever one may be, make sure it is not one that imposes en masse implementations, rather, one that encourages incremental confidence building propositions. Anything less will be wholly unrealistic.

History cannot be unlived but the unwise decide to live its wrenching pain again.

A few months ago, Kosovo became an independent sovereign state because of the “oppressive unilateralism” by the Serbians against the legitimate rights and freedoms of the people in Kosovo. Although the lessons of others are there, the Sinhala nation (SN) refuses to learn that their unilateral repression against the Tamil nation (TN) will gradually but surely lead to a “Kosovo” in the island.

The historical combat between two kings; Ellalan from the TN and Dutugemunu from the SN is taught to every child in SL. But when Sinhalese become adults, they refuse to accept the nationhood of Tamils. It is funny but true. Britain colonsed these two nations at different times with a gap of a few years, later joined the two countries as one country and named it Ceylon. But to this day SN refuses to recognise constituionally, the nationhood of Tamils. Sound reasoning appears to disappear into a cloud of unilateralist repression in adulthood !!

The SN declared UDR- Unilateral Declaration of Republic- in 1972 and annexed North East (NE) illegally into its terrirtory, when Ceylon was still a dominion under the queen of England. Britain should have called a constituent assembly in the NE and granted independence separately. But Britain failed to do justice though it faced UDI in Rhodhesia in 1966 and reacted with non recognition of the UDI regime and economic sanctions.

An unjust Britain and a defiant rebel state forced the TN to seek independence. The Tamil leader SJV Chelvanayakam, seeing the rugged journey ahead said ” God only can save Tamils”. He commenced a gradualist approach and his vision was “if we do not see the promised land our children should definitely see it”.

Realising that the constitution of the rebel state of SL provided muscle for subjugation, oppression and occupation of NE, the elected representatives of NE assembled and resolved at Vaddukoddai in 1976, to establish an independent state called Tamil Eelam (TE). Following this event, TULF as a political front, used the election process in 1977 as a self referendum, to receive peoples’ mandate. Never were a people so patient and democratic, but Britain was stone silent and SL became defiant and oppressive.

Still adhereing to the best democratic principles, TULF representatives assembled with armed freedom movements at Thimpu, India, in 1980′s, to work out a strategy to realise the 1977 mandate to liberate NE. The assembly at Thimpu was similar to the gathering of representatives of any territory aspiring for independence. After much deliberation and thought, “Thimpu declaration” calling for the self determination of the people of NE was made.

Logically, legally and democratically, the next step would have been to ask the UN to decolonise TE and finish the job unfinished by Britain, obligated by the UN. Self determination for NE would have been speedily achieved.

But, with the intent to solve the problem regionally without international intervention, India intervened and finalised the Indo Lanka Accord (ILA) with some dgree of self rule for NE. Tamil leaders predicted the abrogation of ILA but could not prevent compliance.

Tamil leaders were right. After a shelf life of 20 years, ILA now remains abrogated with the demerger of NE.

Based on Thimpu Declaration, now, the people of NE could stand tall and justifiably and sucsessfully plea for self determination of the people of NE before the UN, request countries to recognise TE and seek justification from the International Court of Justice. “Kosovo” in the island would be then soon be born.

Wise thinking should therefore be, as to how the two countries TE and SL could be at peace and develop together in the island peacefully.

hell of a lot of big words and concepts from a PHD in consitutional reform yet no a word a lay person or a simple minded person can understand. (like me)

anyway, what i was hoping was that some out there giving facts as points rather than concepts on what will be asked and given as a power devolution. all this reminds me of NATO – no action , talk only.

lets thrash out the operational level details of a power devolution?

In some ways this is respectable. Those who engage in violence are sacrificing something. It is not easy to kill a fellow human being.It takes a great deal of suffering and suffering that is unresolved to embark on the path of violence.

The answer to violence is NON VIOLENCE. We cannot take this lightly. It requires a personal commitment of a very high order. You need to bring EVERY aspect of your life into line with the truth – from what you eat, how you spend your money and how you relate to yourself and others.

In the absence of such a commitment this practice of sitting on a chair and reeling off theories about various ‘frameworks’ has ecome a respectable scholarly occupation. Such people sacrifice nothing and I have the least respect for them.

I am sorry to sound so negative in this fair forum. It is high time that we at least recognize that in the midst of all this violence we do not have ONE sincere advocate of non violence. This is a defeat we must come to terms with – all of us in all communities. Before you can recognize a Gandhi you must feel the absence of one.

This will not be felt so long as we get carried away by constitutional theories – liberal or otherwise.

Is it possible for a group, including yourself, take your conceptual framework and actually go through the process of drafting the nuts and bolts of that framework, in Tamil, Sinhala and English, for the voters to think and talk about it. Naturally, the draft should also have a short version that those who have not gone beyond secondary education to understand.

I have two other thoughts that persons of your calibre could comment on their merit or otherwise.
1. Humans, like our ancestors, are a territory anchored people. Naturally territory was and is still necessary for survival, expression of our abilities and multiplication. Our political structure is territory based. Our representative governance is territory based electorates. Is it possible to devise a representative democracy that is based on Sector based electorates. That is, agriculture, education, health etc. This will form the many Sector Councils that has equal number from each of the communities and gender. Then have a Coordinating Council of Representatives from each of the sectors that will have equal representation from ethnic and gender communities.

2. If the above is too far out, can both parties assume that two Virtual States exists in the Island. Both parties will formulate a “Virtual Constitution” for their “Virtual State.” Then, convene a real or a virtual constitutional council to formulate a constitution that would be in consonence with the two “Virtual Constitutions.” This may need adjustment of the first “Virtual States Constitutions.”

Even if the two thoughts above are not viable, getting people from all communities to discuss in public forum, virtual or otherwise, may lead us to think about other approaches to a just solution acceptable by all parties concerned. It is better than war. Repeating worn out and failed approaches such as the All Party Conferences have only widen the gap. New approaches like the one suggested by Publius deserve to be taken to the general public of all communities for discussion.

True enough, during Colonial times, the Empires that rules us chose the minorities above the majority for their own means and ends. But that has changed drsatically on the ground now.

Both are wrong.

Reading your commentary it appears your politics on power and sharing is evolutionary towards more accommodative direction. This is good.

However, the entire essay is missing the primordial question how these so great thoughts could be introduced and then implemented in the SL context? The need of the hour is not new and further analysis on how liberal constitutions hold promises to solve our nations issues, but how such constitution can be legalized in SL in the near future.
Even here the readily imported ideologies of liberal democracy and Kymlickan version of citizenship has pathological limitation to take root in SL as ours is still a transitional society (from pre-modern to modernity?) Without finding, a creative socio-political location for the traditional/indigenous powers represented by the JHU and (now a new Deshapremi Peramuna?) all, their proxies in major parties in the south negotiating ethnonationalism will be always violent.

One may challenge the moral/normative responsibilities of the Thamil nationalist and the LTTE. Where can they have their hope except in the self-destructive tigerish terror as a means of engagement? Because the story of the political history in SL since 1948 is too little too late. Do we need more example than the recently concluded APRC. The only thing that served was to rob 20 odd months of from his late years of life from a respected academic/politician like Prof. Tissa Vitharana.

Your writing reminds me texts from historical speeches of late Dr N. M. However, did the southern Sinhala polity give any respect to those political prophesy? On the contrary, it turned further inward further nationalist further narrowly. So is it not important to analysis how did we arrive here and what is the way out?

A cosmopolitan liberal constitutional power sharing is like Nirvana. We all know that is the best. Yet few knows how to get there?

Prof. Uyangoda put it dramatically once saying ‘the best way to be creative is that both parties offer a solution the other cannot refuse….’ A majoritarin right comes also with responsibilities. Then when will the liberals like you be able to convince the southern polity to offer the Thamil nationalist some thing they will be glad to agree on? Do you not agree what we need is little philosophy but an immediate political program to reach that end. I am reluctant to say: for the minorities it is a struggle to find legitimacy for political life while for the majoritarians it is the morality of letting others live.

But the frustrating aspect is how does one dislodge the warring parties from the self destructive path they are on at the moment . The LTTE’s raison d’etre for war and brutality is that there is no other way to defeat Sinhala hegemony and restore the rights of the Tamil people. For the equally obstinate majoritarian government, the LTTE is nothing but a terrorist movement seeking to divide the country and therefore has to be defeated by an equally ferocious military response. Backed by hardline groups like the JHU, who do not acknowledge the rights of the minorities or even if they do, only on their terms, the problem gets more complex and intractable.

For example, this mindset is reflected in Pravasi’s response to your article: “Majority with minority rights in the economy, professions, busines, education, employment and the least goes on. Let us share the privileges enjoyed by the Tamils and other Indians in Celon, Fiji, Malasia, Tobago, Kwazulu, Bradford, the list goes on. First defeat terrorism and remove the privilledges enjoyed by these so called minority.”

People like Pravasi see the socio-political landscape in simple black and white terms; like dogs who run along side speeding vehicles, barking fiercely, because they trigger of a wolf instinct that that takes them back to their ancestral environment of the jungle. In this schema, the speeding vehicle is seen as the black shape of a buffalo and by attackingly running along side it, it hopes to tire it and bring it down, for the pack to feast on.

Very often the lead dogs get killed in the process and it is the pack that gets to have the feast. In the human socio-political landscape, the pack is the elite who get the Pravasis to do the dirty work, using their simple mindedness in responding instinctively to anything that is seen as either threatening or disadvantageous to the tribe, or as prospective prey.

In the current political debate, write anything that has to do with federalism, minority rights, power sharing etc, and the Pravasis, are programmed to come at you barking, fangs showing. Usually not more than one paragraph often with many misspellings (this reveals their non-elite, vernacular educated backgrounds and the limited intellectual capacity to understand the reasoned, morally valid argument put forward ) they see in such words just black shapes- buffalos that must be brought down for the pack to feast on.

In a metaphorical sense the Pravisis have succeeded in bringing down the buffalo to its knees, if the power sharing debate is to be seen as such, allowing the majoritarian pack to gorge on the benefits provided by maintaining the status quo. Be it the politicians who enjoy power, prestige and rewards in the form of luxury vehicle, bungalows, children in international schools, trips all over the world, sometimes as part of large entourages; the generals of the forces too enjoy similar privileges as seen recently in the purchase of an L series Mercedes Benz for the top brass of the army valued at Rs44m! There are also those in the supply chain for procurement of military equipment and arms for whom the continuation of the war is a lucrative prospect. Take the current negotiations for the purchase of 4 MIG 29s, at a cost Rs7.5bn each.
The Pravasis too benefit from their work because, as part of the majoritarian community, (or as house slaves of the majoritarian community) there are enough crumbs falling off their richly laden tables for them to gorge themselves on, or if nothing else feel secure in the sense of tribal loyalty.
Finally I was quite amused when Pravisi says: “Let us share the privileges enjoyed by the Tamils and other Indians in Celon” (sic), because with Tamils being bombed on a daily basis, thousands in refugee camps, thousands suffering from shortages of food, medicine and other basic needs – I wonder what privileges he is trying to share!!

Unless and otherwise all the peoples of the land start treating each other as equal citizens of the nation irrespective of their origins, color, community and religion we will never be able to share power equally in a manner that is needed for good governance and peace and stab8ility.

The covenant of social contract or the Constitution needs to be re-written in order to remove all elements of religion, race, and social inequalities from within its text.

As long as thge majority community keep treating the nation as a Sinhala-Buddhist country we will always be in turmoil.

The examples are plentiful across the globe.

Time to wake up and live in peace!