Responses and clarifications on Sri Lanka: Is the war really over?
Repost This Article[Editors note: This is a detailed response to over 30 comments left on Sri Lanka: Is the war really over? and read over 2,500 times to date.]
Though several comments made on my article were not directly related to the topic, I wish to respond to some of the issues that have been raised.
The lop-sided comments about the JVP do neither take into account the context nor the causes for their insurrections. Political violence in Sri Lanka cannot be properly understood without recognizing its complex relationship with the socio-political establishment. When social groups vied for access to state power or when they demanded their just rights, the state used repressive and violent force against them. The political violence of the state was accompanied by a continuous march towards authoritarianism, in which people’s hopes, aspirations, human rights and civil liberties were increasingly curtailed.
My argument was based on the fact that the ruling elite has cleverly manipulated the existing social divisions such as nationality, language, religion, caste to establish and maintain their political power.
The grant of universal franchise and lowering of the voting age allowed young people to take part in active electoral politics but no opportunities to take part in the social, economic and political life of the country. This led to unrest and armed insurrections
Free education was introduced in 1945. The medium of instruction was changed to local languages that led to an expansion of higher educational opportunities but not the freedom to question the existing social, political and ideological status quo and its value systems.
All governments, regardless of their political hue, failed to see or ignored the underlying socio-political, economic and psychological causes of youth unrest.
I have openly admitted that the JVP in 1971 should not have reacted to the government’s repressive measures the way it did. However, it was the domestic socio-economic crisis and the cold-war situation in the sixties and seventies that led to that situation. To simply put the whole blame on the JVP indicates one’s lack of understanding of what really happened during that period.
The pre-conditions for the insurrection in 1989 were creations of the then government. The repressive environment against the working people (when the government introduced neo-liberal economics to Sri Lanka) and the proscription of the JVP under the pretext that it was behind the 1983 Black July riots were the major two factors that led to this situation.
With regard to the size of the cake and the trickle down effects, let me say this. Making the cake bigger is necessary. However, that does not automatically make it possible for everyone to get a piece. Unless the working people ask for a piece and make demands for it, only a handful will share the whole cake.
Some western nations which have learnt this lesson have created social security networks and support systems to look after those who are in need. Countries like Sri Lanka cannot afford to make this happen because the ruling elites do not wish to share the cake.
‘Governments have a duty to safeguard their peoples and countries’ was another comment. I agree but with one condition. Governments have to equitably and fairly safeguard all its citizens and its provinces (or regions). Sri Lanka is in this current position precisely because successive regimes did not look after all its citizens and provinces fairly and equitably. That is why there is an urgent need to implement power sharing as a solution to the problem. I would like to add that I have never opposed attempts to delivering a political solution to the national problem.
Some including Dayan Jayatilleka seems to have caught the wrong end of the stick.
They did not “get it” that I began my article began with the statement that the conventional war between the GoSL and the LTTE has ended. There is no mention of a war continuing in the island. My point was, the political causes that led to the national problem and the war still remain. I have openly advocated power sharing as the political solution to this problem while consistently stating that a separate state was not going to address it.
As a matter of fact, in the 80′s, it was Dayan Jayatilleka and Tamil militant groups (including his EPRLF) that demanded the establishment of a separate state of Tamil Eelam to address the issues of the Tamil people. Dayan was a frequent visitor at JVP public meetings demanding that the JVP accept Eelam as the only solution to the national problem.
The JVP and I responded to this position by pointing out that Eelam was a non-solution to the problems of the Tamil people. Trying to divorce the question of power sharing from the militant struggle that was led by many groups (before the LTTE physically eliminated most of them) is to me more than hypocritical.
There is a great opportunity for all the Sri Lankans to make a fresh start towards a better future by making room for all its citizens to live as equals and be treated as equals in all respects. President Rajapakse has got the best chance to lead the island towards such a destiny.
All those who demanded a military solution to the separatist demand, have a duty and responsibility to call on the ruling elite to proactively provide leadership towards such a destiny by creating equitable opportunities for all citizens in Sri Lanka irrespective of their socio, economic, cultural and ethnic background. This is no time to be complacent as some comments indicate.
May be some of the issues I raise and the positions presented are based on ‘old politics, old slogans’ and the like. I would like to ask those who make such comments whether their politics and slogans are older or not.
The public meetings I attended in Canada were open to all. Despite the boycott by both the extremes, many moderates attended these meetings. The comment is entirely false and based on hearsay and nothing else.
Furthermore, it is just historically specious to state that that the war is over because one side lost and the other side won. One major example comes to my mind. The Allied Forces when they declared victory in 1918 thought it was a war to end all wars. Yet, thirty years later they had to fight another war.
A more recent example is the Israeli state. It has won every war with its Arab neighbours and the Palestinians, yet there is no peace. The reason is that they failed to take account of the underlying causes for the respective conflicts and attempted to deal with such issues only militarily. This brings me to the next point. How is the peace going to be sustained? Is it by dealing with the issues that gave rise to the conflict in the first place; or is it, sadly, going to be business as usual and the cycle repeats?
If the government is committed to the welfare of the people in the South, the North and the East then why is it:
- Continually narrowing the parameters of civil society by actively stifling dissent;
- Refusing to allow the media and the independent observers to report on what is happening to the 300,000 displaced people in the North;
- Not taking measures in a practical way to devolve power, apart from words and pronouncements to that effect;
- Unnecessarily delaying the implementation of the 17th amendment to the Constitution
- Not showing empathy for legitimate grievances of non-Sinhala communities;
- Avoiding the implementation of political reforms that are amenable to the island’s multicultural heritage;
- Expanding the security forces in a large scale;
- Not dealing with the causes that aggravate the economic crisis such as wastage, bribery, corruption and debt etc.
If these happen, I ‘will get over it’ ‘accept the reality’ and see the ‘current President is not like previous leaders’ of Sri Lanka.
Till then I reserve the right to my critical facilities, and skepticism.
Thanks to all those who commented on the article.
Mr. Bopage,
You may be conveniently imagining that I am based in Sri-Lanka. Sorry to shatter your hope. I wouldn’t have written on this matter without firsthand knowledge of the meeting that was held in Toronto, Canada.
Please don’t try to mislead the readers into thinking that the said meeting was boycotted by both extremes. Of course none of the Sinhala extremists attended this meeting; however, it was organized and well attended by the Tamil extremists. If you find the word ‘extremist’ too extreme for Tamils, then I will replace ‘extremist’ with ‘ultra-nationalist’. Furthermore, you make a silly assertion that it was a public meeting. The meetings that are held by the LTTE as well as those held by the Sinhala extremists such as JHU and JVP etc…are also public meetings.
Associating with people connected to the imperialist Berghoff Foundation puts you at odds with your so called left politics. I can understand you not addressing this issue because it must be hard for you to reconcile your connection to people who have received funding from this notorious agency with your politics. Incidentally, this only destroys the credibility of your “left politics”.
Kind sir, this old woman has all the time to walk around the city of Toronto no matter winter, spring, summer or fall checking out the entire goings on. Perhaps I’ve stumbled upon the wrong Bopage. You see, the Bopage I am referring to was parading around with a guy well known to the Berghoff Foundation. My reason for asking about your possible interview with Real News is because the guy you paraded around with is also an associate of this media network.
Adios!
“Dayan was a frequent visitor at JVP public meetings demanding that the JVP accept Eelam as the only solution to the national problem.”
I appreciate if you can provede evidence?
The eight points of concern at the end of Bopage’s post have not been addressed by the President so far.
For a start let the Journalist Tissanayagam and the three doctors who served in LTTE controlled Vanni be released.They are all innocent of any crimes.If they are not going to be charged,then they should be released. Mere words do not convince but acts do, if the President’s talk is to be taken seriously.
Dear Mr. Bpage,
People of your political stature who persistently call for a political solution should hypothetically be able to suggest a possible solution in outline. Now my contention is there does not exit a solution. I have been racking my brain to envisage one but try hard as I may I don’t see any way to incorporate the 54% percent of Tamils who live outside North and East and Muslims who live inside north and east. My present position is we must give about 10 years for the Tamils to migrate back to north and east , settle a good percentage of Estate Tamils in north/east until “75% of Tamils” criteria is fulfilled.
I respond reluctantly to set the record straight on the ‘imaginings’ of ‘Mrs Atheist’ on my political life and her ‘fallacious’ comments.
First let me clearly and unequivocally state that I have never attended a meeting with the Berghoff Foundation.
Saying this, I hasten to add that I would have no problem with meeting with members of that organisation. The Berghoff foundation is not proscribed by the UN or by statutes of international or domestic law.
If I met with people associated with this organisation, I would have stated like I have scores of times to a myriad of individuals, organisations and in meetings and writings over the years that there is a political and equity issue underlying the national question that has beset Sri Lanka that needs to be addressed. If we do not address this question it will fester on and mutate into new formations demanding our attention.
I did address meetings in Toronto, but like other public meetings, I did not know who attended these meetings. The feedback I received in Toronto was that the extremists from both communities boycotted the meetings because they found my opinions unpalatable.
It would have been good if those who hold extreme views from both the communities attended. They would have to debate and put their respective nationalist views up for public scrutiny. Also more importantly they would have to listen to each other and may be engage in a dialogue or be ‘outed’ for their political deafness. Is this not the essence of democracy, the ability to listen, absorb, tolerate and learn from other points of view?
In Melbourne I actively participated in an exercise in building harmony between the communities facilitated by one of the universities. It allowed individuals from diverse Sri Lankan communities in Melbourne, containing a wide spectrum of views from the moderate to the extreme, to voice their opinions without fear or favour. This was a valuable experience for it allowed both the Tamils and Sinhalese the chance to hear the other and appreciate the views.
Instead of wandering the streets of Toronto looking for Sinhala and Tamil extremists, maybe your time could be better spent in trying to build bridges between the two communities there. This would be a more worthwhile experience than finger pointing and paranoid imaginings that pepper your discourse.
With regard to the evidence that has been requested, my last encounter with Dayan in public was at the Sugathadasa Stadium in Colombo in the early eighties, when I was still General Secretary of the JVP.
I remember him asking questions at the end of my speech and even after the meeting walking with me up to the JVP head office at No. 14 K Cyril C Perera Mawatha in Colombo insisting that separation was the solution to the national question in Sri Lanka.
His leader, Mr Varatharajah Perumal of the EPRLF, who was a lecturer at the University of Jaffna, had also argued with me many times at the University regarding this issue. Later, during the Presidential Elections in 1982, at a public meeting held in Jaffna town, he publicly argued with me that the JVP should not have contested presidential elections, but should have started an armed struggle like Farabundo Marti Liberation Front (FMLN) did in El Salvador.
When I pointed out that in El Salvador, there was a military government whereas in Sri Lanka there was not, and that during the presidential election the JVP was using the democratic right to propagate its policies among the people in Sri Lanka, the audience adversely reacted to Mr Perumal and he had to immediately leave the premises of the meeting.
I believe this more than a sufficient response to the query. I also consider that this matter is closed now.
@Lionel Bopage
So basically this means, Dayan was the traitor in 80s? Can he be a hidden traitor now working within the system?
The message here is anyone can change over time and everyone should be given a good chance for a good transformation without being killed. Instead of taking people from IDP camps and killing them for being connected to LTTE, give the same chance given to Mr Dayan Jayathillake….
I think if people were genuine in their efforts and reach out to others, we would have solved all the problems we have in Sri Lanka. Unfortuntely, we are selfish and filled with greed and hatred. This includes the extreme elements within the Sinhalese and Tamil community.
On the Sinhalse Buddhist side, I blame the Buddhist monks for patronizing hatred and killing as the only solution…
Dear Mr. Bopage,
Could you say a few words on my comment above on the impossibility of finding a “solution”. I feel ignored.
Mr. Bopage,
First of all, just being an old woman doesn’t make me a “Mrs”. Second, I never said the meeting was funded by the Berghof Foundation. Please read my comment properly. Here’s what I said: “I can understand you not addressing this issue because it must be hard for you to reconcile your connection to people who have received funding from this notorious agency with your politics”.
My wandering the streets of Toronto has nothing to do with looking for either Sinhala or Tamil extremists. They, consequently, do not wander the streets of Toronto, and are quite happy living in their suburban mansions with two garages and four cars.
Your advice to me smacks of male chauvinism.
Adios Amigos.
Lionel,
Your comments and the eight points/questions raised (supporting your contentions) are evidence of your bankruptcy as a political commentator, your mediocrity and cheap politics you play. Any sensible person would appreciate that there are no quick fixes for the human tragedy, an aftermath of the bloody war. One should appreciate feeding of 300,000 IDPs alone as a tremendous human gesture. Yes, they need to be sent to their habitat and let live their lives without fear and intimidation. These take time. Similarly, we need a well thought-out political package that satisfy community aspirations and preserve unity and ethnic harmony. The 13/17th amendments will not , in my view, bring about lasting peace. As has been suggested there must be a ‘home-grown’ solution. Be real, these take time and a lot of brainstorming. My personal view is that we should promote the idea of a ‘National government’ where all communities have an equal say.
Now, just a short note about Dayan: Surely, Dayan would have had different viewpoints (for which all of us are entitled to) in the past. While I do not agree with his current stand (i.e., implementation of the 13th amendment), I do certainly appreciate his contribution towards safeguarding national interests against a hostile international (and mean local commentators and traitors) audience. Unlike many commentators including Bopage, he did not betray our nation. Good on you Dayan!
Dear Sunil,
See http://www.groundviews.org/2009/07/22/last-comment-on-sri-lanka-is-the-war-really-over/
Sanjana