Tamil politics in Sri Lanka: Time to stop being suicidal
“For their part, Tamil leaders have not yet made anticipated conciliatory gestures that might ease government concerns and foster a genuine dialogue”- Sri Lanka: Re-charting US Strategy after the War, US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Dec 7, 2009
It was Prof Robert Pape who put it on the record: the Tamil Tigers fielded many more suicide bombers than any Middle Eastern or “jihadist” group. Suicide within the Tamil nationalist struggle was not limited to bombers, but included a death fast (Jaffna 1987) and several self immolations (Geneva & Tamil Nadu, 2009). It remains to be seen whether this suicidal tendency extends to the realm of politics.
If the Tamil minority, or even worse, the Tamil speaking communities were to abstain, present their own candidacy or vote for the main challenger at the upcoming Presidential election, they would certainly be demonstrating such a self destructive tendency even in the electoral domain.
A boycott would mean by definition, abstention and absenteeism from the political process, which is never a good idea anywhere, anytime. It would result in an election taking place on a pan-Sinhala playing field, with both candidates trying to outflank each other on that field and a winner who owes nothing to the Tamil voters. A vote for the wrong candidate – one whose only mode of interaction with them has been at the other end of a gun barrel–would be even more actively counterproductive, though an Eelam strategist in the Diaspora may think that such polarization is helpful in isolating Sri Lanka internationally and winning legitimacy for the cause of an independent Tamil state. In short this would be a repetition of the fatal error made by Velupillai Prabhakaran at the elections of 2005. The upside from a Tamil ultra-nationalist perspective would be that the world sees an ethnically polarized map of Sri Lanka, but it did so in 1977 and 2005 too. What was the positive result of that exposure or demonstration, for the Tamil community in Sri Lanka?  A Tamil candidacy would have the same effect. It would be a demonstration of ethnic demarcation but what happens after that? Such demarcation of difference may help the Tamil cause in the abstract, but surely there has been sufficiently yawning a gap between the “Tamil cause” and the reality of Tamil existence on the ground? When the state of the Tamil people, of Tamil society, of Tamil collective existence is at such variance with the Tamil cause as a state of mind, surely it is time for a change of mindset?
From hartals to hara-kiri, the history of Tamil politics in the 20th century shows a story of political failure. The first attempt was to convince the British that universal suffrage, and later universal suffrage combined with political independence, would so damage the Tamil community that the minorities be permitted representation far outweighing their numbers. This was the phase of 50:50, associated with GG Ponnambalam. The second was that of ethno-federalism, dating from 1951 to 1976, which also failed. The third project was that of ethnic separatism, from 1976 to date in one sense, and 1972-2009 in the sense of armed separatist violence and war. This too failed, with far worse damage to the Tamil people than anything that had preceded it. Today Tamil separatism is rife in the Diaspora (with a varnished ‘Vany’ replacing a vanquished Velu) but not on the ground in Sri Lanka’s North and East. Project number 4 was the investment in Indian politics, with a major effort in Tamil Nadu. The all-India voters as well as the Tamil Nadu ones wrote Prabhakaran’s death sentence with their ballots, days before a bullet blew out most of the back of his head. The fifth project was the diplomatic one, combined with street agitation internationally, to stop the war. The vote at the UN Human Rights Council Special session in May this year and the report of the US Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations this December, reveal the limits of the politico-diplomatic clout of the Tamil Diaspora.
If this record of serial political and strategic failure, leading to Nandikadal and Menik farm, is not a reason for a total re-think and self-criticism, I cannot imagine what is. It is also a cautionary note written in neon, as to the propensity of the Tamil community for political miscalculation and the possibility of yet another at what is a nodal Presidential election; a veritable historical hinge.
Sri Lanka is a work in progress, a jigsaw puzzle that we have never been able to complete because the pieces haven’t been fitted together correctly. The Sinhalese and Tamil ‘pieces’ of the jigsaw want places bigger than the spaces available that would permit the whole to fit together. Both the Sinhalese and Tamils overestimate themselves and underestimate the other. The Sinhalese overestimate their local preponderance while underestimating their external vulnerability as well as the vulnerability of the jigsaw puzzle as a whole. The Tamils overestimate their external spread while underestimating their domestic weakness.
The War and the postwar elections have dramatically emphasized certain basic realities which however have been imperfectly absorbed and reflected upon by both Sinhalese and Tamils. There are four outcomes or facts that should impress themselves upon the Tamil psyche.
Firstly the utter military defeat of Prabhakaran and the Tigers, who were thought invincible by the Tamil community.
Secondly, the ability of the Sri Lankan state/the Sinhalese/the South, to impose a defeat on the Tigers without a political package as prerequisite, parallel or postscript.
Thirdly, the inability or unwillingness of the international community/world opinion – Western and regional—to either halt the military offensive and drive the Sri Lankan state either to the negotiating table or a devolution package.
Fourthly, the disappearance of the pacifist neoliberal candidate (Wickremesinghe) and the emergence instead of a bipartisan consensus of sorts, with two Sinhala nationalist candidates, the one populist and the other militarist, neither of whom will compromise on secession, terrorism, and the unitary state.
The Tamil politicians and intellectuals, here and in the Diaspora didn’t get it at all. They neither foresaw the decimation of the Tigers by the Sri Lankan armed forces (relatively swiftly in this last war, I might add) nor the opening up of democratic space that would inevitably follow. I say ‘inevitably’ because that was what I told the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams in early 2007, in the presence of President Rajapakse, several Cabinet Ministers, senior officials and Church personalities including Bishop Duleep de Chickera. I gave a brief run down on the war as satisfying the major criteria of Just War theory (which was of course originally just war theology – Leo Strauss’s pet aversion, “political theology” at its best). While un-contradicted by the clergymen (Sinhala, Tamil and British) in the room, I was posed a question by Dr Williams for whom I had great respect because of his formidable intellect and his high profile opposition to the invasion of Iraq. His own work on Just War had made him focus on a just outcome, so did I think that this war would lead to one and if so why? I replied the Archbishop saying that in the wake of the military defeat of the LTTE by the armed forces of the state, the inevitable reopening of electoral space and the re-enfranchisement of the Tamil voter, would, in the context of a highly competitive Presidential and parliamentary elections and proportional representation, give the Tamil people the leverage to re-insert their issues and demands at the very centre of Lankan politics. I recall saying, only half jokingly, that “President Rajapakse and his rival, whoever it may be, at the presidential elections will trip over each other to woo the Tamil voter”, as would the two major parties, because the administration that issues from a parliamentary election would be coalitional in character. In a postwar peacetime election, neither of the presidential candidates could get 50.1% nor could the major parties (under proportional representation) prevail on the basis of Sinhala Buddhist votes alone. These prognoses have been validated by events.
For their part, the Sinhalese must learn a lesson from the ironic spectacle of both Mahinda Rajapakse and Sarath Fonseka promising to go beyond the 13th amendment, to implement 13 Plus or even 13 Double Plus, mere months after the former was in effect talking “13 minus” and the latter was decrying the attempt to implement the 13th amendment in any form on the grounds that his boys didn’t give their lives for devolution! Even the EPDP which was willing to settle for the 13th amendment is now seeking to go beyond it. This turn of events is particularly amusing to me, since I was denounced by the Sinhala chauvinists for advocating the immediate postwar implementation of the 13th amendment from a position of strength, and possibly lost my job also because of that factor. The same Sinhala chauvinists, now divided, are gathered around two candidates, both of whom are pledging to go beyond the 13th amendment, something I never advocated.
So while the Tamils must learn from their military defeat that there are certain things that are unfeasible given the huge Sinhala preponderance on the island which the Sinhalese when roused will not hesitate to deploy to the full, the Sinhalese must learn from the political bargaining power of the Tamils even after their chosen or self appointed vanguard was decimated, that the ethnic Other will just not go away and cannot be cowed or reduced in significance beyond a point.
This is the ideal moment then for both sides to arrive at a realistic compromise. But will they? The Sinhalese presidential candidates have, at least at the level of rhetoric, come some way – and in practical terms the IDP situation has verifiably improved. However, one cannot say the same of the dominant tendency within Tamil politics, represented by the TNA. It may be said that they are no longer asking for a separate state but that’s a joke: separatism has no chance on the ground and the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s latest report shows that there are no serious takers in Washington DC either, for anything that is not squarely within a united Sri Lanka. Even so, neither the pro-Tiger elements in the Diaspora nor the TNA have repealed the Vadukkodai Resolution which called for the setting up of a separate sovereign independent state of Tamil Eelam. This is tantamount to the destruction of the Sri Lankan state in its current scale, scope and contours.
Some TNA MPs call for federalism as the basis of negotiations with both Presidential candidates. This is a perfectly legal and legitimate position, but it is lamentably foolish, because there will be no takers, and is yet another example of Tamil nationalist politicians pricing themselves out of the market.
The third example of the obduracy of Tamil nationalism is the demand that the Sri Lankan armed forces withdraw to the pre conflict, i.e. pre July 1983 positions in the North and East. It is one thing to oppose any attempt at Sinhalization and the setting up of military settlements outside of currently held state land. It is also reasonable to seek some significant shrinkage of High Security Zones. However it is absurd to demand a return to the pre-war status quo. After a bitterly fought war, no responsible state can withdraw to pre-war lines, because it is precisely the vulnerability of those pre-war deployments that were amply demonstrated during the war! Though the context is different – one of a foreign war – and the arrangements as they evolved are those of solid alliance, it must be noted that there are US bases on German and Japanese soil. Postwar deployment of the Sri Lankan army must ‘permanently’ prevent any possibility of the repetition of the LTTE’s military maneuvers.
On the one hand there must be no policies or deployments that smack of Occupation, Palestinianisation, or Sinhala Buddhist-isation by settler-colonialism. On the other hand the force posture of the Sri Lankan armed forces in the North and East, must, for the long duration, be one of prevention and preemption of separatist terrorism and irredentism. While there can be partial retrenchment, there can be no principle of pullback to pre-conflict lines.
The real chance for a revived Tamil politics is at the parliamentary election which will fairly swiftly follow the presidential one. The broader the bloc of the Tamil parties or of the Tamil–speaking parties (Tamil and Muslim), the greater the possibility of neutralizing the Sinhala ultranationalists, but only if their negotiating stance with the major Southern formations is a prudent one.
If the Tamil parties price themselves out of the market with their federalist fundamentalism, a tragic situation such as that of 1972 will obtain, where the two major parties sat smugly in a parliament turned Constituent assembly and myopically ignored the demands of the Tamil United Front. Â Certainly the Sinhalese and Sri Lanka suffered dreadfully from this absence of dialogue but none so horribly and at such colossal comparative cost as did the Tamil community.
What then should be the stance of a pragmatic Tamil politics? Any attempt to go qualitatively beyond the 13th amendment will, even if agreed to by this or that candidate will be shot down at a popular referendum, unless the pathway adopted is that pointed out by Prof Lakshman Marasinghe, in which case the degree of enhancement will have to be suitably modest. Far more prudent is a two point program: (a) insist upon the implementation of the 13th and 17th amendments to the Sri Lankan Constitution within an agreed upon time frame, coupled with (b) an anti-discrimination thrust as concretized in the revival of Chandrika Kumaratunga’s Equal Opportunities Bill of year 2000.  Â
Contrary to the caterwauling of the crackpots, the Zurich conclave of the Tamil parties was on balance positive, because any political conversation is better than none and the more inclusive the better. Best of all though is the tacit political and programmatic convergence of the PLOT, EPDP, EPRLF and EROS in support of the Rajapakse candidacy. This is the bulk of the historic “Eelam Left” as distinct from the federalist/separatist Tamil nationalist trend, the dominant one in Tamil politics, as represented by the TNA. If only this tacit confluence turns into a solid political bloc and adopts a policy of unity and struggle in relation to Mahinda Rajapakse, the ruling coalition may be shunted along Congress lines and Sri Lanka may be nudged along a more pluralist, National-Democratic path.
What then of the TNA? On present form, there is still the danger that the main party of Tamil nationalism will, like the Palestinians, once more demonstrate its propensity never to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.  This may be true of the Sinhalese as well, but given the demographics, natural resource endowments and strategic competition (read the US Senate Foreign relations Committee report), they may be able to afford it for a while longer.
The Tamils have to decide whether they wish to be like the Palestinians and keep insisting on first principles, or be like the Catholic minority of Northern Ireland. Irish Republicanism has arrived at a settlement, without the achievement of any of its historic aims and demands: independence from the UK, the unification of the 26 Counties, the removal of British troops and liberation from the British monarchy. Even those responsible for the Bloody Sunday massacre of 1972 have yet to be punished. If after 450 (taking the long view) or 30 years of struggle, and the failure of the British army to eliminate the IRA militarily – in contrast to the decisive Sri Lankan military achievement—the Sinn Fein and the Northern Ireland’s Catholics have settled for devolution and economic prosperity within a unitary state, why shouldn’t Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority? What’s good enough for Gerry Adams and Martin Mac Guinness should surely be good enough for the leaders of the Tamil National Alliance– and as they say in Parliament, if not, why not?
25 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
Dayan,
I understand that you are addressing “pragmatic politics,” but shouldn’t this argument address, at least theoretically, the idea that there could be a “Tamil candidacy” or minority candidate interested in reconciliation? Especially if the situation on the ground is as you describe it? I hope someday Sri Lanka is the kind of place where a minority could be president… if democratic space is really opening up, that has to be a possibility.
“A vote for the wrong candidate – one whose only mode of interaction with them has been at the other end of a gun barrel–would be even more actively counterproductive”
The point is which of the candidates are you referring to here Dayan? Both candidates have been equally guilty of dealing with the Tamil community in this manner. One held the gun while the other pulled the trigger!
Hi Dayan
Part of the reason for the ‘suicidal politics’ is that there is a growing disjuncture between the politics of the Tamil Diaspora and Tamils at home. Even after the defeat of the LTTE, I do not see much change in the politics of the Diaspora in ways helpful to Tamils in Sri Lanka. I also think the elimination of Tamil politicians and intellectuals by the LTTE has left a huge vacuum in political leadership. The best Diaspora can do is to help build strong civilian leaders who will lead democratic politics.
So my question to you is how can the Diaspora change its politics in ways benificial to those at home.
I think Jude is spot on. The latest UTHR-J report confirms it.
James, I think that is best answered by Messrs Siddharthan, Sritharan, Devananda, Karuna and our Ambassador to Cuba ( and earlier Deputy Head of Mission, Brazil), a former human rights activist at the UNHRC in Geneva, a militant youth with the World Council of Churches, a leftist internationalist and European educated intellectual, and a fighter against racism, Ms Tamara Kunanayagam.
Argument Fail,
A Tamil candidacy would ensure a Sinhala Only track for the presidential race
( no pun intended). The winner will owe the Tamils nothing. Integration starts now.
dayan:
Yes, I agree that the Tamils should exercise their democratic rights but unfortunately promises have seldom been transferred into action. This is the dilemma they face. After the election the promises are conveniently forgotten. This has been going on since independence so much so the trust has evaporated.
What kind of choice they are facing, between the devil and deep blue. I would encourage them to vote, particularly Fonseka? MR could have won them over immediately after the war but he became too arrogant and for that he may yet pay a heavy price.
Talking sense and truth is a rare commodity among politicians. Your job, too, became a casualty.
DJ, you can afford to gloat,it is triumphalism. As Martin Luther King said , the long arc of justice will bend one day, maybe the Tamils will succeed one day, posibly long after we are gone.
What is the point of backing any candidate? Can you name One Singhalese leader who kept a promise made to the Tamil community. Maybe JR, he promised war and sent in the army to confront 13 young men in shorts and rubber slippers.
SF had over 150,000 to face VP’s 5000. and ofcourse won.
The Tamils have been betrayed by both Tamils and Singhalese, do not know who to trust. Who knows India will not break-up, new alignments coud form.
Whatever will be will be.
“It would result in an election taking place on a pan-Sinhala playing field, with both candidates trying to outflank each other on that field and a winner who owes nothing to the Tamil voters.”
The election will take place on a pan-Sinhala playing field, regardless. Mr.Jayatillake is trying to posit the election as some kind of opportunity for Tamil grievances to find recourse… whereas in actual reality, Tamil grievances do not form any significant part of the election manifesto of either candidate.
Dear Murugesh, jansee and Reader,
Luckily for the hill Country tamils, and unluckily for the Northern tamils, the smartest Tamil politician to appear on the island never subscribed to your arguments and therefore managed to take his people out of disenfranchisement without losing a single life. I refer to S. Thondaman. Just pause to think of how he would have answered you, beginning with ” all that maybe so, BUT….”
Dayan Jayatilleke:
As far as Tamil issues are concerned, disenfranchisement is not even on the list. If voting was all it took to change the status quo, Tamils would not have gone through 30 years of trial by fire to make their voices heard. There is a dictatorship in the South right now, one that is reinforced by the Executive Presidency and a repressive judicial code. If things are to “change”, the onus lies with the Southern voter and by extension the majority community.
Dayan, as always tells you the half facts; meaning the facts that suite his argument. About the boycott, Tamils were prevented from voting in the last election. Boycott means people by their will decided to boycott as a protest. There is one more option to Tamils is to abstain from voting as there is no viable option available. I don’t advocate abstaining or boycott. I believe Tamils will vote according to their conscious as they did when the municipal elections were held few months ago.
Regarding the military, let me ask him how he will feel is if, in the deep south, the area is militarised by an monolithic Tamil military to keep order as a hypostatical scenario. So, for Tamils a monolithic all Sinhala military occupying the Tamil home land is not acceptable.
On the political settlement, your analogy to Northern Island is interesting. Because you conveniently avoided saying that the settlement is based on the minority sharing power with a veto power. Are the majority ready for such a power sharing in Sri Lanka!!!!
Dayan:
Your implicit argument is that the Tamils need to back one of the two main candidates and you seem to be reinforcing in your piece that “the Tamils can live in this country but should not ask too much”. Reminds me that someone made such a statement not too long ago. Is it too difficult for any one of the main candidates to spell out what would they give to the Tamils? They won’t and they can’t. That is the reality. For a President who cannot even keep his promises to the majority of this nation, it would be wishful thinking that he will do so towards the minority. Whatever happened to APRC?
Thondaman oh Thondaman! With so much of affability, and that with his politics of accomodation, the Uphill Country Tamils life ought to have been a lot better but the pathetic conditions they are living is much to be desired. Of course, he had got his cosy life and will continue to keep most of them illiterate as long as that fits him. With the kind of literacy level among them, Thondaman rules.
Both of us share one common view – there cannot be any violence, terrorism or otherwise, to stake your ideas but when there is a political approach that could be explored to force the victorious candidate who does not get the 50%, then that approach should be pursued. Yes, it is a gamble, politically that is, but the alternatives are not worth even mentioning. Memories fade fast after election time and in a country that even tore-up written agreements and consign them to the rubbish bin, and where there is a group in the South that can force Presidents to backtrack on their promises, hope can never be a faithful word in Sri Lanka. MR had more than sufficient time to prove to the Tamils of his sincerity in treating them as decent human beings immediately after the war but not only he squandered that responsibility and opportunity, he is nothing more than a perpetual liar. Tell me Dayan, how on earth do you believe liars? For those who went through hell on earth, MR can never be their saviour.
[Edited out - ad hominem statements are not welcome on Groundviews]
The latest UTHR-J report shows that, while the LTTE was rotten to the core, so was the Rajapaksa regime, which this rotten man still supports. The enormity of what was done to the innocent civilians–the conscription, the gulag, etc.– by the LTTE, justified its destruction; in the same way, the enormity of what the murderous Rajapaksa regime did to the thousands of innocent civilians in the Vanni and elsewhere, meticulously detailed by the UTHR, justifies the merciless destruction of this regime and its supporters, including this rotten-to-the-core Jayatilleka. Anything less would be a monumental disservice to humanity. That is the imperative of the latest UTHR-J report.
So, Mr. Jude Fernando, what should the Tamil Diaspora do?
Well, here is my sugestion – The Diaspora should leave the local Tamil people alone to make their own decisions and choose their own politicians. They have suffered enough and need to rebuild their lives.
But the Diaspora should develop every possible strategy to hunt down, bring to justice, or annihilate the war criminals of Rajapaksa regime, including the Rajapaksa brothers, top military commanders, and all enablers. This shall be our duty for the rest of our lives. I shall not go into how it can be done. But it should be, and will be.
“Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”
- Stalin
Dear Samudra,
After the US Civil War against Secession, the victorious Union armies stayed in the South for at least 12 years. Part of the at time was spent hunting down stragglers who were half guerilla half bandit gangs.
Dear Jansee,
Don’t confuse Thondaman Senior with his grandson, as you seem to be doing. S Thondaman was a proud , upright leader who took no shit from any Sinhalese and was never trifled with by strong Presidents such as Jayewardene, Premadasa and Kumaratunga, who treated him with respect. He knew how to get the best from the Sinhalese, not bring out the worst! The Northern Tamil leaders do the opposite!
Dear Agnos,
Best of luck. If you even try, there’ll be many more nandikadals, and this time, the superb young Sri Lankan commanders, veterans of this war, who will become the service chiefs of the future, won’t wait till its a full grown
insurgency. It will be a pre-emptive/preventive zero-tolerance approach to terrorism…as it should be.
Dear Muruges,
Never mind the Sinhala leaders, what about Rajiv Gandhi? What did the LTTE do to him, when he was trying to fulfil his promises and sent 70, 000 troops to do so? And what did the Tamil community do when the LTTE did that?
Dayan:
Sorry that I thought you inferred the junior rather than the senior. It was my oversight.
BTW, although I do not wish to be drawn into any issues, contentious or otherwise over the Senior as it is of no relevance to the instant topic, the current presidential election, what good did the poor plantation workers got from his political game or gamble? Their lives were almost static.
That the forces are going o be stationed in the North would have to be decided based on what the govt thinks is right and good for the country but it will never escape the feelings of ordinary Tamils of the sheer domination and this ultimately will create resentment. The majority of the Tamils want to move on and it will be prudent to win them over to nib terrorism in the bud. Without the people’s support this problem is not going to go away.
Dayan’s closing argument – “if Catholics of Northern Ireland could accept devolution within a unitary state, why shouldn’t the Tamils”, is puerile and laughable. Britain does not have a written constitution, and such, it is incapable of being a federal state – by definition! At the same time, the distribution of competencies and the level of autonomy granted to Northern Ireland is far greater than a lot of federal states, let alone the 13th amendment + a few scraps that Dayan advocates. Throw in the way constitutional conventions solidify certain pieces of ‘structural legislation’, and you have what is essentially a very powerful devolved unit with federal like powers, in all but name. If it looks like a federal state, and quacks like a federal state….well, then Dayan is caught making silly argument. On the other hand, the Sri Lankan state has demonstrated it’s utter incapacity, and institutional weakness in giving effect to structural efforts at diffusion of power. Hence, the greater need for strengthening and solidifying devolution beyond what would even normally be considered adequate. Clearly, the Britain analogy is a shocker. Put it down to a lack of learning or disingenuousness. Let him have his pick. Given the manner he’s flung his decent, but not spectacular academic credentials around on this blog, I’m sure he would prefer the latter
Dayan,
Rajiv Gandhi wanted the IPKF commander to shoot the white flag carrying Prabha.
The order was sent through Dixit, the commander had replied that no responsible and respectable Army Officer will shoot anyone carrying a White Flag. This story is well documented by the last IPKF commander.
It only happens in Sri Lanka.
What, pray tell me, did Thonda achieve for his people? Most of his people are still living the way they did some 450 years ago, a one door ‘Thakarang Shed ‘ with no indoor running water or toilet. They use to work about 50 hrs a week in the 50′s, but now it is about 45 hrs a week. Their living condition has not changed much either.
As for the Tamils, the Tamil leadership tried every possible parliamentary practice available for peaceful coexistence with dignity from 1948 to ’72 and got thrown into the Beira Lake. Every agreement were abrogated and Chandrika never implemented any agreement or undertaking.
Really Dayan, with your considerable credentials you should analysis more than be a propagandist for MR or SF. Don’t you think that there are more Singhalese below poverty level than the entire Tamil population? In 1955, a united Ceylon with both Singhalese and Tamils being considered somewhat equals, were the envy of the Prime Minister of Singapore. After 1956, the dominant Singhalese governing the country for the last 50 years, grew the country like the proverbial bulls tail – downwards. Now Sri Lanka is fighting for last place with Somalia.
What of the Tamils? The third of the population that were chased have re-established themselves in their host country as a very thriving community, possibly second only to the Jews. The other two third, suffering under the military yoke, would also thrive eventually. That is the Singhalese man’s fear and thats why successive Singhalese leaders, all try to decimate the Tamil families and truncate the Tamil areas, so that the Singhalese population will not ask awkward questions.
Though the Tigers are gone, the Singhalese leaders still have to keep the Tiger Bogey alive to keep distracting the Singhalese Mass. This is the reason for the IDP still in camps, the army in the North and East is to keep the locals cowered.
The Singhalese always blamed the British, claiming they favoured the Tamils and that is why the the Tamils were, proportionately more successful than the Singhalese. During the last 55 years the Singhalese ran the country, introduced all kinds of affirmative and blatant discriminatory laws to give the Singhalese a leg-up, but still managed to run the country to rival Somalia.
Who-ever wins this election, it does not look at all promising for Sri Lanka. Excepting Premadasa, all the leaders upto Chandrika, came from well established families with old money and recoganized good schools.
MR and SF are new money people from second and third tier schools and it shows. Unfortunately for Sri Lanka, those who would follow MR, when he finishes his second term, appear to be common thugs and war lords, worse than even SF.
My belief is, eventually, maybe 100 years from now when Sri Lanka gets a little more affluent, when the Singhalese poor could also find jobs, consequently drying up the pool for the Buddhist Sanga, saner council will prevail and more accountability expected from their politicians. The influence of the Sanga also beginning to fade.
May be by then Sri Lanka would have climbed back to present day Bangaladesh.
My father coined the phrase ‘ Kiyanne Banna, Kadanne Pansala.’ in 1956.
How true it is still in 2009.
Dear Aadhavan,
I am unable to retiurn the compliment about your educational credentials or lack of them because I don’t know you or of you at all, and probably no one else on GV does either. However, I am assuming that your credentials are betrayed by your argumentation, that the UK is in effect…federal1 The official submission of the UK at the UN HRC ‘s Universal Periodic Review, while it could have finessed the definitional issue, asserted instead that “the United Kingdom is a unitary state comprising the territories of etc etc” Doubtless you know something about the UK that the UK Foreign Office and the team of legal experts assembled under its umbrella didn’t! I recommend that you read Asanga Welikala’s presentation to One text Initiative on ” Diversity and Devolution within a Unitary state: the British example” for a solid academic treatment of the topic. But let’s cut to the chase: you and Sri Lanka’s Tamils do not have a wide menu of options regarding devolution. It ain’t a seller’s market. Its either the defence, protection and implementation of 13th amendment (or what’s left of it) OR the roll back of even that, a heavy military presence with a 400, 000 strong army and Sinhala settlements which make nonsense of any notion of homeland. The US Senate Report shows that GOSL has enough straegic leverage to sustain such a course because the US will be bidding against China. The natural postwar bounce of the economy will make it affordable. Get real.
Dear Muruges,
July 83 took place under JRJ Jayewardene who went to a first tier school. Chenmani happened on CBKs watch and she went to one too. Hope you feel comforted by the thought.
“The third of the population that were chased have re-established themselves in their host country as a very thriving community, possibly second only to the Jews.”
Muruges,
Don’t even go there buddy! Stand up on your own two feet and work together to bring about a more intellectually dynamic community. We must get out of our ethnic ghettos and introduce our children to a more enriching and intellectually stimulating set of values. This is what the Jews did for themselves.
As Tamils we can also learn from others. Every community brings its own cultural capital into the host country. Get off your high horse…it’s high time we interacted with others!!!
DJ
JR went to Royal and Chandrika went to Bridgets, both went to first tier schools.
There are always exception to the rule. Still, both JR and CBK were not accused of war crimes, both held a higher moral code fighting their enemy, their own citizens. Not like the present or foreseeable future bunch.
Excepting the above, you have accepted the rest of my reasoning?
In your face.
Jews are a Jew first and whatever country national. On the other hand, the Tamils call them selves differently, eg: Canadian Tamil, American Tamil etc.
In my opinion, those who want to get out of their ‘Ethnic Ghettos’ are those who have already lost their Ethnicity. Remember the educative fable ‘The Fox who Lost its Tail!
If a community has its own Language and Religion, the host country treats them like third class, take the African American (the Blacks in Europe) and if their native country is not wealthy, like Haiti and Somalia, they are at the bottom.
On the other-hand, own religion, own language and wealthy country of origin, the people are treated as equal – Jews and Japanese – moderately wealthy like South Korea and India or assumed moderately wealthy, like Sri Lanka are second class.
Since I have been out of the country from the 60′s and have been fairly moderately successful in career and substance, I still feel third class, because my country of origin is a failed state. Thankfully I did not go down to 4th. as yet because I still have my language and religion. My children and grand children, wanting to remain atleast 2nd class in the land of their birth, Canada and USA are now studying Tamil in Sunday schools.
Get Off the High Horse, you say.
I respond ‘Ignorance is Bliss’
To interact with others as equals, that your opinions have value,one has to be respected, not tolerated.
Oh dear dear. Dayan, your comprehension deficit in terms of grasping devolution in the UK is embarrassing. That you are even unaware of the gamut of political studies and legal literature that grapple with this question of whether the UK is indeed a unitary state within the classical understanding of the term does not bode well for your future students. I don’t have access to Asanga’s piece, but let me refer you to Stephen Tierney’s “Federalism in a Unitary State: a Paradox too Far?” or Colin Picker’s paper on the new British federalism. Consider it homework for any debate you may have in the future on the nature of British devolution – at the very least you owe it to your students. I’m also smugly cock sure Asanga bases his treatment of the subject on materials that are a little more reliable, and relevant to serious constitutional discourse than a given state’s UPR submission
As for your point about the Tamils having limited options, that’s absolutely true. I just don’t like the spurious argumentation based on an inadequate understanding of the subject, in this case British devolution. However, your new position that the Sinhalese could probably pull off a non-13th amendment military occupation of the North and East without much fallout seems to contradict your oft repeated stance that the implementation of the 13th is a sine qua non, a basic precondition for the sustenance of good relations with the rest of the world, and India and the West in particular. You’ve made this argument, not I. You didn’t just make it, you vociferously advocated it, shouted it from the treetops, and perhaps even paid a small price for doing so. I now ask, have you changed your mind? And does this mean that you have lost the argument to the likes of Malinda Sen et al?
I also caution against using the Foreign Committee report as anything other than another voice in the debate within US policy circles of how to proceed with Sri Lanka. The report was also out of sync with the actions to date of the ranking member of that committee. It remains to be seen if the report was means something more than the personal loyalty to Sri Lanka on the part of Nilmini Gunaratne and her friend (ably assisted at State by Bob Blake), or whether it in fact reflects a genuine change of heart on the part of the influential members of that Committee. Samantha Powers and Susan Rice and their ilk represent a different voice, as do other voices on the Hill that recently secured passage of a bill imposing stringent conditions on military aid. How this difference of perception plays out remains to be seen.
Dayan,
I also read that Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, and as a Tamil, I find it painful to acknowledge that much of what you say is true. But I wish more of us (particularly those of us living abroad) could/would acknowledge it. If not now, then when, indeed.
In any event, mine is a somewhat random (and probably pointless) quibble — it is with your assertion that the government’s war against the LTTE was a just war. I think the definition is somewhere on a continuum and where you lie on that continuum depends on where you stand in the outcome of the war. So you can call it a just war, with seemingly assured moral authority, but I, for one, am not convinced. I am no political scientist or philosopher, but here’s my President, Barack Obama’s definition of a just war – which he talked about in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech:
“The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence. Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of “just war” was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God.”
Does it matter, anyway? It does, if we want a just and lasting peace in Sri Lanka. The inability of the victors in this war to understand or acknowledge why Tamils may not see the war and post-war as a just war (no matter how much Tamils wanted the LTTE gone), I believe will have consequences for long-term peace.
Compassion for civilians in the war, and then IDPs, and graciousness & generosity (not triumphalism) in the GoSL’s victory, would’ve gone a long way to healing the country, and neutralizing the Tamil diaspora’s militant nationalism so reviled by you all. Now that, to me, would have been a just war moving towards a just peace.
DJ, don’t you think the south has only two solutions, either withdrawing the SinHALA army from Tamil home land or concuring it. Inevitably there are consequences in both cases. My recommendation is first make friends and then withdraw.