The SLA has not changed significantly since the 80′s, except for an increase in manpower. Why do you think GOSL had a press censorship in place for war reporting in the North… part of the reason was to hide the high casualty rate that the SLA experienced. Let’s put this into perspective: the USA has been in Iraq since 2003, and had a total casualty rate of 4,282 over a 7 year period. The Sri Lankan military lost 3000 men during the Mullaitivu battle alone. This proves beyond a doubt that the Sri Lankan military is third-class and lacked the capability to defeat the LTTE without vast amounts of outside help. During the “early years” – early 80′s – military technology was not at all what it is today… so it does not take a genius to figure out that the incompetent SLA would have been 10 times more incompetent during that period.

Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, Horatio Nelson… all morons compared to your dazzling intellect.

All of which are irrelevant examples.

I fail to see how it is insightful. The SLA is clearly strong enough to hold the N-E and there hasn’t been a single suicide bomb since Prabakaran croaked. SLA sounds like winners to me, I’m afraid!

Assuming the SLA was even able to do so, it would have taken several years to capture the North, had there been no Karuna split. Not only did the LTTE lose 2,000 men thanks to the Karuna split, but Karuna provided valuable intelligence.

A very good point, which leads me to ask why the LTTE was not able to launch such large-scale attacks after GR was put in charge?

The LTTE ran out of weapons thanks to the Indian naval blockade as well as satellite imagery provided by the Indians to Sri Lankans, which the Sri Lankans acted on. When your supply line is cut off, you can only engage in a defensive war, as opposed to the offense kind.

“The outcome of the war and the early years are mutually exclusive. ”

Not really, if the outcome of the war could have been determined in its early years.

“Your simplistic claims do not correlate with the dynamics of the war, by any remote measure.”

I am fortunate that a military genius such as yourself is here to educate me. Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, Horatio Nelson… all morons compared to your dazzling intellect.

If only you were leading the LTTE, then we can all be smiling today with the continued suicide bombings and child soldiers.

“In fact, my second argument is still the most insightful: that, in fact, the Sri Lankan military is weak by any modern standard, and in fact, has always been weak.”

I fail to see how it is insightful. The SLA is clearly strong enough to hold the N-E and there hasn’t been a single suicide bomb since Prabakaran croaked. SLA sounds like winners to me, I’m afraid!

“It is only due to the Karuna split,”

That may explain how the SLA took the east so quickly, but how about the north?

“plus the advancements in technology, plus the assistance from many other nations,”

Could you explain the advancements in technology? Wouldn’t that contradict your argument that the SLA is weak?

“To add some context to this example, no doubt you are familiar with the attacks on Elephant Pass, Mullaitivu, etc. These sorts of attacks on big bases – where the said base was overrun – has never occurred in Afghanistan or Iraq, as per NATO. Unlike the way the SLA almost lost Jaffna in the last 90′s?, NATO has never been in danger of losing a city it has occupied.”

A very good point, which leads me to ask why the LTTE was not able to launch such large-scale attacks after GR was put in charge?

Not just federalists but anyone suggesting devolution will never be able to advance their cause unless there is a way to link prosperity with power-sharing. Rajapakse was elected by the masses in the pretext of eradicating terrorism and not with a vision of political solution – according to him, there are no minorities. For the masses, democracy and devolution mean nothing next to food, security, and money for survival. The challenge then is to link development and economic prosperity to a negotiated political settlement just like GSP was linked to human rights, which is not quite possible unless there is some international pressure in the post-LTTE scenario.

I think that another reason federalists have never been able to advance their cause is because federalism is synonymous with separatism in the minds of many people in the island.

I think you and I(and other reasonable, progressive Sinhalese people) know the answer to this is not just rooted in the concepts of nepotism and corruption. It is also rooted in the fact that many bogus upper-middle class Sinhalese nationalists in Sri Lanka(and many abroad who are, ironically, educated in the west) are paranoid that federalism=separatism and feel that federalism or, hell, any other kind of devolution(including the 13th ammendment) to the Tamil people in the north and east will be ushered in by Indian and western ” imperialists”.

You are no doubt correct. It seems as if any request for power-sharing is a request for separatism. On the other hand, I would imagine that these upper middle-class “nationalists” also benefit from the status quo as it is, support the ruling elite (read: SLFP), so as to keep the socio-economic situation the way it is.

The politicians and upper-middle class Sinhalese nationalist ” intellectuals” exploit this feeling–not to mention the paranoid notion of the north and east breaking off and joining with Tamil nadu and creating a chain-effect of chaos in Delhi–amongst voting Sri Lankans and they don’t want to see any power-sharing in place. To them, power-sharing is synonymous with separatism and the death of the Buddhist-Sinhalese nationhood as they know it(or, so they think). Heshan, to get an idea of how paranoid some of these people are, please read this article and the conclusion it reaches about the 13th ammendment and read the even more ridiculous comments at the bottom(please take notice of how, apparently, Mr. Dayan Jayathilake is an evil, Catholic sadist bent on destroying Sri Lanka)

Politicians are strange creatures. In fact, they don’t care what the masses think, except insofar as it wins them the next election. In an odd sort of way, acquiring massive amounts of wealth and power somehow liberates you from silly nationalist ideologies. Take the example of Hitler. In prison, he was quite the revolutionary – he wrote a long book outlining his arguments against Jews. Hitler the politician was different – he was obsessed not with Jews, but architecture and the military. He let other people handle the “Jewish question.” I think that that is what being a politician is really about – knowing how to use and exploit people using other people. So let me ask you, do you really think the Rajapakses are paranoid about Tamil separation? I don’t think so. But it is convenient for them if the masses are. One stupid person is not very useful. 10 million stupid people, however, can win you an election. So if the island is to be “saved” from its own grave, it is not enough to go after just politicians. The people themselves have to be educated.

That is not what Dayapala said. He clearly said the outcome of the war would have been entirely different. The outcome of the war and the early years are mutually exclusive.

In other words, if not for Indian intevention the LTTE would have been defeated at a much earlier date (1987, or 1982 if the Indians had extradited Prabakaran). Military power has little to do with the argument, which unfortunately makes your second generalization irrelevant.

Your simplistic claims do not correlate with the dynamics of the war, by any remote measure. In fact, my second argument is still the most insightful: that, in fact, the Sri Lankan military is weak by any modern standard, and in fact, has always been weak. It is only due to the Karuna split, plus the advancements in technology, plus the assistance from many other nations, plus the total disregard for civilian casualties (a relic of ancient wars), that the Sri Lankan military was able to do what it did. To add some context to this example, no doubt you are familiar with the attacks on Elephant Pass, Mullaitivu, etc. These sorts of attacks on big bases – where the said base was overrun – has never occurred in Afghanistan or Iraq, as per NATO. Unlike the way the SLA almost lost Jaffna in the last 90′s?, NATO has never been in danger of losing a city it has occupied.

V T Thamilmaran was a rather poor choice to cite in support of federalism. He was the primary legal luminary behind the ISGA and was a hardcore separatist going back to his involvement in the Suyatchi Kazhagam in the 1970s.

Involving people like him in their project is one reason among dozens others why the federalists have never been able to advance their cause. They simply live in a different world.

“Given the opposition to the devolution of power to the Tamils in the Sinhalese community, this process has to be gradual and should be able to shift the Sinhalese mind set.”

But what would the Tamils think about this “gradual” approach? From their perspective, their gains may be too slow to be even be perceptible by them. As for the Sinhalese, after conceding a little they may say that the political solution has been delivered and that any further demands would be proof that the Tamils are inching towards separation. The Tamils undoubtedly are aware of this which is why they distrust a minimalist solution like 13th Amendment.

The alternative would be to grant a radical solution- the dream of Colombo civil society “dreamers”- where an enormous amount of devolution is granted to a war devastated area with no clear leadership, and things become even more unstable than they already are.

The point I’m trying to make is that we are in a lose-lose situation. Whatever we do, the Tamils will feel cheated and that we did not deliver enough (and again, I really want someone to prove me wrong). That is why I argue for focusing on the basics of rebuilding instead of complicating things with a poorly-thought out “political solution.”

“Since Independence if you look at the Tamil grievances, what they have gone through, you will have the answers and that does not need a “focus study”.”

I’m afraid that I disagree. We need a “focus study” because we clearly have different views on how the war started.

The commonly-argued “civil society” answer trotted out for Western consumption is that the war started because there was no devolution of power, blithely ignoring the fact that there was no condition of war in SL from 1949 when the Federal party was established all the way up to 1983. If this “civil society” notion of history were accurate, the war should have started in the 1950s or 60s not the 80s.

My argument is that the war started because the Tamils increasingly lost their basic security in the 1970s and early 1980s, culminating in the 1983 riots which started the war. I believe the blame for this primarily falls on JR Jayawardene’s govt although some Tamils argue that the trend had started with Mrs. B. I see the basic problem not in terms of “political solution” but rather security. Today when I hear about the high crime rate in Jaffna that is guarded by tens of thousands of soldiers, I see that there is a very fundamental problem with the govt’s definition of security.

“Why don’t we give them the opportunity to organize these basics through the devolution of power?”

Good question, which deserves another question: where will the war-devastated North and East find the resources to deliver their own goods and services to rebuild? The TNA itself appears to be focusing more on getting Mahinda to deliver the basics rather than trying to win power through devolution.

“It is also rooted in the fact that many bogus upper-middle class Sinhalese nationalists in Sri Lanka(and many abroad who are, ironically, educated in the west) are paranoid that federalism=separatism and feel that federalism or, hell, any other kind of devolution(including the 13th ammendment) to the Tamil people in the north and east will be ushered in by Indian and western ” imperialists”.”

I think the crux of the problem is the failure of the majority to recognize the existence of an ethnic issue that needs a solution. Majority of them believe that “terrorism” that was plaguing the nation is wiped off (thanks to the valiant soldiers and HE Mahinda Rajapakse, regardless of the method used to crush it) and now the nation could move forward in development. Perhaps you could see it through the comments here on Groundviews with respect to justifying discrimination as necessary to gain back what was lost to British, etc. This is one of the downs of removing LTTE out of the equation, so that now there is barely any pressure to put up the ethnic issue on the table, instead there is an emphasis on development and a talk of “there are no minorities.” Even India’s pressure for 13 A is offset by using the new player, China, in this strategic location. Anyway, in few years the question will not be whether 13 A or federalism but whether the claim for north-east by Tamils is valid, given the pace of on-going Sinhalization.

“Thus if Dayapala says the conclusion could have been entirely different – thanks to Indian intervention of some kind – it must mean that the LTTE would not have been defeated, as that is the only other possibility. ”

Dayapala can correct me if I’m wrong, but he was essentially arguing that India played a direct role in the LTTE being undefeatable in its early years because the Tigers could hide in India when things got rough in SL. Prabakaran was in Tamil Nadu for virtually all of Eelam War I leaving his minions Kittu and Mahattaya in charge in SL.

In other words, if not for Indian intevention the LTTE would have been defeated at a much earlier date (1987, or 1982 if the Indians had extradited Prabakaran). Military power has little to do with the argument, which unfortunately makes your second generalization irrelevant.

where did Dayapala say that SL would not have won the war without Indian support? What support did India give?

See the following:

“Had not the LTTE assassinated Rajiv Gandhi, the conclusion of the Eelam war could have been entirely different.”

Dayapala did not just say that India assisted SL in the war, he said that the involvement of India had a direct impact on the outcome. In war there are only three possibilities: victory, defeat, and stalemate. In fact, “stalemate” is a misnomer because if one side packs up and leaves, without having been defeated in the conventional sense, the opposing side still wins. A very good example of this is the Vietnam War. We can say then that only two outcomes are possible: victory or defeat. Thus if Dayapala says the conclusion could have been entirely different – thanks to Indian intervention of some kind – it must mean that the LTTE would not have been defeated, as that is the only other possibility.

On the other hand, I would say that my other generalization is even more important. If SL does not possess the capacity to become a regional military superpower, should it then invest so much of its own resources into the upkeep of the military? These days, the nations that have strong militaries tend to be industrialized – they also possess nuclear weapons. I do not imagine that SL can possibly possess a nuclear weapon during the next 3 decades. For one thing, I doubt India would allow it. It is also an expensive proposition. How North Korea manages is anyone’s guess. And finally, if chemical/biological/nuclear weapons are used in the next age of terrorist warfare, all the defenses currently employed in SL will come to naught. Why do you think the West is pressing Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions?

RE: “I do not believe that it would be possible to win the Tamils’ trust in the near future. This is NOT to suggest that we thus have no obligation to the Tamils and should do nothing for them, far from it.”

Well argued. I too would like to see a good rebuttal of Wijayapala’s argument, because I more or less subscribe to the same idea. It appears that all our solutions revolve around making symbolic concessions to the Tamil people, with no real answers to their real problems or indeed, that of most Sri Lankans. The following argument is quite often raised (some might say by Sinhala nationalists?? that still does not automatically invalidate the argument though). The argument goes, over 52% of Tamils live in Sinhala dominated areas. So what good does devolution do to them? I think that’s a valid question. After all, does a Tamil living in a Sinhala dominated area need to move to a “Tamil province” to get equality?

The answer I’ve received to this is that devolution helps everybody. But then, why is it discussed in a context of providing a solutions to Tamils, rather than finding solutions which solve the problems of all Sri Lankans? Bottom line – presenting solutions that *appear* to polarize communities on the surface, I feel will do exactly that – polarize communities even futher. I wonder whether it’ll bring about a situation where some will be going to “Tamil territory” and others will be coming over to “Sinhala Territory”, instead of the country being Sri Lankan territory. Somehow, I don’t see how that increases ethnic amity and gets us on the way to a modern plural nation. If someone can please explain how, it would be much appreciated.

[Oops! Reposting on this thread where it's more relevant]

” What the article does not bother to explain is why, in SL, the Center is so hesitant to loosen its grip on power.”

I think you and I(and other reasonable, progressive Sinhalese people) know the answer to this is not just rooted in the concepts of nepotism and corruption. It is also rooted in the fact that many bogus upper-middle class Sinhalese nationalists in Sri Lanka(and many abroad who are, ironically, educated in the west) are paranoid that federalism=separatism and feel that federalism or, hell, any other kind of devolution(including the 13th ammendment) to the Tamil people in the north and east will be ushered in by Indian and western ” imperialists”. The politicians and upper-middle class Sinhalese nationalist ” intellectuals” exploit this feeling–not to mention the paranoid notion of the north and east breaking off and joining with Tamil nadu and creating a chain-effect of chaos in Delhi–amongst voting Sri Lankans and they don’t want to see any power-sharing in place. To them, power-sharing is synonymous with separatism and the death of the Buddhist-Sinhalese nationhood as they know it(or, so they think). Heshan, to get an idea of how paranoid some of these people are, please read this article and the conclusion it reaches about the 13th ammendment and read the even more ridiculous comments at the bottom(please take notice of how, apparently, Mr. Dayan Jayathilake is an evil, Catholic sadist bent on destroying Sri Lanka):

http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2010/06/30/a-response-to-dayan-jayathilake/

If most Sinhalese people read articles like the below-pasted one about federalism, I think paranoia would die down a bit(at the very least). I found this under the information section for the group on facebook titled ‘ Sri Lanka federalist movement’(there are only 24 members in the entire group, unsurprisingly):

‘Federalism will unite divided Sri Lanka’

“This country is already divided. This is the ground reality. The Sinhalese people have to be told this. There is no point in talking about history now. The Indo-Lanka Accord, the Banda-Chelva Pact and the Dudley Chelva Pact have recognized the separate distinct identity of the Tamils in the past. The Sinhalese have to be told that the divided country can be united by granting a federal solution,” said Prof. S. K Sittampalam, a senior historian, speaking at a seminar on ‘Federalizing the Sri Lankan State’ in the University of Jaffna Sunday. “We have the same claim to this island as do the Sinhalese. The Tamils and Sinhalese are the common inheritors of the civilization that appeared on the island around 900 B.C,” Prof. Sittampalam said. Dr. Rohan Edirisingha, senior lecturer in law in the University of Colombo, stressed the need for understanding the nature of unitary and federal systems and their basic features. He said that there is a lot of ignorance among the Sinhala people about the federal system of regional autonomy and that much needs to be done to educate them on the matter. “Many of them think that it could be a stepping stone to separation,” Dr. Edirisingha said. He appealed for greater dialogue between Tamil and Sinhala intellectuals and opinion makers on the federalism during his presentation on Saturday. “The southern polity is not prepared to accept Sri Lanka as a pluralist state.

Therefore how do we ‘sell’ the idea of federalism to the (Sinhala) majority? Is there enough to get out of this ghetto mentality and accept Sri Lanka as a pluralist state?” asked Mr. V. T Thamilmaran, senior lecturer in law in the university of Colombo, in his presentation at the seminar Sunday. “Internal self-determination should guarantee a judicial mechanism to ensure and uphold real self rule and shared sovereignty. Otherwise a federal constitution based on the principal of internal self determination would be nothing more than a piece of paper. It would have no more value in its application than the paper on which it is written on,” Mr. Thamilmaran said. “Internal self-determination should also guarantee territorial identity and strike a balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of a group, providing for a bill of rights charter in which special protection for the group should not be construed as a violation of the principle of equality,” he added. Mr. Thamilmaran pointed out that Articles 2, 3, 4, 75, 76 and 82 of the Sri Lankan constitution preclude the possibility of setting up a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution for Sri Lanka. The two day seminar and workshop were supported by the Fredrich Ebert Stiftung Foundation (Germany) in Colombo.

The article does make one good point. And that is that SL would not have won the war without Indian support. We can generalize this to mean that SL will never be a military powerhouse in the region. Now, that is just fine. But if your military will always be third-rate, there is little sense in investing so much of your money in the upkeep of the armed forces. Mighty India can come along one day and drop a few nuclear bombs from the sky – then all that money you invested in defense will have come to naught.

Thank you for responding.

“What is crucial will be winning the trust of the Tamil community for a democratic change through the devolution of power.”

How much devolution is needed to win the Tamils’ trust- there appears to be a disconnect between what you and Dayan want- 13th Amendment- and the claims of the TNA that the 13th Amendment is inadequate.

Aside from Douglas Devananda, whose support base is extremely limited among the Tamils, which Tamil leader champions 13th Amendment and will sell it to his/her constituency?

As much as I hate to say this- and I hope that I’m entirely wrong or that someone will refute this and put this view in the doghouse- I do not believe that it would be possible to win the Tamils’ trust in the near future. This is NOT to suggest that we thus have no obligation to the Tamils and should do nothing for them, far from it. What I am saying is that what we do for the Tamils should not be tailored around getting them to like us. Rather, it should be focused around concrete things like making sure they have the basics- food/water/shelter, security/freedom from paramilitary or security forces harassment, job opportunities, and access to government through implementing language provisions.

Without these basics, more abstract concessions like “devolution” will not accomplish anything. There will be the claim that it’s not enough, like what the critics say about 13th Amendment. We need to conduct a focused study on what rights the Tamils do not have that Sinhalese have, instead of treating devolution as the magical wand or silver bullet panacea that will fix everything.

“wasn’t it Dixit while dropping parippu also agreed with Casper Weinberger”

US and India were not friendly in those years. Why would Dixit make common cause with Weinberger? Perhaps you were thinking of Lalith Athulathmudali, not Dixit.