A ‘Sri Lankan identity’ and race relations
Repost This Article
Since the nation’s much-celebrated war victory, countless references have been made of our potential to become the Wonder of Asia. Is this mere hyperbole? Do we really have what it takes to become a prosperous, modern nation on par with emerging Asian superpowers like Singapore and Malaysia? Seneviratne’s candid response to this question is: “We are on our way to Zimbabwe, not Singapore.” – Prof. H. L. Seneviratne, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the University of Virginia, Lanka Monthly Digest, June 2011
Well, neighbourhood worries me a great deal, quite frankly you have a situation in Sri Lanka. The decimation of the LTTE was something which is good. But the Tamil problem does not disappear, with the defeat of the LTTE. The Tamil population has legitimate grievances. They feel they are reduced to second-class citizens. And our emphasis has been to persuade the Sri Lankan government that we must move towards a new system of institutional reforms, where the Tamil people will have a feeling that they are equal citizens of Sri Lanka, and they can lead a life of dignity and self-respect. It is not easy. Within Sri Lanka’s population, there are hotheads, the Sinhala chauvinism is a reality. – Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, June 2011
A regular contributor and commentator on Groundviews, R.K. Guruparan took part in a televised debate, conducted via Skype, first broadcast on Al Jazeera’s programme ‘The Stream’ on 13 July. The other person featured in the video, whose Skype connection curiously failed at about the same time the questions posed to him were getting harder, most recently took the entire theory of Galtung’s structural violence and bizarrely, yet revealingly, equated it to damaging to ‘parking pillars’. This gentleman’s fundamental position and weltanschauung is clearly revealed in a comment posted after his appearance on The Stream, noting that “I don’t see why Tamils want a special victim card and what they would get with it.”
The episode’s webpage, at the time of writing, features over 25 comments. The page has also been shared over 160 times on Facebook and retweeted over 55 times. Anchored to the large following of both featured guests on Facebook, Twitter and their respective blogs, though the actual views of their 15 minute programme segment on YouTube are surprisingly low (just 601 at the time of writing) there is a lot of conversation about the substance of the programme and the issues it raised on the web. Exceedingly frustrating is the scattered nature of these debates. In the minutes and hours after the broadcast, most of the exchanges occurred over Twitter. Over the next day, several blog posts were published on the programme. Conversations over multiple individual accounts and fan pages on Facebook have taken also place. Of these, the blog posts are the most widely accessible. Facebook is just impossible to curate or collate, because no single person would be friends with all of the 166+ accounts that have shared this article to date, making it impossible to ascertain the general timbre of the debate. Twitter offers its own set of challenges for archival and curation. The most interesting conversations have occurred between the following accounts,
- rkguruparan (Featured guest)
- indica (Featured guest)
- romesh_h
- aufidius
- nirananketell
- teearuna
- rizajazeel
Sadly, there’s no tool on the web that allows the easy curation of Twitter conversations spread across multiple accounts. What we’ve done is to capture some of the tweets using the web service Bundlr and present them as an archive of some of the leitmotifs in the debate this programme inspired. romesh_h, who is featured Groundviews, had the most exchanges with rkguruparan. nirananketell had the most exchanges with indica. aufidius addressed most of tweets to both rkguruparan and indica, for example, noting that “‘Better Island’ doesn’t necessarily come about with an ‘Island’ approach when communities face issues as communities”. rizajazeel is a much loved and well known blogger based in London, and teearuna based his observations on a recent essay by Prof. Michael Roberts published on Groundviews, which champions the concept of the ‘ecumenical Sri Lankan‘. The twitter exchanges between these seven accounts alone flag serious challenges to how we think about reconciliation and identity in post-war Sri Lanka, and worth engaging with constructively for precisely the same reason.
There is also one tweet, addressed to rkguruparan from the account of an individual included in our Bundlr bundle to underscore what the Indian PM referred to as a significant problem in post-war Sri Lanka – Sinhala chauvinism. @gihangamos, who we have learned through our own exchanges on Twitter is racist, notes in his first comment that rkguruparan ”promoted that #killingfields poster on the roads in the UK”. The denigration continues in a second tweet, again addressed to rkguruparan, noting that “I am interested in buying some land in North,u know a good contact? Already got few in Hambantota, need some from Jaffna too 
” And that is the sum total of @gihangamos‘s contribution to the debate. Rather than fringe lunacy, what is disturbing – and to varying degrees, reflected in the sentiments of others who don’t see the problems Tamil face in Sri Lanka as distinct from shared and growing concerns over illiberal governance – is that this reflects the sensibilities of a larger community. Glib apologists for this community, out of callous ignorance or malevolent deceit, have the chutzpah to suggest that a Sinhala majority which supports the 18th Amendment, partook in the monumental waste of food to celebrate the second term of a President, continue to force Tamils into submission, continue to treat them as somehow suspect, countenances violent attacks in broad daylight against Tamil MPs and supports a government whose senior ministers openly call the Tamil version of the national anthem a joke is really able, through essentially the imposition of a soi-disant ‘Sri Lankan’ identity, address the enduring problems of systemic racism, post-war.
Will “working together” to acknowledge and address legitimate Tamil grievances - as indica seems to suggest should somehow and magically occur in a comment left on rizajazeel‘s blog (The Guru vs Indi Fight Debate) – given a majority mindset of this nature stand any chance of success? Alternatives and ideas welcome.
Will “working together” to acknowledge and address legitimate Tamil grievances – as indica seems to suggest should somehow and magically occur.
Is there an alternative to working together? It’s a small island. We can work and live together. Colombo, for example, is a majority Tamil speaking city. Working together isn’t magic. It’s actually quite normal.
To quote PravNJ on my blog: ‘When it comes down to it the government and the people at the top will screw you over regardless of your ethnicity’ (http://indi.ca/2011/07/i-am-not-my-race-i-am-sri-lankan/)
I believe in equality for all Sri Lankans, regardless of race, gender caste or creed. I think that is something possible to work towards, and worthy.
Everything we would have said in response, Iromi already has on your blog.
@indica says #Colombo is a majority Tamil speaking city. Nice spin, & ignores (again) systemic conflict. For real figures and problems, read Tamil – speaking people are 56% in Colombo but administration is Sinhala alone:
Colombo population (2001) Sinhalese 270,932 – 42 percent, Tamils 199,429 – 31 percent, Muslims 163,167 – 25 percent and others 13,572 – two percent, Total 647,100 – 100 percent. Tamil-speaking peoples – Tamils and Muslims are 56 percent and over 2/3rd – 67.3 percent of the population of Colombo Divisional Secretariat Division. But the Divisional Secretary and the language of administration have always been Sinhalese. Government Employees in Colombo Municipal Council, Colombo Divisional Secretary’s Division, Police Stations, Hospitals, Maternity Homes and all the Government Departments in Colombo Municipal area are not according to ethnic ratio.
Emphasis ours.
/Colombo, for example, is a majority Tamil speaking city. -indi/
No kidding!
To your information; only recently the police “requested” the bus drivers driving to Jaffna not to start from Wellawatta, but from Pitakotuwa
”Colombo is a majority Tamil speaking city” -
For those who don’t know what has been happening to governance in this country since Independence, many retired top civil servants and diplomats have told LLRC that ethnic minorities have been oppressed politically, economically, socially, culturally, etc.
What the army of occupation has been doing in the Northeast and how government has been conducting its other businesses in the Northeast in the last two years has been reported in the pages of Groundviews, Transcurrent, some have been reported in national(part self-censure) and international(part ignorance) newspapers, …..
Through i. the development of Colombo as Commercial centre from colonial times and ii. poor government investment since independence in the Northeast, individual Tamils have been leaving the Northeast and moving to Colombo and other parts of the South. Aerial bombing and intense shelling in the 80s/90s onwards, more Tamils have been leaving the Northeast. Some of them who wish togo back won’t go back unless there is reduction in army control.
Most of those who moved to the South started businesses and ssmall minority was able to get government jobs.
For reconciliation to take place with understanding of facts, the government should publish the percentages of different ethnicities in government employment in the last 5/6 decades. Many have been saying the ratio of ethnic minorities in the government employment is much lower than that of the ratio of ethnic minorities in population. It’s really good to have a table of numerical figures for the variation in employment and population over the last 5/6 decades.
What’s the ratio of Tamils to Sinhalese held in prisons without charges?
http://www.llrc.lk/images/stories/docs/Sep2010/K%20Godage.pdf
K.Godage(former Sri Lankan diplomat) addresses LLRC, 15 September 2010:
‘’….The Tamils have undergone, and are undergoing immense hardship. We need to reach out to them…. We have persistently discriminated against the Tamil people from 1956…. There is no reason for any one to be insecure, as a result of giving into the reasonable demands of the Tamil people. …. Now I must tell you of a very, very sad situation, particularly bad and dangerous situation. We have in our prisons over 2000 young Tamil men. Some of them have been taken on suspicion. Just picked up and taken. In detention without charges for years, Sir, for years ….’’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2011/03/110309_prisoners.shtml
The human rights group Amnesty International has called on the President of Sri Lanka to release those it describes as “forgotten prisoners”
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=34191
Tamil political prisoners stage hunger strike in Vavuniyaa prison
16 July 2011,
Forty Tamil political prisoners detained in the Vavuniyaa prison Saturday started a fast unto death demanding immediate release from prison. The number of prisoners on hunger strike has risen to 44 including the 4 who began their fast a week ago. The prisoners have been demanding that the government should take immediate measures to expedite their cases against them now pending in law courts for several years without inquiry. The condition of the four prisoners who started their fast a week ago is reported to be in critical state, civil sources in Vavuniyaa said.
STOP. DO NOT FORCE IDENTITY ON PEOPLE.
People can choose what ever identity they like and conformable with.
Its better to accept identities as they are, and learn to live with that by adapting the law and constitution to give equal right to people of all identities.
When every one is happy they, will adapt more common identity as sri lankans.
While I agree that indi expresses himself somewhat clumsily in the video, I think his overall argument is entirely worthy of consideration. There are many issues that cut across ethnic lines, so why not unite and start tackling these things together? To my mind, this way of doing things offers a greater chance of improving lives, building trust and confidence, and generally brightening our future prospects. At least it would be a hopeful beginning.
To advocate such an approach is not to deny the Tamil community their identity, nor that they face enormous difficulties that are specific to them. Nor is it intended as a substitute for tackling the larger reforms necessary to make all communities feel safe and secure in Sri Lanka. But these reforms, if they are to be meaningful and sustainable, will take a great deal of time to design, negotiate, legislate and implement. This would be so even if groundviews were in charge of the government.
Besides, if you disagree with indi, what are the alternatives? Going back to war? That has every chance of leading to yet another catastrophic conclusion. Hoping for some foreign military intervention? That’s just plain delusional. Relying on international pressure? This may be useful in limited ways, but I honestly can’t see genuine reconciliation being imposed from the outside. Ruminating about structural violence on English-language websites and workshops? Wake me up if you see any movement.
” fear that this mindset may be facilitating a horrible mistake – that we might be dreaming of a China or Singapore or Malaysia, but may wake up with a Burma or Zimbabwe. Maybe we will come to realize the true value of democracy only if we have to someday fight for it.”
For someone who advocated fighting for rights, it’s a pity you’ve gone to sleep, not unlike so many others in Sri Lanka.
“To advocate such an approach is not to deny the Tamil community their identity, nor that they face enormous difficulties that are specific to them.”
This is not a view that @indica shares, as noted above and littered across his blog.
“To advocate such an approach is not to deny the Tamil community their identity, nor that they face enormous difficulties that are specific to them.”…
This is not a view that @indica shares, as noted above and littered across his blog.
Uh, that is a view I share. I don’t deny the Tamil community their identity. How does one even do that?
If you want my full quote excerpted above, it’s this:
I don’t see why Tamils want a special victim card and what they would get with it.
in my experience everyone from southerners to a friend that got out Menik Farm was concerned about roads, educating their kids and getting a job to support their families. Maybe that’s me, but to me those seem like obvious concerns
Where in there am I denying anyone identity? Be whoever you are, let’s all stand on common ground and just be ourselves in peace.
It is possible to discuss this without calling me a racist. I’d say that’s the opposite of what I’m doing. I’m trying to get to a common ground.
This kumbaya attitude is monumentally tragic, steeped as it is in an ignorant arrogance that prides and parades itself as a position and model.
Seeking to downplay or supplant is to deny. Do point to a a blog post or tweet of yours expressing outrage or concern over the gravity of the incidents and issues facing Tamils as Tamils, as specifically noted above? Given that they all happened over the past year, and with increased frequency against the Tamil community by the Army in Jaffna in run up to elections around the corner, to say their problems are somehow ‘Sri Lankan’, and to suggest that the same ‘Sri Lankans’ who countenance this systemic violence are those who can help ameliorate it is rich.
From the reactions of fellow parliamentarians to the Tamil TNA MPs during vital debates to decapitated dog heads atop their front gates and their cadavers in front of their doors, this country still reeks of what is the very same mentality that gave rise to the war, but now morphing into what is essentially a denial of enduring legitimate grievances through the fantastical creation of a ‘Sri Lankan’ identity. To address post-war, one needs to acknowledge their nature. If one even refuses to see these problems for what they are, much less observe or act upon it, then Niran Anketell’s tweets here and here are particularly resonant and have a strange foreboding.
Also, we aren’t talking about parking pillars, just to be clear. One risks further disappointment to concur with Iromi in believing that you can be far more well informed.
Groundviews,
Your anger would perhaps better be directed at understanding what Indica is saying as opposed to putting him down.
Indica seems to be defending a politics of universal dignity, characterized by:
- equal dignity of citizens
- equalization of rights and entitlements
- principle of equal citizenship.
This is model over the long-term aims to assimilate multiple communal identities into one national identity. The general problem with this model is that it does not allow for communal difference; a flaw that can be fatal in multi-cultural/racial/ethnic communities.
Your comments seem to call for the differences of each citizen and community to be acknowledged as equally important. Consequently, the model works to ensure that differences – cultural or otherwise – are maintained, even to the extent by making difference the basis for differential treatment. This generally violates the principle of non-discrimination, historically understood.
I personally subscribe to the politics of dignity/recognition whereby the difference of each citizen/community are seen as key to the collective national identity. In this scenario, the differences accrue from being Tamil/Sinhalese/Muslim/etc. are not recognized as being exclusive to a Sri Lankan national identity. On the contrary these differences are a vital part of the Sri Lankan identity.
The current problem is:
a) the Sri Lankan government aspires to the politics of dignity/recognition but practice the politics of universalism
b) Certain segments of the Tamil Diaspora and liberal left explicitly call for the politics of difference (the second model) without recognizing the need to have a healthy understanding of national bonds.
The biggest problem with this model is that it is a model that requires a lot of collective work and will to maintain.
Dear Romesh, we have curated this and other fora, during the height of war and post-war for us to clearly and easily differentiate between what is inanity and principled, reasoned difference.
“Your comments seem to call for the differences of each citizen and community to be acknowledged as equally important.” Not sure where we said that. Where and how does the recognition of unique challenges faced by any community in post-war Sri Lankan in any way mean, suggest or guarantee that they are continued into the future? Recognition doesn’t guarantee redressal, but is surely a first step in the debates necessary for reform?
“the Sri Lankan government aspires to the politics of dignity/recognition but practice the politics of universalism” Incorrect. There is no factual basis to prove the government aspires to the politics of dignity. It aspires to the politics of majoritarianism, which for governments constituted by a Sinhala majority, isn’t really new. Much has been written about this already. Our mistake is perhaps to expect anything different, but if @indica can equate Galtung’s corpus to damaged parking pillars, we would like to believe we still are of some use to set the record straight.
@ GroundViews:
Re: ” “Your comments seem to call for the differences of each citizen and community to be acknowledged as equally important.” Not sure where we said that.”
Here you go:
“Given that they all happened over the past year, and with increased frequency against the Tamil community by the Army in Jaffna in run up to elections around the corner, to say their problems are somehow ‘Sri Lankan’, and to suggest that the same ‘Sri Lankans’ who countenance this systemic violence are those who can help ameliorate it is rich.” I read this as saying that the problems that Tamil face are not Sri Lankan. Please clarify.
The point of my comment was not focused on “the recognition of unique challenges faced by any community in post-war Sri Lanka” but rather the role of identity in race relations (which also happens to be the topic of this post). Recognition of identity must the first step in the debates for reform – unfortunately however different stakeholders in the debate have different conceptions as to identity and its role that it should play in race relations. My post was aimed at showing the differences between the different politics.
Re: “the Sri Lankan government aspires to the politics of dignity/recognition but practice the politics of universalism”:
When the SL govt says “We celebrate Tamil holidays, Muslim holidays and the like” they are *talking* about the politics of dignity i.e. we are recognize all differences as being part of Sri Lankan. However they *practice* the politics of universalism, where all minority identities are to subsume into a larger Sri Lankan identity. In essence the SL govt is talking about two different concepts of identity at the same time.
Given that you agree with the substance of Iromi’s comment, you likely also agree with Iromi’s base assumption that Indi is ignorant and doing nothing. Quite unfortunate given that a) Indi actually is courageous enough to take a stand on what he says and b) he actually has done stuff with respect to reconciliation. Last I checked, you do not need to agree with someone to at the same time recognize the very good works that they do. Can I say it is very disturbing when we choose to “eat our own” in these types of conversation as opposed to recognizing what unites us is far more important than what divides us?
“I read this as saying that the problems that Tamil face are not Sri Lankan.” Eh? It seems like problems with comprehension are sadly spreading even to the best of us. Our suggestion is not that the problem Tamils face as Tamils are alien, rather the limits of any Sinhala led definition of a ‘Sri Lankan’ identity imposed on other communities, given the structural violence prevalent even post-war.
@indica is ignorant, or are we to assume that you too, inter alia, think structural violence is related to architecture, or like him, don’t see the irony of saying Colombo’s a majority Tamil speaking city and yet not even remotely acknowledge the problems that arise as a consequence, for Tamils? It’s good that you are disturbed. Make sure it’s for the right reasons.
Groundviews:
1. Where in the world did I say that the definition of ‘Sri Lankan’ identity should be Sinhala led and imposed on other communities?! Read my comment again and realize its focused on three different types of identity politics: politics of universalism, politics of difference, politics of recognition. Please point out where I talked about who is responsible for development of identity. If you were to *ask* me, I would respond to say it is *us* as the engaged grassroots that develop identity, irrespective of ethnicity. (Note: this goes back to my comment about how differences are at least superficially very important to the Groundviews)
2. I am not defending anybody’s ignorance, and Indi is certainly well capable of talking for himself. I have no idea why he used the analogy he did and will leave him to defend it. However a fundamental principle of conflict resolution is a good start in conflict resolution is recognizing we *all* have much to learn (especially as youth) and when necessary assume gaps of knowledge as opposed to intentional ignorance.
Take for instance the Colombo being a Tamil speaking city. In response to Indi’s Colombo is a Tamil speaking city, you responded with more facts and then called him ignorant. Really now how in the world is that being ignorant? Did you at least give Indi a chance to respond? Or do you expect him to know everything? I will readily say that I do not know everything (including both facts about Colombo) and generally rely on these forums to learn what I don’t know. Using your standard, everybody is ignorant, and the word loses all definition.
I have no idea why we have to be so harsh to each other, but how about we assume that we are all well-intentioned and are willing to learn as opposed to being callously harsh to those who know less than us? Not to mention your own site policy states “Please do not post comments that are off topic, defamatory, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy”
Sigh.
“I have no idea why we have to be so harsh to each other” Indeed. Context is vital to any debate, whether it be racial identity of @indica’s self-professed ignorance. To continue with Niran Anketell’s advice, do read up on the recent context and revert?
As Guruparan also observed, you do have this curious tendency to lecture people. Reciprocally, and in the same mould, let us tell you what we believe. We believe in entering a debate with enough knowledge to add value to it. We do not believe in experts. We agree that we all learn. We believe however that someone like Dayan Jayatilleke – who by the way we are always chastised for giving space to by even colleagues and friends – brings to this forum a level of debate (i.e. defence of government) that you need to be extremely well read and intelligent to contest. We believe this contest is good, but don’t see enough of it here and beyond. We believe, nay know, that @indica, out of self-admission, is given to randomness, dismisses structural violence, and that in a recent post on his blog and in response to a comment by Iromi, professes that a 10 year old’s worldview on identity is just fine. Feel free to defend, interpret, follow heck even venerate him, but there’s that adage that springs to mind with a loose parallel here – when you sleep with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Not sure what or where the ‘us’ for you in Sri Lanka is as a collective that can, and this is what is important, acknowledge legitimate Tamil grievances as contra distinct from shared grievances amongst citizens. We urge you to not idly theorise from Canada without experiencing ground realities and encountering that which is the hardest to flag in a debate such as this – the daily systemic injustice towards Tamil speaking people, in Colombo and even more outside it. The canard that life’s peachy now after war for them has value only insofar as all of us, across Sri Lanka, now enjoy this much more human security than during war. But problems persist and they are unequally divided across race. The ‘us’ constructed by ‘Sri Lankans’ who do not see these fault-lines doesn’t stand a chance of embracing precisely that which keeps Tamils marginalised. This does not however mean that only Tamils alone – to use @indica’s argot, “playing the victim card” – can or should determine how to address the challenges they face, and be part of an identity larger than their own without giving up their dignity or pride. Niran Anketell has already stated our essential position succintly in two tweets which you may have missed.
“@arjunan @indica thanks,but it’s not about individuals.as tamils in SL, we need to join hands with Sinhala progressive on common issues [1]”
“@arjunan @indica while uncompromisingly fighting for the rights and interests of the tamil community. the two are not inconsistent aims [2]“
To be crystal clear, I do not think Tamil issues are like parking spaces. Whether one chooses to believe me is irrelevant, in the same way that whether one chooses to believe the earth is round is irrelevant.
What I am saying is that Indi’s opinion, deficient in aspects as it may be, does not at all seem to be ignorant. If anything he has a lot to learn, something which I myself openly recognize. I would much rather align myself with people who have the confidence to take a stance and the courage to take the criticism while continuing to do important reconciliation work as opposed to those who are adept at using knowledge and eloquence as a hammer.
As conflict resolvers, we have to move away from the standard of being perfect to perhaps a lower threshold of ‘good enough’.
GV:
Again, I am not sure where the hostility comes from, especially since we agree on so much. However given that your responses to my posts have been fairly emotional, I shall let this be my last.
1. I apologize if the way I communicate sounds like lecturing; it is not intentional. My professors have consistently taught me to write as if the listener is hearing the subject for the first time and it is a habit that I find difficulty to lose. Much apologies again.
2. Groundviews is one of the few sources of SL news/editorship that I consistently rely upon for reasoned, critical articles. My remarks were in that vein and focused on the topic of the article i.e. the Sri Lanka conflict and Race Relations. Our conversation has unfortunately become a debate about Indica’s views and I apologize for my role in that.
3. I actually have not met or talked to Indica prior to his appearance on Al Jazeera. My comments on his views were based on what I heard on the program and what I read on Groundviews; neither of which in my mind warranted the title of ignorance. It is clear that you believe otherwise, by pointing to sources I neither read or rely upon. Given that I generally prefer to make my own views about people, I will continue to with hold my judgment on that.
4. My focus on civility perhaps is influenced by the conduct of some of my colleagues here in Canada, where opponents are quick to apply labels and call names, no matter if either is warranted. I find that such name-calling is inappropriate especially when all sides recognize that they are in need for learning. My experience has been that calling people names (i.e. “ignorant” or a “dog full of fleas”) generally is a conversation-ender where the listener no longer wants to learn from you. Apparently your experience has been that naming and shaming works. More power to you.
4. Given that you called into question my interest in SL, I should let you know I actually lived and went to school in Sri Lanka. Nigel actually was a year below me in the same school. I still maintain many friendships in the country; friendships which cross ethnicity and political ideology.
5. I also do not maintain that life is peachy after the war; in fact our work here in Canada recognizes “that problems persist and they are unequally divided across race”. Where we differ is our agreement on the proposition that “while problem may primarily impact particular groups, the construction of a solution must be multi-ethnic in dimension, particularly in a democracy.”
It is the latter statement that I wished to explore further; an exploration which unfortunately got lost amidst all the typing. I again apologize for my role in the above as well as if you think any of the above is lecturing. For better or worse, defending ones position can take the form of lecturing, particularly when ones position has been for a variety of reasons misunderstood.
Best regards to all.
We fully appreciate your concern and engagement, but humbly propose that attending and having friends who went to Colombo International School is a weak basis for critiques on the communal faultlines of Sri Lanka when resident in Canada? Reg #2, yes, it would have been better to engage on what you thought, rather than project what you thought someone else meant to say. #3, and there’s the rub. Deeper and wider reading on individual recommended. #4, whip out your thesaurus to find a more politically correct term to define someone who out of self-admission equates Galtung to architecture. #5 we don’t disagree on the thrust of your argument, we differ on the necessary emphasis on injustice post-war, which though shared, is not equally shared across communities. #5′s further elucidation more than welcome, but not through the limited rubric of the individual you’ve appropriated thus far as a vehicle to champion your argument.
You are right,
Being a resident of Canada by itself may have been a weak basis for critiques on the communal faultlines of Sri Lanka.
I would have thought however my academic experiences researching identity politics, work experience with Canadian human rights leaders and leadership experiences in building post-secondary leadership programs focused on constructing robust Canadian identities for racialized students would at the very least been relevant. (1)
However it seems I am mistaken. Enjoy.
(1) http://studentlife.uoguelph.ca/oia/navigate-oia/chroma
“on constructing robust Canadian identities” Could be relevant, but certainly not prescriptive. Canadian student life and the realities of life for those on the ground in Sri Lanka, we suspect, are somewhat different.
Never expected or intended to prescribe.
I firmly believe that the future of Sri Lanka should be dictated by those living inside the country (who necessarily are most affected by the government policies) with the role of the Diaspora being to inform and influence that evolution.
Romesh
/I firmly believe that the future of Sri Lanka should be dictated by those living inside the country (who necessarily are most affected by the government policies) with the role of the Diaspora being to inform and influence that evolution./
Either you are naive or you have a sinister agenda.
How on earth within the grips of the “upE Ratta” sl government, army and their victorious blind supporters, do you think the minorities can ‘dictate’ (whatever the meaning you have for it in your dictionary) the future of their country? Taking more and more batches of dangerous journeys to become unwelcomed boat people? All what you try to preach and what Indica parroted “We all sri lankans’ & ‘All helped in Trail walk’ are to salvage the bursting image ship of the sl gov & its military, and to help push and kick the minorities mentally, physically, politically and geographically.
The only environment where or when your suggestion would work is where all are equal and free to talk what they think and their fears. Catch 22′ly if we were there, then we would not need this discussion, would we?
If you, indica and people who repeat, “We all sri lankans and we can resolve our own problems” should have thought why we could not do it since 1948. Please do not bring the LTTE ingredient into the problem soup at this point of cooking. We can spread it when we take take the spoiled soup out of the oven.
I am a strong believer that pro-eelam Tamil Diaspora should voice more when the sl government and its supporters buying time to buy the pro-lankan Tamil diaspora to portray it as the sole tamil diaspora that waves unceasing green flag movements for whatever the government does. if anyone who is a keen observer of this act can easily see how such PR attempts by sl government is getting succeeded. For saying this, I do not have to agree with the LTTE flag waving Tamil diaspora, though it is needed to counter the lion flag waving, Complaint-to-Ofcom-on-Channel 4-KillingFields sinhala diaspora.
Even with all its negatives, I strongly believe pro-eelam tamil diaspora is the only entity that can counter and challenge even in a David level the UN residing Australian Goliath, travelling Shakespearen Goebbels, Marxian war crime apologists, sl terroism exfarts and image processing exwarts, ‘We all sri lankans & we can solve(?) our problems within the country’ slick willies and of course, Bell Pottinger & Patton Boggs.
Yes, you can resolve any problem within sri lanka, but ONLY when all have ‘attained’ the equal rights, freedom of speech, fearless life and equal opportunity; not now.
correction: Indi’s opinion about Colombo being a Tamil city NOT the parking spaces thing… (Indi, while we have never met, that really was a very peculiar analogy).
Indi didn’t say it was a Tamil city; he said it was mostly a Tamil-speaking city. Don’t forget that both the Tamils and Moors speak Tamil.
Look, can we agree that no ethnic /ethnolingual/ethnoreligious community in Sri Lanka or of Lankan origin has a monopoly of either virtue or victimhood?
Furthermore, if one is to embrace the ecumenical, is it possible to agree on Kumar Sangakkara’s views on the LTTE and its war AS WELL AS on July ’83? If not, the whole project fails. It seems to me typical sleight of hand to ignore this vital aspect of his discourse. Sangakkara rightly said:
“The Sri Lankan government was fighting the terrorist LTTE in a war that would drag our country’s development back by decades. This war affected the whole of our land in different ways. Families from the lower economic classes, sacrificed their young men and women by thousands in the service Sri Lanka’s military. Even Colombo, a capital city that seemed far removed from the war’s frontline, was under siege by the terrorists using powerful vehicle and suicide bombs. Bombs in public places targeting both civilians and political targets became an accepted risk of daily life in Sri Lanka. Parents travelling to work by bus would split up and travel separately so that if one of them died the other will return to tend to the family. Each and every Sri Lankan was touched by the brutality of that conflict…The war is now over. Sri Lanka looks forward to a new future of peace and prosperity”.
Much as I like and respect Prof HL Seneviratne, the avoidance of the road to Zimbabwe also requires the absence or rollback of the role of the former colonial oppressor and the backlash it automatically generates.
Dayan,
Not discounting at all your submission about the perceived and real absence or rollback of the role of the former colonial oppressor and the backlash it automatically generates (you perhaps forgot to add “in the South”, which is the most finicky about perceived challenges to sovereignty) the suggestion is that in the North, as is abundantly clear, there are problems that impact one community over all others, exacerbating then the shared (‘Sri Lankan’?!) challenges of housing, inflation, sanitation, corruption et al.
Your position here echoes that which you said in response to Nation building post war, noting that “No discussion of nation building in Sri Lanka can be serious, still less fruitful, if it doesn’t acknowledge the positive results of the war and the victory.”
That’s a valid position, and in your case, informed by we suspect a bit more reading and learning than this particular Tahrir generation poster boy. The problem however, we feel, stems from seeking to deny the existence of structural violence post-war, of which there can be no doubt even in Colombo, as noted by our previous comment. The debate can and must be around its causes and solutions. We don’t claim to have any monopoly over THE solution or THE way forward, save for the provision of a platform for some critical discussion to take root.
What we cannot countenance is the negation of the basis for this debate. Our position on this is articulated best by Publius, writing over a year ago in SRI LANKA’S POST-WAR FUTURE: A RADICAL PLURALIST RESPONSE TO THE ETHICAL REALIST VIEW and in the discussions on that post which ensued.
1. Groundviews, your point that I should have added the qualifier ‘in the South’, tends to be a wee bit misleading.
Perhaps what I should do is write a piece to a Sunday paper (and/or drop someone a memo) advocating a plebiscite (internationally monitored) on whether or not Sri Lanka should submit to an ‘independent international inquiry, as recommended by blah blah and blah, on allegations of war crimes committed during the last stages of the war’.
Is my point clearer now?
2. Groundviews readers, if you can’t arrive at a common ground with Indi, who is a moderate progressive by any Sri Lankan standard, then I suggest you folk stay on wherever in the world (read West) you are. Indi is pretty much as good as it gets. The ones who are more in ageement with the rest of you are utterly unrepresentative, while the monolingual youth are far more militantly nationalist. If you can’t stretch enough to find a common denominator with Indi Samarajiva, you sure as hell ain’t gonna like the shift that’s underway even among the English speaking urban and business classes; the new axis/project/bloc on the horizon.
Dayan, damn f***** WordPress ate up last two attempts to respond to #1 so apologise for the hurried nature of this last attempt.
No truck with you at all on how you think plebiscite will go. You can do both, but it would be rather unnecessary, because the results would be largely unchanged from the electoral results on 26 January 2010. We say largely, because seeing RW’s stance with the UN SG in New York recently, one may curiously even find the support for the question to be even larger than partisan support for the UPFA.
To bring it back to the debate, and why we added the qualifier, is that this signifies nothing other than the dynamics of what you’ve pointed out in your recent essay to GV. That dystopic vision is one future scenario, but underlying realities on the ground, as enumerated above and we are certain you know better about, given old friends who are behind some of the violence in the Jaffna, suggest fault lines within Sri Lanka unaddressed by an identity constructed with the ‘api wenuwen api’ populist base. Note we aren’t suggesting it’s animating power has weakened, or that it is not a powerful fiction that binds many in the South esp. across party political lines (combined with growing disenchantment with UNP leadership) or that to claim it and use it is somehow bad. We submit that (a) the ‘api’ in that phrase doesn’t yet embrace or seek to embrace Tamils (you can’t even find that expression once articulated or written in the language anywhere in Sri Lanka) and (b) seeking to impose a post-racial Sri Lanka upon people who are still ‘second class citizens’ is fraught is risk that any undergrad student of conflict resolution can enumerate in greater detail, when projected over the long term. Just like Obama’s America is far from post-racial, the end of the war has served to bring to the fore structural deficiencies and ingrained racism that gave rise to it. We believe this is a good thing – the war and more precisely, the LTTE prevented precisely the kind discuss this forum and others now entertain, also beyond the web and esp. in the North and East where this debate is most needed.
But to suffer the ignominy of attacks when engaging in a democratic political space (we missed your condemnation of the attack against the TNA and the opprobrium over dead dogs appearing on their gateposts?) suggest quite clearly that even post-war, these are issues that the support base for the plebiscite you speak of don’t care to acknowledge, much less debate. The solution is there and obvious, we are told here and by government. We are ‘Sri Lankan’. Or to quote the Tahrir generation a la Sri Lanka, “the root is NOT racial…“.
Denial is a slippery slope, but you know this.
It does seem pretty pointless to open a discussion about a previous discussion and then dismiss one of the discussants as ignorant whenever he tries to clarify his position. Isn’t it better to debunk his ideas rather than simply calling him stupid for having those ideas?
As DJ says, Indi is certainly one of the moderate voices on the SL blogs, and has certainly been consistent in his inconsistency — ie he’s always demonstrated his ability to be swayed by an argument. So if you can’t engage with him, who the f*** do you think you can engage with?
Dr. Jayatilleke,
With all due respect for a person of your stature, asking “can we agree that no ethnic /ethnolingual/ethnoreligious community in Sri Lanka or of Lankan origin has a monopoly of either virtue or victimhood?” is fundamentally the wrong question to be asking.
It does not matter who has the monopoly of virtue or victimhood; the only fact that matters is that the state has the monopoly on power – power currently exercised to support the belief that the State of Sri Lanka has a monopoly on virtue (how else can one explain the government rhetoric about a hostage rescue situation that has zero civilian casualties?!).
The fact is that history is important. As I have said previously (1), asking someone to forget the past is like asking one to forget their father/mother. For better or worse, peoples sense of justice/injustice will be defined by their experience of the past war; the collective experience which will unfortunately define the short-term future of the country.
The key is not to let the past war define the long term future of Sri Lanka.
(1) http://groundviews.org/2011/05/30/sri-lanka-finding-the-middle-ground/
Dayan
Even if Sangakkara didn’t know what the successive governments have been doing in the last 63+ years, you should know it. If people os your age and experience stop singing for supper and tell our children the truth the future generations will be saved. Otherwise they’re going to be in the same pit as we’ve been in the last 63+ years.
Sinhalese leaders have been having their eyes on the next elections and not on what is good for the country in the long term.
Can’t that change even after all these wretched fate of the country??
When the 18th Amendment to the constitution was made the Opposition wasn’t consulted. But after appointing and letting APRC(without TNA) work for two years and keeping their report out of sight of the public(along with the Udallagama report), telling that he would appoint PSC to come up with a proposal and asking the Opposition to join the PSC while he is ”talking” with TNA, our country isn’t mature enough to have a respectable person as a leader ? Is there any decency left in the President’s manouvres ??
While the whole of Kilinochchi(as is the rest of the Northeast) is destroyed not only by bombing and shelling but also by malicious erasing of many houses and public buildings, people are devastated(socially, economically, culturally, environmentally, psychologically, physically) by six decades of oppression and while the Eastern PC is not allowed to function by malicious veto power of the Governor and while the Northern Development Task Force is made of 18 Sinhalese and one Muslim, while the Northeast is being prevented from springing back to ”life” by repressive military rule, the President is going to lay foundation stone for a stadium ? (what is happening to the stadium newly built in the South?)
Can you please put some sense inside the President’s head even if the basic tenet of Buddhism hasn’t penetrated his head and heart?
How/why are people talking about ‘Sri Lankan identity’ while the army boots are treading the people of the Northeast?
Many Sinhalese have made suggestions to LLRC that would bring about explicit racial harmony – with implicit Sri Lankan identity.
If you demand Sri Lankan identity from the people under the army boots, something is certainly missing there !
If the MR regime in concurrence with Kumar Sangakara’s views, we will not be debating the ecumenical aspects of the Sri Lankan society now; would we? As Kumar S said, he is a Sinhala, a Tamil, a Muslim, and a Burger; if MR genuinely demonstrates such a position, the rest is relatively easy to accomplish!
The issue is MR will never be like Sangakara; different class all together!
Burning_Issue, for whatever it is worth, one should not ignore Def/Sec Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s extended defense of Sangakkara in last Sunday’s Island, which of course runs contrary to the minister’s statement.
Dayan, terribly sorry to barge in on this thread with Burning_Issue, but would like your view on our reading of GR’s extended defense.
Could it be that Gota’s just played a masterful stroke in owning the speech as opposed to taking action against Sanga in the public domain, and in the immediate future, which will not unlike the Katunayake FTZ reflect quite badly on the regime. The near complete erasure of Sanga’s performances from the Sinhala sporting media reporting on the current tour after the MCC speech is one indication of how a fearful mainstream media will actually, without even explicit order, help the regime ensure the man is held accountable for what he said. We are not entirely unconvinced therefore that action will not be taken against him. It will, we feel, over time. Just not now. We agree however, that this is excellent play by the Rajapaksa’s.
I concur with Groundviews; GR is pivotal to the MR regime; if he possesses even 20% of Sangakara’s vision, he would have influenced his brother!
It very evident that the Tamil issue will not be resolved by this regime. MR said many things; set up many bodies; made promises to international leaders; that he will address the genuine grievances of the minorities and the evidences so far indicate that he is not a man who can be trusted. There are two conclusions that one can come to on this:
1. MR is a racist on par with the rest of the chauvinists who surround him
2. MR is acutely aware of the political ramifications of resolving the Tamil issues by devolving power.
I would like to defer my judgement on the first point; 50% I am convinced that he is a racist, but am prepare to wait if I can be proved wrong. The second point is historically supportive in terms of MR’s defence.
However I am a bit puzzled; has the Sinhala public been radicalised since the time of CBK? Wasn’t there a survey during CBK’s tenure that 60% of the Sinhala public that supported a form of federal solution? Was it only a reflection of ending the war at a cost; now that the war is won and no need to incur that cost?
Or; the Sinhala public still sympathetic towards a form of political solution for the Tamils but the hard core chauvinists that surround MR preventing any progress on this matter? Is it just a small group of people who for their own narrow end hold the nation to ransom or is it a bigger problem than that or MR himself a racist?
The issue is that, this debate needs to happen among the Sinhalese and the Sinhalese alone; it is them who need to find a way forward. Whatever they decide would shape this nation for better or for worse!
Do they want to build a multiethnic nation with minority rights protected or do they want to build a nation that enshrines monolithic Sinhala Buddhist Nation that thrust Sinhala language and Buddhism on everyone’s throat?
GR certainly has the vision; although whether he has the interest to influence in that direction is debatable.
I don’t think you can say that the Sinhalese have been radicalised; they certainly have been polarised. Everyone has been by the Tiger actions in the last decade as well as the diaspora actions in the last year. We, who consider ourselves moderates (and yes, I do consider myself that) feel the pull ourselves.
Identity is always a very contentious issue as “xsrilankan” demonstrates.
Like Iromi and by extension Groundviews, I think it is undeniable that there are problems that Sri Lankan Tamils outside Colombo face *because they are Tamils*. e.g. the militarization of the North and state incentives to influence Sinhalese migration to the North. However I strongly believe that those grievances are not only authentically Tamil, but authentically Sri Lankan. I for one certainly empathize with the need to not have soldiers with guns walking around my neighbourhood and watching my neighbourhood change due to government incentives.
However I do have a great affinity to Indica’s broader point, which unfortunately was not clearly stated i.e. a multi-ethnic understanding is needed to address specifically Tamil issues in a democratic country. While there are problems that Tamils face *as Tamils* they are perhaps most effectively addressed if constructed as Sri Lankan. Co-incidentally, this is the thinking most aggravating to the crazies in both the SL government and the Diaspora, albeit for different reasons.
I wrote more about the practical implications of a shared national identity on my blog; the most pertinent element of which I will excerpt here:
“state multicultural policies are not efforts to segregate communities or to build a society full of cultural differences but no unifying ideal. Multiculturalism is as Charles Taylor calls ‘a politics of recognition’: asking the state to not only tolerate the presence of diverse cultures, but to positively engage these cultures in an honest but respectful dialogue that informs all citizens – regardless of origin – of their duties and responsibilities to their country and their neighbour.”
http://www.romeshh.ca/2011/03/in-defence-of-multi-culturalism/
“
Please pardon my ignorance, but can someone please point out to me what exactly Tamils are deprived of in Sri Lanka because of their ethnicity? Is it education and jobs? If so, can someone please point to some facts? I would like to know what the unemployment rate is amongst Tamils in Colombo (the economic hub), for example.
After 30 years of war the north and east will take more than two years to return to normalcy. To expect anything quicker from a developing nation, where corruption is rampant, is naive.
I can also understand that there is a trust issue. It will take time to heal the mistrust that exists between former terrorist and the rest of the island’s citizens (not just Sinhalese) but that doesn’t really point to systematic discrimination?
Hilal,
If you want to know what Tamils have been deprived of:
http://transcurrents.com/tc/2010/08/outline_of_submission_made_to.html
Jayantha Dhanapala’s written submission to Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission(LLRC), 30 August 2010: ‘’Each and every Government which held office from 1948 till the present bear culpability for the failure to achieve good governance, national unity and a framework of peace, stability and economic development in which all ethnic, religious and other groups could live in security and equality.
http://www.llrc.lk/images/stories/docs/August2010/LLRC-JD-Transcript.pdf
Oral submission, Jayantha Dhanapala to LLRC: Our inability to manage our own internal affairs has led to foreign intervention but more seriously has led to the taking of arms by a desperate group of our citizens.’’
(Dhanapala (a Sinhalese) was formerly UN Under-Secretary General for Disarmament and a candidate for UNSG in 2006)
Many more Sinhalese have told LLRC nearly the same thing.
Hilal
I have seen this only on this website. Have you found it anywhere else? This will answer your question and deal with many other comments – we’ve been going in circles for six decades. Let us put a fullstop now so that the future generations can get on with a decent life:
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers46/paper4558.html:
Sri Lanka: Indian Delegates go Home Empty Handed, Kumar David, 15 June 2011: ‘’The umpteenth Indian delegation (Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, National Security Advisor Shiva Shankar Menon and Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar) came to Colombo and duly went back empty handed and funny as a comic strip! President Rajapakse handed them a flat ‘Nyet’ and for once in a lifetime he spoke the truth. “If I make any devolutionary concessions to the Tamils, 13A Plus, Minus, Divided or Subtracted, it will be curtains for me.”
Being Sri Lankan – is a vanishing option for Tamils while Sinhalese are being slowly overtaken by fantasizes of a Buddhist nirvana off the tip of India.
Rajapaksa Government’s failure to devolve power to take care of the ethnic needs of the Tamils will continue. I think that this is a great disservice to whole country. The Tamil minority population represented a 12 % of the Island’s population and were granted a right of historic habitation, having been resident in Sri Lanka for at least two millennia.
Do we really want to get into a fight as to who has more problems? Who wants to win that?
My sole proposition is that the way to solve our problems is together, as Sri Lankans.
Not unlike Guruparan, this isn’t about winning or losing fights, but reading inescapable realities accurately as a precondition for the design and implementation of any solution.
Dear Burning_Issue,
Sounds to me like you’ve read all the signs almost flawlessly. But I feel that all the talk about power devolution is merely academic, and that too of a puerile nature because despite the many contributions to this debate I guess all contributors know deep inside that there’s not going to be any devolution of power to the Tamils.Of course there will be this playing around with some administrative functions, which are of no consequence in the realm of power devolution, being ‘devolved’ to the northern and eastern provincial councils. But power, per se ? No sir, just forget about it. If there’s going to be any sort of power devolution to start with all hell will break loose in the south.The Sinhala/Buddhist extremist political/religious organizations will see to that.Have you read MR”s [ read Rajapaka Dynasty's] political aspirations right? Political devolution will simply write ‘finis’ to all those aspirations. But at best, the MR clan can only have[ which they do not have as yet]a very short term plan for governance in the north and east, for which the military presence will always be an indispensable prerequisite.The plan is to even ditch the whole 13th amendment if my reading is right. The alternative? We’re not told. It will be a very long time before anyone can hope to break the support enjoyed by the TNA in the north..if ever! A pro-government[UPFA,UNP whatever]Tamil political force is the only factor that can swing a decision in favour of devolution to the north and east. One does not see such a thing anywhere, not even on the far horizon. We can’t roll back many things which have happened over the past 3 decades. DJ himself says [ July 19]that ” autonomy at provincial level is the BEST POSSIBLE… and only viable solution”. Hats off to him for his optimism. But party tell us how this is the BEST POSSIBLE”. The Sunday Leader recently quoted PS as having yet again pressed for a Police and , I think, an elections commission. Wow! Pray tell me who is this paragon of political and moral virtue who is expected to appoint such commissions? I mean INDEPENDENT ones! Intelligent debate on burning national issues has degenerated into a puerile and even wasteful academic pastime, perhaps reflecting the utter desperation of all players involved in the debate in the face of the reality they refuse to recognise and name. My sympathies are with you BI.
”solve our problems is together, as Sri Lankans”
Please state one practical step (too many people have been saying it toomany times)
Indi,
I too believe you have over simplified and trivialised the grievances issue. It is a short step from your argument to saying “So what? We all have problems. So whats so special about yours”
Different sections of society have different grievances. But the most discontent today is among Tamils. The present govt is hugely popular among the section of Sinhala society that you claim suffer from inequties. There is little discontent. So how can you claim that Tamil problems and Sinhala problems are the same?
The issues of poverty and inequities in wealth is common to most societies and most people understande that in a society some would be better off than others. The struggle to raise the living standards of the lowest wrung of society is a challenge common to almost every society in the world. Although it is a problem for the Sinhalese almost all Sinhalese understand that the transition from poor to wealthy and powerless to powerfull is being made by hundreds of Sinhalese every day and that this mobility is not denied to the Sinhalese through accident of birth. Just look at our Parliament and cabinet. How many of them would have considered themselves priviledged 30 years ago?
The Tamil grievance is that this mobility is NOT open to them in today’s Sri Lanka. Take Guru for instance. Imagine if he applied to join the Sri Lanka Civil service with the idea of one day becomming secratary to the Treasury or the secratary to the President. He clearly has the intellect, but would you put money on him being selected? So can you blame Tamils for feeling they have unique grievances not shared by other communities?
(I must emphasise here that I am talking about the present here and not the pre 83 period where Tamils routinely held top possitions in the administration)
In conclusion it is impossible to roll all your problems into one and try to find a single solution that addresses its entirety. One needs to break them up into smaller problems and attack them one by one. And of course, the biggest problems need to be addressed first. Do you not agree?
I wished you had challenged Guru on his assertion that Tamils have grievances when it comes to education. I assume he is talking about standardisation of University entry marks here. I would have expected Guru to be aware that today the marks required to enter university for the most sought after fields is lower for Jaffna and Batticaloa districts than for almost every other Sinhala majority district. So that is perhaps the one grievance they can strike off their list.
With the recently done census Jaffna Population dropped down significantly, therefore university entrance marks in coming years may go higher may be even higher to the top ranked districts. Northern Civil society and Academics of Island should find a way to retain the present number of entrants for some time until the victimized war torned north and east set its position parallel to other districts of the island.
Dear Kadphises,
You said:
“I wished you had challenged Guru on his assertion that Tamils have grievances when it comes to education. I assume he is talking about standardisation of University entry marks here. I would have expected Guru to be aware that today the marks required to enter university for the most sought after fields is lower for Jaffna and Batticaloa districts than for almost every other Sinhala majority district. So that is perhaps the one grievance they can strike off their list.”
I studied, taught and will continue to teach at a local university (and studied at a public school in Jaffna) so I dont hold the old line on this subject (‘standardisation’). I agree that Tamils cant do well in Universities without quotas. The issues are now different but still specific.
Here are examples of what i think are specific to the Tamils on education issues: 1) War affected schools and infrastructural development – There is a special need here – to restore schools (particularly in Killinochchi and Vanni) but also in other areas, for example what we call ‘displaced schools’(displaced by High Security Zones) which need attention. 2) Tertiary education in the North and East- similar infrastructural needs as well as the need to restore academic freedom (our academic freedom issues are both different and similar to the ones faced by Universities in the South) 3) The content of our school history books – our history books portray the history of a uni demos – a single nation state – the Sinhala Buddhsit nation. These are merely examples.
Thanks,
Guru
Guru,
I am not sure what is being taught as history nowadays and am quite prepared to believe nationalist interpretations have crept in. I need to do some homework and find out (perhaps someone could help with some quotes from current school history text books)
However I personally dont remember any falsifications in the history I was taught for my O’Levels in 1980. In fact the syllabus was very light on pre colonial history. The emphasis was on the Portugese, Dutch and British periods and then the Donoughmore and Soulbury Commision. We learnt of the Arya Chakravarti kingdom in Jaffna when the Portugese arrived. We were taught about the Chola Invasions from 800 AD onwards. The establishment of Polonnaruwa by the Cholas and then the devastating invasion in the 1200s by Kalinga Magha. There was nothing sinister or extraordinary intended to hurt or claim that Tamils had any less of a claim to Sri Lanka.
Dear Kadphises,
I will let the expert speak on the subject: http://tamilnation.co/forum/sivathamby/020920education.htm Prof K Sivathamby who passed away a couple of weeks back was a world renowned Tamil Scholar and Professor Emeritus of University of Jaffna.
Regards
Guru
The Eelamist lobby seems to be in thier usual stride again. They even have gone to the extent of quoting LLRC, which is derided by the same lobbyists as a mere eye-wash!
I too can’t see any Tamil grievances that are unique to the Tamils in Sri Lanka! Can anybody kindly list them, without quoting “somebody said this at the LLRC”?
Question- is this a thread to debate whether or not there is a problem, or to find solutions?
Tamils of the north and east are ruled by a military rather than a civilian government.
The military invades,pervades,controls and regulates all of their day to day activities including private,social,religious and livelihood functions/activities.
Their representatives in parliament are excluded in any and all decision making processes affecting their lives and livelihoods.
Now there are reports that they will not be able to vote in free and fair local government elections to be held next week.
http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/07/all-ready-for-massive-vote-rigging-in.html
http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=34182
UNHCR reports that even now, 200,000 IDPs remain in the north,contrary to reports in state media.
http://www.nation.lk/2011/07/03/news14.htm
During the last presidential and parliamentary elections,many IDPs were not eligible to vote as they had not been registered, and those who could, were prevented as the transport arranged for them had been obstructed.
It is not known whether all IDPs are eligible to vote next week.
For those of you who would lie to revisit history (Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it) please find below the book review by Bryan Pfafeenberger who understood the Sri Lankan Anthropology very well. This review is dated 1988:
The Break-up of Sri Lanka: The Sinhalese-Tamil Conflict. By A .J E Y A R A T N A M W I L S O N . Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1988. xvi, 240 pp.
The publication of A. Jeyaratnam Wilson’s The Break-up of Sri Lanka has been long awaited by scholars concerned about Sri Lanka’s continuing ethnic crisis, for Wilson-the son-in-law of the late Federal Party leader S. J. V. Chelvanayakam and one-time friend and confidant of J. R. Jayawardene-has observed the crisis at close range for decades, and from both the Tamil and the Sinhala perspectives. This extraordinary book does not disappoint, for it is packed with Wilson’s keen observations of the achievements and foibles of the tragedy’s central players. Unforgettable is Wilson’s portrait of Jayawardene’s waning presidency, when the “daring old man on a trapeze” found his agile political tricks could not hold the country together, and was in consequence given to prolonged periods of brooding and depression. But The Break-up of Sri Lanka offers far more than a mere catalog of penetrating reminiscences. Its thesis regarding the cause of the country’s civil war is persuasive, and for this reason alone should be read by anyone with interests in Sri Lanka’s ethnic crisis.
Most books about the Sinhala-Tamil conflict begin by describing the separate histories of two ethnic populations, as if this information alone were sufficient to explain why violence would inevitably occur. But Wilson begins with what I believe to be the correct emphasis, namely, the extraordinarily centralized and unitary character of the British colonial state. Fearing the Kandyan chiefs, the British devised a repressive regime completely shorn of regional political autonomy; as the capital Colombo developed into the country’s only significant mercantile center, the political rationale for centralization was joined by an economic one. Only later was this repressive colonial structure joined with incompatible bedfellows, the Western values of parliamentary democracy and the secular civil order.
Ceylon’s independence in 1948 was not accompanied by significant structural change in the political system; indeed, the British simply handed the existing repressive structure over to a conservative Sinhalese elite. Hardly anyone wanted to change the system in those days: Sinhalese Buddhist chauvinists found the unitary state a convenient political expression of their one land, one race, and one religion ideology, and even middle-class Ceylon Tamils-who benefited greatly from their economic and public service roles in the Sinhalese south-were reluctant to devolve power to the provinces. In short, independent Ceylon was headed for disaster, and not because the island contained more than one ethnic population: its repressive and undemocratic administrative structure was designed to crush regional authority, and it was but a small adjustment for the Sinhalese to use this structure against the Tamils, just as the English had used it against the Kandyan chiefs.
In Wilson’s account, the players in Sri Lanka’s tragedy are out of their depth, unable to see beyond the myths of parliamentary democracy to perceive the repressive character of the country’s administrative structure. But even those who had an inkling of the truth, and here Wilson reserves praise for S. W . R. D. Bandaranaike, found themselves facing strong pressures to preserve the unitary state. This was true even for the Federal Party leader Chelvanayakam, who faced stiff opposition from Colombo Tamils who feared the loss of their profitable businesses and civil service positions in the south. And when some began to see the truth, it was always too late. There is no mistaking Wilson’s conclusion that the partition of Sri Lanka has already occurred in the hearts and minds of Tamils, who will never again engage in dialogue with a Sinhalese leadership given to dissimulation, delaying tactics, and outright treachery. All that remains is the military struggle that will be needed to bring the boundaries and political structures in line.
This struggle will produce one casualty in addition to the tens of thousands who have already died, and will soon die, in the country’s “little war”: the unitary state itself, along with what remains of its patina of Western liberalism and secularism. Tamils have themselves pointed out to Sinhalese that partition offers benefits to both groups: for the Sinhalese, there will be no more Tamil resistance to the institutionalization of a fascist and racist Sinhalese Buddhist regime focused on “the land, the race, and the religion,” even if the land is reduced in acreage somewhat; alarmingly, this is the only argument to which Sinhalese extremists will listen. For those who have followed the dismaying collapse of civil liberties in the south, coupled with the brutal tactics of political repression practiced by the Tamil militants in the north, the country’s trajectory seems clear. The outcome will be liberty for neither the Tamils nor the Sinhalese, but repressive and ethnocentric regimes for both.
B R Y A NP F A F F E N B E R G E R University of Virginia
A further review. This time by Stirrat on Pfaffenberger (circa December 1983):
PFAFFENBERGBERRY, ANC. aste in Tamil culture: the religiousfoundations of Sudra domination in Tamil Sri Lanka (S. Asian Ser. 7).xii, 257pp., tables, bibliogr. New York: Syracuse Univ., 1982
In the last few years there has been a flow of monographs concerned with the history and anthropology ofthe ‘Dravidian’ or ‘Tamil’ areas of south India and Sri Lanka. Many of these argue for the recognition of a distinctive ‘Dravi- dian’ culture and reject the idea that what hap- pens in south India is simply a variation on what happens elsewhere in India. In extremes, the result has at times taken the form of a peculiar ‘Tamil chauvinism’. Whilst Pfaffenberger’s book may not fall into such a category, it can be seen as an apologetic for the Vellilars, the major representative in northern Sri Lanka of the dominant Sudras of the Tamil areas, and a glori- fication of their ‘astonishing achievement’.
This book is concerned with two basic prob- lems. The first is that ofexplaining the relatively high status of Sudras in south India and northern Sri Lanka, a status which they are denied else- where in India. At the same time, the author is attempting to understand the creation of what he calls a distinctive ‘Dravidian recension’ of the Sastric traditions of northern India. Crucial to Pfaffenberger’s analysis is the claim that the present can only be understood through the past and that Dravidian culture today can only be understood as the product of historical forces. He argues that the ‘generative heart’ of south Indian civilisation is an alliance between the Brahmans and the Sudras, and that this involves a syncretism ofthe ‘Gangetic tradition’, ineffect the purity and hierarchy model delineated by
Dumont, and a specifically Dravidian tradition. This syncretism of an ‘encompassing’ and an ‘encompassed’ ideology is used, he argues, to create an ‘architectonic whole of astonishing coherence and of a distinctively Dravidian sen- sibility’ which involves not only the comp- lementary opposition of purity and impurity but also the importance of the principle of re- production. Sudra domination in the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka and southern India is, argues Pfaffenberger, concerned with this principle of reproduction, and is based upon their ability through rituals to order ‘disordered power’. This disordered power resides in the lower castes, in women and in the very landscape itself, and Sudra domination is, he claims,
concerned with their obligation to reproduce civilisation through ritually controlling these disordered powers. Thus caste in Tamil south Asia is as much about order and disorder as it is about purity and impurity, and the position of the Sudrasis to beexplainednot in terms ofpurity nor in terms of their control over material resources but in terms of their ritual power.
Pfaffenberger’s thesis is obviously ambitious and involves some major rethinking about the nature of Tamil society and culture, yet how successful it is remains another matter, especial- ly to a non-Tamil specialist. Part ofthe problem with this book is that despite its stated aim of overcoming the ‘ahistoricism of much modern anthroplogy’ it falls into the trap of another sort of ahistoricity, one in which there is little idea of periodicity and no idea of change. It appears from these pages that what exists in Tamil cul- ture today and what existed six or twelve cen- turies ago is much the same, and thus the writer can shift from epoch to epoch with hardly a glance at the calendar. Linked to this disregard of history is another, perhaps more serious, problem, that of the relationship between the ‘Sudra rituals of domination’ and the actual- ities of power relationships. The language used in the early pages, words such as ‘social forma- tion’ and ‘superstructure’ resonate with over- tones of Marxist analysis, as does his remark that despite changes in economic forces and social relations, the ‘highest superstructural level; that of religion and ritual’, has hardly changed over the centuries. If this is so, it is remarkable indeed, and one would like to see much more theoretical comment about the
nature of ideology and its relation to much more mundane levels of society than is actually pro- vided in this volume. As it stands, however, it seems to me that Pfaffenberger’s arguments concerning the nature of Sudra domination are ultimately tautological. That the rituals them- selves claim domination does not mean that they are the source of domination unless, as Pfaffenberger seems to claim at times, domi- nation in the south Asian context can only be defined in ritual terms. The fact that in northern Sri Lanka the Vellilar caste amount to 50 per cent. of the population and own almost all the productive land is, I suspect, more significant in the reproduction of social inequality than the author would have us believe.
R. L. STIRRAT
University of Sussex
Speaking of Bryan Pfaffnberger:
Fourth World Colonialism, Indigenous Minorities And Tamil Separatism In Sri Lanka, Bryan Pfaffenberger (Virginia University), Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. 16, 1984:
”Despite the withdrawal of colonial power from Third World countries, forms of oppression that might well be termed “colonial” still persist in many of them — the oppression wrought by nationalist Third World governments whose regimes fail to respect the rights of indigenous minorities. For ethnic and regional minorities in many Third World countries, the arrogance and injustice of these governments matches — and often exceeds — those of the departed European colonial regime. The island nation Sri Lanka presents a case in point. Little public investment appears to reach the Tamil lands….”
What is his cooment on:
1. http://www.minorityrights.org/10458/reports/no-war-no-peace-the-denial-of-minority-rights-and-justice-in-sri-lanka.html
No war, no peace: the denial of minority rights and justice in Sri Lanka, Report by Minority Rights Group International, 19 January 2011:
With the end of the conflict between Sri Lankan government forces and the Liberation Tigers for Tamil Eelam (LTTE or ‘Tamil Tigers’) in 2009, normality has returned for much of the population of Sri Lanka. But for members of the country’s two main minority groups – Tamils and Muslims – living in the north and east of the country, harsh material conditions, economic marginalisation, and militarism remain prevalent. Drawing on interviews with activists, religious and political leaders, and ordinary people living in these areas of the country, MRG found a picture very much at odds with the official image of peace and prosperity following the end of armed conflict.
2. http://groundviews.org/2010/09/23/submissions-before-lessons-learnt-reconciliation-committee-llrc-by-chandra-jayaratne/
Submission before Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Committee (LLRC) by Chandra Jayaratne, 23 September 2010: ‘’…… Years of inequitable allocation of national resources and consequential disparities in regional economic development, infrastructure development and public service delivery have sown the seeds of discontent and disillusionment leading to conflict, insurrections of the South and the North and even the armed struggle towards a separate administration ….’’
(Jayaratne is a member of the Board of Directors of the International Centre for Ethnic Studies and a former President of Ceylon Chamber of Commerce)
“”I would have expected Guru to be aware that today the marks required to enter university for the most sought after fields is lower for Jaffna and Batticaloa districts than for almost every other Sinhala majority district.”"
Totally wrong! Are you living in Sri Lanka? Jaffna is one of the 3 highest cut-out districts in Maths stream.
Wrong?? Please find out for yourself by visiting the official University Grants Commision website.
http://www.ugc.ac.lk/en/university-admissions/minimum-z-scores.html
A quick look will show you that the marks required for Medicine from Jaffna are lower than from Colombo, Gampaha, Kandy, Matale, Kurunegala, Galle, Matara and even Hambantota among many other Sinhala Majority districts. And similarly for Engineering too. Do you think the Sinhalese should now launch a campaign against this “Discrimination”?
We are all Sri Lankans !?!?
It seems to me that Sri Lanka Government launched a new hypocritical campaign “We are all Sri Lankans”
What a deceitful way to gag any Anti Government criticism or stop any meaningful reconciliation in its tracks
What a masterly manipulation !!!
Machiavellian twist and turns at their best!!!
Sri Lanka Government recently announced that “ We are All Sri Lankans “ or very good “buddies” so to speak.
So now that “We are All Sri Lankans “ let’s forget about Accountability and Justice
Dear Groundviews,
1. It seems a revelation to you that opposition to any capitulation to an ‘international probe’ — or a national one that goes beyond individual proescutions of crimes, excesses and abuses– will encompass more than the UPFA support base. Here’s a newsflash: there will be a cross party, cross-ideological ( UNP to JVP), multi-religious (Mahanayakes to Malcolm Ranjith) vote which crosses the 85% mark at any free and fair plebscite. IN A DEMOCRACY OR ANY PARADIGM OR SYSTEM THAT RESPECTS POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, that is not exactly irrelevant, and is in fact a determinant.
2. Why doesn’t the CPA Social Indicator project try out a public opinion poll as pilot project?
3. Instead of debating and distorting the Sangakkara Scriptures, why not just get him on a GV video interview and ask him about the Tigers, the armed forces and the war? Then match those views with your own? My point is that KS’ cosmopolitan patriotism has as a bedrock, an attitude that is far from yours and your readership’s, and far closer to mine, Kalana Senaratne’s, David Blacker’s, and possibly Michael Roberts’, Prof Razeen Sally’s and young Indi Samarajiva’s. You may also come to realise that it is Judge Weeramantry’s outlook too. We are proud of and support our armed forces, consider ourselves unambiguously Sri Lankan, condemn the LTTE as terrorist and are glad that the war was won by the Sri Lankan armed forces, though we are sad it had to be fought at all. We also define our patriotism and our Sri Lankanness in multiethnic, multilingual and multireligious , i.e. inclusionary and pluralist, terms.
4. This is a position that most supporters /voters of the UPFA and UNP can be won over to. Yours is not.
5. In her doctoral thesis turned book on the island’s colonial political history, Prof Nira Wickremasinha uses the term ‘Sinhala Reconquista’, the derivation of which is obviously that of the Spanish catholic counteroffensive against the Moorish incursion and presence. Sinhala Reconquest is triggered by a sense of erosion under colonialism and targets a bloc considered a child of colonial patronage. Today, if the vast majority feels similarly threatened by ex-colonial/neocolonial hegemonism and diktat, and a neocomprador social bloc, there will be another Sinhala Reconquista surge. You may think it is already on , but it ain’t, or you ain’t seen nothing yet. Had SF led the country it would have been over by now, since that was his project.
6. All that stands between that endgame and us/you/Sri Lanka, isn’t the Western embassies and the CPA, but precisely the juggling, balancing, tightrope walking ‘Gaullist-Bonapartist’ presidency. In short, MR. Recognise that.
7. If anyone of you think that Western regime change projects can be the endgame, remember that any endgame must work — take root– on the ground and enjoy a broad social base. The Sinhala reconquista surge can take many forms and mutations, and that if the present order and class structure is seen to be unable to defend national sovereignty, there is a more radical variant (JHU) and more revolutionary one (JVP) waiting in the wings, for the morning AFTER the Western interventionist move– and they will enjoy the support of hundreds of thousands of battle hardened, violent, militantly nationalist young men and women. If you don’t want to take my word for it, check with Dayapala Tiranagama and Nirmal Ranjith Devasiri, who knew the social terrain – a polite word for social reality– better than most inhabitants of a cosmopolitan cyberspace.
8. Far better to use the dialectic of Western ‘ humanitarian interventionist’ pressure and Sinhala Reconquista s/urges, to project a Third position, a synthesis that is patriotic, pluralist and internationalist, or if your prefer, cosmopolitan (PPC as Chaminda Weerawardhana puts it), but the cosmopolitanism of which is that of Brazil, the Philippines and Singapore — which is to say a cosmpolitanism that defends the state, popular sovereignty and national sovereignty. Add Asian modernity ( post-western modernity, says Prasenjit Duara)into the mix. Read lots of Kishore Mahbubani.
9. There’s more than a bit of hypocrisy around. When there was in fact a leader who espoused and practised a grounded pluralism, President Premadasa, most of you or your precursor generation, from Mangala Samaraweera to Dr P. Saravanamuttu, were against him. Today’s GV was yesterday’s Counterpoint. I know and remember. I was with him. He was murdered by the Tigers, which is another reason that the last war was just.
10. Test yourselves, ok, test ourselves: was it good or bad that the war was won by the Lankan armed forces? Was it good or bad that the LTTE lost and Prabhakaran was destroyed? Does national sovereignty matter to you as something worth defending? Is the present international campaign against Sri Lanka focused on the last stages of the war, coming at this time, from those quarters, unfair and unhelpful? I submit that it is only from among those who say ‘yes’ to these questions, can a viable, cosmopolitan pluralist patriotism spring.
“1. It seems a revelation to you that opposition to any capitulation to an ‘international probe’”
Not sure from where or why you thought this was a revelation? At Groundviews, we have a healthy disregard for the divine, and prefer sober reflection, though we do appreciate your flair for the dramatic.
“2. Why doesn’t the CPA Social Indicator project try out a public opinion poll as pilot project”
Fieldwork already done – expect report, and many more ways of data access, in the coming weeks.
“3. Instead of debating and distorting the Sangakkara Scriptures, why not just get him on a GV video interview and ask him about the Tigers, the armed forces and the war?”
Already asked, Manager said that no media interviews during tour. Will try again, but ball in his court, or more precisely, this is his wicket.
Not sure from where or why you thought this was a revelation? At Your delicious humor was a pleasant surprise !! You made my day Groundviews, we have a healthy disregard for the divine, and prefer sober reflection, though we do appreciate your flair for the dramatic.
——————————————————————–
Thanks GV
Your delicious wit was a pleasant surprise !! You made my day
OK Groundviews, that’s three snappy comebacks to ten points. What about the other seven?
Nothing new there you’ve not said before on GV and elsewhere?
I don’t mean to sound patronising, but I am sad (and admitably, also mildly amused) to see so many well intended, intelligent people entangled in a loop of “semantic” string.
There is little doubt that we can all agree that we would ideally like to see;
1. All Sri Lankans living with equal dignity and have equitable access to opportunity
2. People of all races and religions cooperating and working together.
3. The national identity of the country being inclusive and broad, accommodating and enriched by the diversity of culture, language and faith.
4. All Sri Lankans having genuine reason to feel proud to call themselves “Sri Lankan”
Though some of us may disagree on the context, history and justification (if any) of the present state of the country, we can also agree that on some level, Sri Lanka is in a bad shape right now. So, given where we are at present, how can we get to where we want to go?
The disagreements in this discussion thread are between one group’s veiw of “what has gone wrong and why” and another group that is focused on what needs to be done to fix it.
We will all have plenty of disagreements about the modality and strategy – the path we need to take – to resolve these issues. Indeed there is I am sure more than one path that takes us closer to the ideal. Each individual and community deserves opportunities, freedom and encouragement to choose the path that they feel most suits them.
So let’s turn this discussion on its head – if we agree on the ideal that we all aspire to, lets start there. We will find it a lot easier to work our way backwards and in the process understand why each of us have chosen different paths and modes to get there?
Is haren the only person here interested in finding solutions and a way forward?
No, but we seem to be the only ones here who do not have degrees in conflict-resolution!
I don’t think anyone, even the most extreme people would disagree with haren’s four points. The challenge is to dig deeper to determine what his envisioned endstate would require, for us to work backward as he suggested.
Nowhere in his four points did haren use the terms “Sinhala,” “Tamil,” etc. The implication is that in his endstate, Sri Lankans identify themselves first as “Sri Lankan” and secondly, if at all, as something else. As I interpret haren’s envisioned future, the above-mentioned terms would refer to simply languages, and not one’s identity. Is this a worthy goal? Does anyone disagree with this vision or interpretation?
“Sri Lankan” identity has become synonymous with “Sinhala,” which explains why Tamils often reject the label “Sri Lankan.” To reinforce a non-Sri Lankan (non-Sinhala) identity, the Tamils perhaps subconsciously seek a geographic anchor which has manifested in the demand for “self-determination.” The Sinhalese in turn reject self-determination because it is both anti-Sri Lanka (i.e. the notion of a unified island) and anti-Sinhala, in the sense that self-determination seeks exclusion from the Sinhalese.
Although I view self-determination as anti-Sri Lanka, I would tell other Sinhalese that the Tamils embraced this demand only after “Sri Lankan” identity excluded them. Self-determination may not be a solution to race relations or anything else, but it is a symptom that the current idea of “Sri Lankan” is wanting.
For any Sinhalese who want to defeat Tamil self-determination and get the Tamils to accept “Sri Lankan” identity, the Sinhalese themselves will have to shift their identity from a Sinhala-Only mentality. It is not enough to simply tolerate the Tamils, or like Sangakkara to simply say “I am a Tamil.” If we do not want the Tamils to identify themselves in a different way from us, then the challenge is to absorb aspects of their identity so that they do not perceive the differences. We have to understand their language to the extent that we do not feel uncomfortable when they speak it around us. We have to be familiar with their literary traditions to appreciate that they have as much culture (and in some areas, possibly more) to offer the “Sri Lankan” identity as we do. And we have to be familiar with their history, both in ancient times alongside ours as well as the tragedy of the past 30-50 years to empathise with their suffering. (Arguably, it is this lack of empathy on our part, more than any lack or non-implementation of “political solution,” that is the obstacle to reconciliation)
The alternative is to pay lip service to the idea of “Sri Lankan” identity while perpetuating our current communal reality. We can continue to scratch our heads in ignorance why the Tamils do not call themselves Sri Lankan and are not model minorities like the Muslims. Or we can adopt the “radical pluralist” cop-out by embracing Tamil self-determination and our exclusion of the Tamils.
Wijayapala is on the mark here, and when he isn’t, he is pretty close to it.
Thank you ‘comrade’ wijayapala – you have taken the discussion to the next level.
Communal integration should happen on many levels of society and that is not as difficult or prohibitively expensive, but it does take commitment and vision – not only in government and administration, but also in the non governmental sector.
Our primary and secondary education systems need to focus a lot more on student & teacher interaction accross cultures – given that most schools not only have one languages stream, but also teach only one religion! Compare that with the school Kumar Sangakkara comes from – a private christian missionary school that has English, Sinhala and Tamil streams on the same campus and offers a special prize for comparative religion; and one can begin to appreciate the difference it makes.
Why cant we establish traditional sports fixtures between schools of the North and south? This ususally means that the visiting teams get to spend a few days at the host school and interact with students there.
On a broader level, we don’t need too many excuses to party – so why can’t we celebrate Diwali as a nation (appropriately and gracefully as the sactity of the festival requires) like we celebrate Wesak and Christmas? Shallow as the suggestion may seem, (i can almost anticipate a simmilar backlash like what @Indica got for trivialising issues) wouldn’t that get people building relationships on ground level which is a major part of the vacume today?
@Wijayapala
“For any Sinhalese who want to defeat Tamil self-determination and get the Tamils to accept “Sri Lankan” identity, the Sinhalese themselves will have to shift their identity from a Sinhala-Only mentality. It is not enough to simply tolerate the Tamils, or like Sangakkara to simply say “I am a Tamil.” If we do not want the Tamils to identify themselves in a different way from us, then the challenge is to absorb aspects of their identity so that they do not perceive the differences. We have to understand their language to the extent that we do not feel uncomfortable when they speak it around us. We have to be familiar with their literary traditions to appreciate that they have as much culture (and in some areas, possibly more) to offer the “Sri Lankan” identity as we do….”
Well said, except I think there is nothing wrong with desire for Tamil self-determination (just as nothing wrong with self-determination of Sinhala, Burgher, Gay, Aadivaasi people etc). Self Determination does not have to equate with separatism. Self-Determination should be applied down to individual level.
BTW, IMHO, the day that the “Tamil” and “Sinhala” realise the common roots of their languages and culture and delight in learning more about the common history sans demonising, both sides could be liberated.
Dayan
Re10
”was it good or bad that the war was won by the Lankan armed forces? Was it good or bad that the LTTE lost and Prabhakaran was destroyed? Does national sovereignty matter to you as something worth defending? Is the present international campaign against Sri Lanka focused on the last stages of the war, coming at this time, from those quarters, unfair and unhelpful? I submit that it is only from among those who say ‘yes’ to these questions, can a viable, cosmopolitan pluralist patriotism spring.”
Dayan, the fourth question invalidates the first two.
Including the third question obfuscates the whole comment.
Hey Vino, pray explain how the third and fourth questions invalidate and obfuscate?
And while you are at it, why not answer the first two questions which by your own admission, are neither invalidated or obfuscated?
“Burning_Issue, for whatever it is worth, one should not ignore Def/Sec Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s extended defense of Sangakkara in last Sunday’s Island, which of course runs contrary to the minister’s statement”
Wow, who is jumping the gun here, waste no time! Defense, endless defense at a drop of a hat for the Rjapakse siblings (will be for the off spring as well)When Arab spring started, Dayan was very quick to defend MR , stating “ look at the number of years MR in power compare to other Arab dictators” well our learned doctor was dead right on number of years , but he conveniently forgot every thing else as always , MR is the only leader /dictator to achieve so much power and abuse (18 th Amendment, 2010 presidential election, utter wasteful projects, 100 plus joy rides, blocking the right to know bill list goes on ) the high office without any guilt or shame what so ever in a relatively short span of time , this is a remarkable achievement even in Arab standard..Make sure you do that, when ever possible, otherwise that dreaded fax might be on its way doctor.
Don’t worry your head too much and let the Sri Lankan citizen-voters take care of that Bundoora — after all, they took care of Sirimavo, JRJ, the JVP and the Tigers…
DJ
Yes Doctor you are damn right, sri lankan citizen-voters took care of last two presidential elections very well.
The whole SL public knows who really won the 2005/2010 presidential elections, no matter what sort of denials/defenses forwarded by you.
Well, the majority of the SL population believes that MR won the last two elections because of their votes; and if they therefore believe that, isn’t it because they indeed voted for him? And let’s not forget why a whole segment of the minority that might have voted against MR in 2005 was unable to do so.
I find it tragic that all this pontification about what the tamils need and should be enjoying as sri lankans, enjoying an identity equal to all others, completely and purposefully ignores the reality of what is actually happening to tamils in areas of sri lanka where they exist in larger numbers than others.
The absolutely monolithic ‘rubber stamp’ parliament which rushes bills/laws affecting all lankans,without the MPs not even being aware of what they are supposed to be “debating” – eg. the 18th Amendment –
does not exist anywhere else.
The dead LTTE is regularly ‘resurrected’ each month to continue the draconian Emergency & PTA merely to continue the subjugation/oppression
of all lankans – not only tamila – opposed to the regime,using the armed forces and police.
Democratic protests are violently suppressed,as recently happened in the Free Trade Zone – even the funeral of the worker shot dead was “regulated” apparently by “directives” given by a court of law.
“Elections” held under such conditions do not occur in any other country.
Another bogus election is scheduled next week.
There are blind spots; and i believe even the much lauded Dayan J, the brilliant GV people, us menials and even Kumar has them.
This is our baseline. In these arguments we play to our strengths and we play hard and quite emotionally at times. But what matters is what we dont know, have not explored and keep shutting out through our (partial)engagement itself
So a determinant of our destination (whether this is miracle or madness or Zimbabwe)is how well we are able to investigate the process by which Kumar achieved his own authentic nationality. Prof Roberts says this
QUOTE
What can be more ecumenical than the stirring lines with which he concluded his classic peroration: “Fans of different races, castes, ethnicities and religions who together celebrate their diversity by uniting for a common national cause. They are my foundation, they are my family. I will play my cricket for them. Their spirit is the true spirit of cricket. With me are all my people. I am Tamil, Sinhalese, Muslim and Burgher. I am a Buddhist, a Hindu, a follower of Islam and Christianity. I am today, and always, proudly Sri Lankan.”
In this presentation of self, Sangakkara subsumed his being as a Trinitian, a radala Govigama, a Kandyan and a Sinhalese within the encompassing identity of being a Sri Lankan, a multi-ethnic and multi-religious collective being. This sentiment, this understanding, I call an ecumenical being, the ecumenical Lankan.
UNQUOTE
I am asking a question. How did Kumar achieve this? Of course superficially any cricketer who played for sri lanka could have done this. But what is it that Kumar had which enabled him to transcend? Why did Arjuna not translate his standing into a pan national vision? What limited him and what enabled Kumar. I feel the world cup final loss for which political meddling was partly responsible motivated Kumar a great deal.
this is the passage we have to look at – individually first and then collectively.
ordinary lankan
“But what is it that Kumar had which enabled him to transcend? Why did Arjuna not translate his standing into a pan national vision?”
The most basic (and hence shallow) answer to your question is that Arjuna sought political office and votes, while Kumar has not (so far).
Kumar’s (contrasting) formation- schooling, language, background — perhaps?
What is missing (rightfully) in this debate is the bankrupt class warfare arguments.
I think we all can agree (isn’t that amazing ?) that post modernist identity, race, gender and ethnicity political theories should guide the difficult way ahead.
There was a time in Sri Lanka majority of the best minds of the country were attracted to the Trotskyites politics. Thank god it is no more.
Re:”we need to join hands with Sinhala progressive on common issues”. I think the best way to engage the Sinhala progressives is thru their international leadres in places such as UK,France, Germany, US, Canada ahd Australia.
All Trotskyite progressives in SL do have international affiliations who are symathetic to the Tamil liberation struggle. They are in to race politcs in their countries. For example the description of LTTE in Australian radical liberal democratic intellengtsia goes like this.
Dr Patrick Emerton of Monash University, a well respected legal academic sums up the recognition LTTE has within these progressive, liberal intelligentsia in Australia. He says that ‘The LTTE was never (and is never likely to be) a direct or indirect risk to Australia or Australian interests. The LTTE?s politically motivated violence was directly in response to the Sri Lankan Government’s discrimination against its minority Tamil population and as a result the political violence was only ever targeted at Sri Lankan state actors: the violence was never once targeted, directly or indirectly, at Australia or Australian interests.’
The class struggle(though I am not sure these parties still believe in class sruggle any more ) has long been replaced by post modern case for liberal democracy.
And Dayan
yes national sovereignty is worth defending – 100%
But draw a distinction if you can between the state and sovereignty and the government in power. these are not the same.
Loyalty will sometimes demand and require DISSENT.
‘there will be no time to speak of diversity of culture & ethnicity’ al Bashir, about the new (Northern) Sudan – TIME, July 18
Will the reconciliation seeking President of Sri Lanka and others, the state has every power and media in its control, strengthen voices of the Sangakkara likes within the country?
Any diaspora with separatist solutions will not be able to stand in the path when the Daily News and SLBC, Rupavahini etc. begin to gice true voice to Sangakkara. Even war crimes probe calls will stumble.
Does this hero president and his members of the family have this courage? Mostl likely no, because Rajapaksas are here to grab power in the guise of nationalsim and projecting external threats that dont exist for the nation state of Sri Lanka.
This sort of pluralistic approach of Sangkkara received standing ovation at The Lords, compare that of the President who had catch a flight out of Oxford.
As J. C. Weliamuna says:
“This country is full of self- proclaimed pseudo-visionaries, due to their political power, connection to a family or securing an electoral victory.
For a country to progress, in sports and in all other fields, we need more and more free thinkers. After all Sanga’s speech has enough and more for the young and uncorrupt to learn and improve their thinking – because he ‘spoke’. Free speech is a core principle in a democracy, which we have unfortunately failed to protect up to its expectations in recent times.” -
”Does national sovereignty matter to you as something worth defending?”
National Sovereignty shouldn’t have to be defended. It’s part of a good state. But it is relative – when a sate cannot provide security for a section of its people, R2P is the answer according to those who accept the principle of R2P which has been adopted by the UN several years ago.
There are countries that are UN members but don’t subscribe to Roman Statute.
Dear Burning_Issue
“1. MR is a racist on par with the rest of the chauvinists who surround him”
Disagree- what kind of racist would take the time to learn Tamil (esp given that most Sinhala “radical pluralists” have not)? If MR is racist because he seeks Sinhala votes, then what about Sampanthan and the rest of the TNA which seeks Tamil votes?
The problem with MR is not that he’s racist, but rather that he is conservative and values staying in power above anything else. Dayan’s argument that MR is the only thing keeping the country from plunging into the hands of Sarath Fonseka/JHU/JVP does not hold. In the case of the JHU and the racist Wimal faction of the JVP, it is MR who is empowering them by giving them Cabinet portfolios; with regard to Fonseka it was the UNP, rump JVP, and “radical pluralist” NGO brigade that had built him up.
Before blaming MR for not coming up with any solutions, we should ask whether anyone else has done so?
“2. MR is acutely aware of the political ramifications of resolving the Tamil issues by devolving power.”
What are these ramifications? The first that comes to mind is that he personally would have to relinquish power, which he is disinclined to do. The second ramification is that devolving power will do absolutely nothing to bring the country together or resolve any of the existing distrust.
“Wasn’t there a survey during CBK’s tenure that 60% of the Sinhala public that supported a form of federal solution? Was it only a reflection of ending the war at a cost; now that the war is won and no need to incur that cost?”
Yes, I think you are correct here. Most Sinhalese (including myself) are unconvinced that devolving power will solve anything. Federalism became particularly discredited during the CFA after the “radical pluralists” argued that federalism would appease the LTTE.
“The issue is that, this debate needs to happen among the Sinhalese and the Sinhalese alone; it is them who need to find a way forward.”
Then what do we do if you don’t approve of the way that we come up with?
Dear Wijayapala,
“Disagree- what kind of racist would take the time to learn Tamil (esp given that most Sinhala “radical pluralists” have not)?”
I do not know MR personally and it is unfair to brand one as a racist without having firsthand knowledge; I reserve my judgment. However, I believe that MR is unscrupulous; learning Tamil or more like paraphrasing is also part of that art of deceiving! What significance one can attach to his Tamil speaking when he allows forcing the Tamil School children to sing the National Anthem in Sinhala? How would one assert when the Tamil National Anthem is invalidated? It is more like GR agreeing with Sangakara’s speech just to dilute the reactions than based on conviction!
“If MR is racist because he seeks Sinhala votes, then what about Sampanthan and the rest of the TNA which seeks Tamil votes?”
Sampanthan is a regional politician representing the oppressed group of people. He has a platform only because Sri Lanka failed to build a nation. If all of Tamil Grievances have been addressed and the Tamils are treated as equal citizens of the nation with access to their language and way of life without any hindrances from the state, then Sampanthan cannot seek Tamil votes on the basis of Tamilness!
By contract, MR is the president of the nation, he not only seeks Sinhala votes but also explicitly accommodates and promotes racists; he oversees racist activities.
“Before blaming MR for not coming up with any solutions, we should ask whether anyone else has done so?”
Before it was blamed on the LTTE; various proposals were made and the Tamil polity might have agreed on something but for the LTTE and not to mention about the Sinhala Nationalists! There was a general consensus among the people concerned that, the LTTE needed to be defeated first before a solution can be found. Now that the LTTE is no more and there are no obstacles to finding a just solution. MR is in a unique position free of Tamil militancy; riding high on popularity as a hero who defeated the Tamils; he has access to various international resources and no hindrances exist other than the Chauvinists who surround him. When the Mahanyakas made noises about releasing SF, he sent his goons to intimidate them. If he wants, he can do whatever he wants if there is a will. It is clear that there is no will or intention to address the Tamil issues. He is engaged in threatening and intimidating activities within the N&E; the TNA is threatening to pull out of the local elections as a direct result of intimidation both from military and Douglas gang!
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=707441&publicationSubCategoryId=200
“Yes, I think you are correct here. Most Sinhalese (including myself) are unconvinced that devolving power will solve anything. Federalism became particularly discredited during the CFA after the “radical pluralists” argued that federalism would appease the LTTE.”
The LTTE has been comprehensively defeated by the brave Sinhala army; there is no question of appeasing the LTTE anymore. Whatever the Sinhala decide to do will be on their terms! However, whether their offering will dampen the Tamil quest for freedom remain to be seen. There are several measures that the GOSL can establish that will go long way to convince the Tamils that a form regional autonomy will suffice. Building Buddha statues in private land; making/forcing the Tamil children to sing Sinhala Anthem; intimidating the TNA; prolonging the HSZs and occupying the residential areas; continuance of empowering the paramilitary gangs would not bring confidence among the Tamils.
Burning_Issue
“If all of Tamil Grievances have been addressed and the Tamils are treated as equal citizens of the nation with access to their language and way of life without any hindrances from the state, then Sampanthan cannot seek Tamil votes on the basis of Tamilness!”
That doesn’t explain why there were Tamil parties seeking Tamil votes on the basis of Tamilness before Sinhala Only and even independence.
“By contract, MR is the president of the nation, he not only seeks Sinhala votes but also explicitly accommodates and promotes racists; he oversees racist activities.”
So if there is an empowered Tamil sub-state in the N-E, it could likewise have the right to accommodate and promote racists and racist activities in that region?
“Now that the LTTE is no more and there are no obstacles to finding a just solution.”
Unfortunately there are obstacles, number one is the prevailing lack of trust between communities.
“When the Mahanyakas made noises about releasing SF, he sent his goons to intimidate them.”
Is that what you would call a Sinhala-Buddhist hegemony, where the prelates themselves can be intimidated?
“Whatever the Sinhala decide to do will be on their terms! However, whether their offering will dampen the Tamil quest for freedom remain to be seen.”
In 1987, Sri Lanka acceded to the 13th Amendment which was extremely unpopular and would never have passed referendum. The 13A along with the IPKF led to the 2nd JVP insurrection that killed tens of thousands of Sinhala youth, but it was justified because it was the magical “political solution” that would make everyone happy. That offering apparently did not “dampen” anything, didn’t it?
“Building Buddha statues in private land; making/forcing the Tamil children to sing Sinhala Anthem; intimidating the TNA; prolonging the HSZs and occupying the residential areas; continuance of empowering the paramilitary gangs would not bring confidence among the Tamils.”
I agree, but how will regional autonomy bring the country together? It seems that it will accomplish the opposite.
Dear Wijayapala,
“That doesn’t explain why there were Tamil parties seeking Tamil votes on the basis of Tamilness before Sinhala Only and even independence.”
There will always be people who try to tap on to nationalism; such tendencies exist even in the developed world. The British National Party uses the Immigration and Islam issues to win ignorant votes. Whether they succeed or not will depend on how the central government manages the ethnic and socio-economic concerns of the people in conjunction with well-defined statute laws. There were genuine concerns for the Tamils during pre and post independence of Sri Lanka. There were Tamils who were selfish; there were Tamils who were genuinely interested in safeguarding the Tamil interests. The 1948 constitution was designed allaying the fears of the minorities and at the same time guaranteeing equality and prosperity for all. This was why there weren’t much appetite for Tamil Nationalism within the North & East pre Sinhala Only. The parties such as UNP and LSSP enjoyed good following. Many Tamils adored Dudley Senanayke. Even Mrs Banda was given glorious welcome when she visited Jaffna. I do not need to tell you this as we have discussed this many a time that if the 1948 constitution had been perpetuated, the Tamil nationalism would not have raised its head. It would have been like the BNP in Britain – viewed as a racist party!
“So if there is an empowered Tamil sub-state in the N-E, it could likewise have the right to accommodate and promote racists and racist activities in that region?”
I understand the point that you make here. A small country like Sri Lanka will prosper well within a unitary environment with less red tapes; I fully concur on this point. However, we must pay attention to the realities; even after ending the war with mammoth human and economic costs, the MR regime has done nothing whatsoever to build harmony. Please read the report published by the International Crises Group:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-asia/sri-lanka/209-reconciliation-in-sri-lanka-harder-than-ever.aspx
When I raised this point before, your response was the Tamils have been spared from being used as cannon fodders! When the state fosters and promotes racist activities and marginalises the minorities, there will always be calls for decentralisation of power. It has been accepted and agreed by the experts that the effective way to resolve ethnic issues to respect self-determination. This does not mean separation but respecting the rights of people and at the same time build measures galvanising all as Sri Lankans.
Since the end of the war, The GOSL has abundantly manifested that, it is not interested in ethnic justice; it stands by and allows the majority interests prevailing on the minorities with impunity. It shows total insensitivity towards the feelings of the oppressed. All these are afoot after a 30 year of warfare and 65 years of independence. Do you expect the Tamils to accept the status quo and be second class citizens?
The following excerpt is from the UNPO website: http://www.unpo.org/article/4957
“The preferred outcome of an exercise of the right to self-determination varies greatly among the members of the UNPO. For some, the only acceptable outcome is full political independence. This is particularly true of occupied or colonized nations. For others, the goal is a degree of political, cultural and economic autonomy, sometimes in the form of a federal relationship. For others yet, the right to live on and manage a people’s traditional lands free of external interference and incursion is the essential aim of a struggle for self-determination.”
Let me summarise your position; if I am wrong on any of the below I will stand corrected:
1. You support Buddhist prominence in the constitution
2. You deny that such an elevated status does not transcend into superiority of the majority community.
3. You support a unitary state with no devolution of power.
4. You do not support an impartial investigation of war crimes and crimes and humanity during the last stages of the war.
5. You do not support any form of opposition towards the MR regime
6. You accept that MR is surrounded by racists but claim that MR is not a racist.
7. You say that there is mistrust among the communities and it is the number one obstacle to finding a solution.
I think that your stand possesses contradictions; you either believe in equality or not; you either stand for freedom or not; such values should not be subject to anything.
Do you think that the MR regime is capable of bringing about justice and fairness to all Sri Lankans? If so, how and when do you think this will happen? What has MR overseen so far that is in your view targeted at alleviating the mistrust among the communities? Do you think that MR can preside over such a vision that you envisage?
On the other hand, if you do not believe that MR cannot unite the country, what is the way forward? Why then you do not support a form of opposition? Isn’t it an impartial inquiry into war crimes, will result in the country moving towards re-gaining the lost democratic values? Why protect a thuggish regime that has no interest whatsoever of the country but itself?
“Is that what you would call a Sinhala-Buddhist hegemony, where the prelates themselves can be intimidated?”
I said that MR is unscrupulous and he knows maintaining the Sinhala Buddhist Hegemony is the key to his political survival! He can still maintain Sinhala Buddhist Hegemony while occasionally intimidating the prelates to suit his agenda!
“I agree, but how will regional autonomy bring the country together? It seems that it will accomplish the opposite.”
Do you expect the Tamils to continue to be second class citizens? I would support a unitary state with justice for all citizens with language rights and individual freedoms are respected. But the reality is far from this Promised Land; I believe that neither the Sinhala politicians nor the Sinhala public will do anything to give justice to the minorities in Sri Lanka. There will be individuals like you who will talk about justice and equality but collectively the Sinhalese are too weak to consider anything other than perpetuating their hegemony!
Dear Wijayapala and Burning_Issue, I have read all published opinion polling data since at least 1997, starting with those by Research International PVt Ltd, right upto the National Peace Council poll conducted together with a UK university. NOT A SINGLE ONE gave an approval rating of 60% for a federal solution, the highest figure for any federal formula being under 5%! So, it wasn’t the CFA. Federalism doesn’t fly in places as diverse as the UK, the Philippines and Bolivia. Contrast that with a fairly consistent figure around or just over 50% for a more effective system of provincial councils. So, genuine autonomy at provincial level, tweaking the 13th amendment, is the best possible – and only viable- solution.
Dear Dr DJ,
Thanks for pointing this out; I cannot contest your knowledge but I clearly remember during the CFA a survey carried out by in association with a university in the UK may be it is Liverpool. I need to research on this.
On the point about the Federalism; I agree that it is a no go given the current climate.
“So, genuine autonomy at provincial level, tweaking the 13th amendment, is the best possible – and only viable- solution.”
Good that you are confident that the above is possible. I have no problems with the regional arrangements at all. It would be even better if the Sinhala and Tamil languages are made accessible throughout the nation; this way, the race based demography will alter in time. Whatever we may or may not agree/disagree the people that matter appear indifferent and power hungry.
Burning_Issue, wijayapala, Dayan J,
I believe the polling data you refer to in these posts are the ‘Peace Polls’ conducted by Dr. Colin Irwin of the University of Liverpool. See http://www.peacepolls.org/documents/peacepolls/001173.pdf.
It seems these polls were conducted using the APRC proposals as their basis, and the headline findings indicates that there is broad support for the proposals across the country. Additionally, I noticed from the TNAs recent statement in relation to their campaign in the upcoming LG elections that they want a “political solution within the framework of united and undivided country that will enable the Tamil people to live in security and dignity, fulfilling their legitimate political, economic, social and cultural aspirations” (see http://transcurrents.com/news-views/archives/2388).
In the light of these things, the failure of Mahinda Rajapakshe to publish the full APRC report as the starting point for the proposed PSC only gives credence to the allegation that he doesn’t really care about a fair solution to the problem, but only in delaying tactics.
Dear Lankan Thinker,
Thank you for the link; I did save it somewhere at the time but cannot remember. It is very interesting reading the perceptions of the peoples; there was indeed a majority consensus as to a solution and constitution reforms. Since the CFA, the country has gone backwards in relation to ethnic relations; I am sure if the same survey is carried at the present climate, one would see startling results.
MR is not interested in any form reconciliation; the longer the divide prolongs the better it is for MR. Until the Sinhala masses realise this, nothing can be done apart from international pressure, which in its own right cannot make much difference unless the UN conjure a mandate for war crimes investigation.
Dear Burning_Issue;
In my opinion international pressure is the main obstacle for ethnic reconciliation and for the line of action of MR. As far as the pressure exerted on Sri Lanka and MR by the international community backed by the Tamil Diaspora, people (specially Sinhalese)will oppose those moves and rally round MR, despite all his bad moves. As far as the international pressure is there, people will not alienate MR, as that pressure is not free from harming the country and the interests of the people. This is what happened during the Darusman Report and Channel 4 video.
People supported MR despite their war hero was jailed by MR, because they have intuitively identified the more important issue of the hour. Any attempt by international community and Tamil diaspora to oust MR, will be taken as a move against the country and them by the people.
On the other hand, if Tamil Diaspora think that their reconciliation is not with MR, how come they expect good moves for reconciliation from MR regime. They haven’t got a moral right for such an expectation and to make a big fuss. They must expect reaction according to their action.
Therefore, if Tamil Diaspora is really looking for reconciliation, they must change their strategy for a “win- win” situation and Tamil people living in Sri Lanka should push Diaspora for that. That is the only way to oust MR.
Mr cannot be oust with a direct move, it is an indirect move that goes with the interests of the country and the people. As long as such a move does not come to the stage, despite all the international pressure and Diaspora attempts, MR regime will flourish with all its short comings.
This is how I understand it.
Thanks!
Dr. Jayatilleka
“Kumar’s (contrasting) formation- schooling, language, background — perhaps ?”
You are right, a person’s upbringing determines the way in which he treats others. Aren’t we all glad that from Kandy to Jaffna young people have discovered a true gentleman in their midst. This is good news.
Of course, Sinhala and Tamil racists will despise him. Then again, a gentlemen will never be liked by racists.
All this ado about a guy who is so ignorant that he writes, “federalism is in our constitution?”
Ravana,
“Self Determination does not have to equate with separatism. Self-Determination should be applied down to individual level.”
Could you please provide a definition of “self-determination?”
“Could you please provide a definition of “self-determination?”
There are two definitions:
1) A process by which a country forms its own statehood via allegiances etc. This right to self-determination must be recognised (presumably by the UN)- a very legalistic definition; very useful for separatist movements.
2) A process by which a person controls his or her own life.
I refer to the latter definition and prefer it because the former is a lot more abstract and often meaningless for individuals. But ones own sense of self (as false as it may be) is very real of individuals and they are likely to have much more passion in having control over this than over an abstract concept of identity such as “Tamil”, “Sinhala” or even “Sri Lankan”. The role of the state ideally should be to interfere as little as possible in the processes by which each individual makes choices about determining his/her sense of self.
In the specific case of Sri Lanka, some sort of Bill of Rights which held sacrosanct and a strong anti-dicrimination and Racial/Sectarian vilification laws (Laws with Teeth) will go a long way to addressing the needed freedoms for Sri Lankan residents. If the Government addresses these issues it is likely to provide avenues for “self-determination” from individual to group level short of a challenge to sovereignty of state.
If a challenge to that sovereignty occurs in terms of another attempt at self-determination through statehood, then it is better that the state is prepared better next time, with appropriate measures having already been taken to negate the reasons for such self-determination. A wealthy and secure state would be in a much better position to make such negotiation appropriately and preserve sovereignty (e.g. Canada which quelled a rebellion in no uncertain terms in the 1970′s, UK which essentially used state-terror to subjugate Scotland but 500 years later finds Scotland having such ideas again but now approaches it from a 21st century perspective). Sri Lanka needs to quickly provide a framework in which minorities can feel secure and then go on with nation-building with a moratorium of alternate states until all parties can come to the table (if required) as relatively wealthy and not hungry partners. Such partnership can only be built on the sort of trust which can only be developed through processes you described.
In a nut shell, what I am saying is, “Don’t talk about separate states now but give the promise to Tamil leaders and people to revisit this in say 25 years, long enough to give so-called sinhalas opportunity to live up to your ideals. There has to be a caveat. The Tamils must have demonstrated that they also have attempted to live with other communities without demonising them. The majority must demonstrate an attitude of accommodation within the country and one of assimilation within the region. The Tamil minority must demonstrate willingness to assimilate within the country and a capacity to accommodate the Sinhala majority (a regional minority) within the region. That would be an example of what I call a partnership”
(Wow! It started off as a nutshell…)
Ravana, thank you for the dissertation. I agree that the former definition is useless except for separatists. Your ideas remind me very much of my own during the CFA period.
But how do you think the Tamils (or any other community in their position) would react if asked to wait 25 years for justice?
Dear Burning_Issue
“A small country like Sri Lanka will prosper well within a unitary environment with less red tapes; I fully concur on this point. However, we must pay attention to the realities; even after ending the war with mammoth human and economic costs, the MR regime has done nothing whatsoever to build harmony.”
I entirely agree that MR has not built harmony. That is why I am asking how devolving power will accomplish that.
“When the state fosters and promotes racist activities and marginalises the minorities, there will always be calls for decentralisation of power.”
I completely agree with that too, which is why I do not have any hard feelings whatsoever against anyone calling for devolution of power. But that does not make devolution a real “solution.” Two wrongs do not make a right.
“1. You support Buddhist prominence in the constitution”
Not anymore. You had shown me a link showing how people used that clause to justify building Buddha statues. I wanted to show that link to Off the Cuff but could not find it again.
“4. You do not support an impartial investigation of war crimes and crimes and humanity during the last stages of the war.”
No, I simply believe that conducting a truly “impartial” investigation will be impossible.
“5. You do not support any form of opposition towards the MR regime”
That is totally false!!
“6. You accept that MR is surrounded by racists but claim that MR is not a racist.”
Let me ask this: if Sampanthan or Premachandran were in MR’s place, with a Tamil majority, do you think they would do anything differently?
“I believe that neither the Sinhala politicians nor the Sinhala public will do anything to give justice to the minorities in Sri Lanka.”
Then what makes you believe that these same Sinhalese who are so anti-Tamil will ever agree to devolution of power?
Dear Wijayapala,
“I entirely agree that MR has not built harmony. That is why I am asking how devolving power will accomplish that.”
Devolving powers to the regions will not at all harm the majority community but would certainly instill security among the minority communities. It will make them feel part of the governance thus laying a foundation for harmony among the communities. This is the only way forward for Sri Lanka.
“I completely agree with that too, which is why I do not have any hard feelings whatsoever against anyone calling for devolution of power. But that does not make devolution a real “solution.” Two wrongs do not make a right.”
Devolving power addresses another fundamental concern of the Tamils that is; the Tamils’ main complaint is that the Sinhalese will not give us anything. Hence, if the Sinhalese, without the pressure of LTTE were to negotiate an acceptable arrangement for the Minorities, it would send a strong positive signal.
“Not anymore. You had shown me a link showing how people used that clause to justify building Buddha statues. I wanted to show that link to Off the Cuff but could not find it again.”
I am pleased that you have come to this conclusion. I too have no problem if Buddhism enjoys a special status, but a state must not create unambiguous situations where the unscrupulous chauvinists can create racial issues. I do not keep record of the websites that quote; I wouldn’t even know where to look now!
“No, I simply believe that conducting a truly “impartial” investigation will be impossible.”
Any investigation is better than no investigation as all. Why do you feel the need to question the impartiality of an international investigation? What should the UN have against Sri Lanka? I believe that it is only the IC pressure on the Rajapaksas can lead to better governance in Sri Lanka. It will not only help to restore confidence among the minorities but also will benefit the country as a whole by keeping check of this regime. The regime is mastering at the art of gerrymandering and coupled with the 18th amendments, it virtually guaranteeing dynastical perpetual governance. There will be a time when the Sinhala masses wished the IC would come to their rescue!
I will take back the come I made about you do not support any form opposition towards the MR regime. However, please tell me as to how you envisage opposing this regime in order to realise your vision?
“Let me ask this: if Sampanthan or Premachandran were in MR’s place, with a Tamil majority, do you think they would do anything differently?”
Then I as a Tamil will join hands with those who stand for justice.
“Then what makes you believe that these same Sinhalese who are so anti-Tamil will ever agree to devolution of power?”
I do not believe that the Sinhalese are anti-Tamil generally but being badly led for political expediency. The only way is pressure from international actors will bring about changes in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka cannot heal itself; it is politically bankrupt.
Burning_Issue
“Devolving powers to the regions will not at all harm the majority community but would certainly instill security among the minority communities.”
What about the red tape that you mentioned? And how will devolution instill security among the Muslims and upcountry Tamils?
“Hence, if the Sinhalese, without the pressure of LTTE were to negotiate an acceptable arrangement for the Minorities, it would send a strong positive signal.”
Earlier I wrote:
In 1987, Sri Lanka acceded to the 13th Amendment which was extremely unpopular and would never have passed referendum. The 13A along with the IPKF led to the 2nd JVP insurrection that killed tens of thousands of Sinhala youth, but it was justified because it was the magical “political solution” that would make everyone happy. That offering apparently did not “dampen” anything, didn’t it?
“I do not keep record of the websites that quote; I wouldn’t even know where to look now!”
You had found that website fairly quickly when we first discussed this topic. I searched everywhere and could not find it again.
“Why do you feel the need to question the impartiality of an international investigation?”
Did you feel that the Darusman report was impartial?
“However, please tell me as to how you envisage opposing this regime in order to realise your vision?”
The first step is to attack it where it is weak, not where it is strong. The war crimes card has the effect of unifying most Sinhalese behind MR, which is why as a tactic to overthrow or punish him it is worse than useless. The sooner the war is put behind, the sooner MR’s failures in everything else will be exposed to the masses.
On the other hand, if your objective is to punish all of Sri Lanka and not so much MR (as most Sinhalese perceive this campaign), then you are on the correct path.
“I do not believe that the Sinhalese are anti-Tamil generally but being badly led for political expediency. The only way is pressure from international actors will bring about changes in Sri Lanka.”
In other words, you will only be happy when the Sinhalese are forced into doing what you want them to do.
Dear Wijaypala,
I will reply to your post tomorrow. I did read the piece you wrote in Asiantribune that Ravana quoted. I tell you it is an eye opener. Thanks you for that.
Dear Wijayapala,
I think the following is the site that you referred to:
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/3496/ps040.
pdf?sequence=1
“Sinhala Buddhist National Ideology: Implications for Politics and Conflict Resolution in Sri Lanka”
It is very well written by Neil DeVotta
Dear Wijayapala,
“What about the red tape that you mentioned? And how will devolution instill security among the Muslims and upcountry Tamils?”
Peoples’ security is significant and overrides any other meaningful realistic obstacles for effective administration one may envisage. Such administrative disadvantages only qualify as such if the central governance eschews true democratic principles. What I mean by this is that, if rule of law; giving weight to local governance; respecting diversity; meaningful sharing of country’s wealth and not restricted to are observed and respected, there will be no need to for extra layers of red tape. If I could quote UK; despite healthy democracy; complete press freedom; respect for local governance, the Scottish and Welsh peoples preferred for their own government and assembly respectively. This is significant, though their security was never in question, yet they wanted to protect and foster their own interests; they wanted to have a greater say in their own affairs rather than accepting “half measures” (the poll tax experimentation did not help the Westminster course) from Westminster. There are significant English and other minorities reside both in Scotland and Wales; so far no complaints from any party of discrimination or facing disadvantages.
Both Muslims and Upcountry Tamils should participate in their respective regional governance. It will be easier for them to seek justice and fairness regionally than if the power is consolidated centrally. They should be part of the evolution power devolution and subsequent maintenance of it.
I understand that the 13A was forced upon Sri Lanka and resulting in furore that was unavoidable. First, there must be willingness to reconcile with the minorities on the part of Sinhala polity; they must be sincere in this endeavour. The APRC was set up to build consensus and a report was endeavoured by an eminent individual and was duly submitted to the President. It did not come from India not did it come from the Tamils nor did it come from the West, but it evolved within Sri Lanka after several settings and painful coordination of ideas, yet it has been shelved. Isn’t it a home grown idea as MR claimed that he favoured? Are you saying that the Sinhala would have opposed a package that was endeavoured by the all-party set up minus TNA? What is it that the Sinhala public wants? They are not supportive of any form of devolution; they turn blind eye to ill treatments of the Tamils; are they happy that the minorities exist as second class citizens?
“Did you feel that the Darusman report was impartial?”
In a nutshell, I say yes. The Darusman panel was asked to report on specific events with evidences at hand including the satellite images. They sought cooperation from the GOSL; it was denied. They were given a time-frame within which to complete a report. They had no agenda to deliberately tarnish Sri Lanka. If these events had taken place in another part of the world; assuming that a panel led by Dr DJ with members consisting of Dr Palitha Kokhona and Dr G.L Peries had been asked to produce a report, I am pretty sure they would have done exactly the same. The Sinhalese need to move away from this endangered species mentality and view issues on their merits.
“The first step is to attack it where it is weak, not where it is strong. The war crimes card has the effect of unifying most Sinhalese behind MR, which is why as a tactic to overthrow or punish him it is worse than useless. The sooner the war is put behind, the sooner MR’s failures in everything else will be exposed to the masses.”
There are two compelling reasons why an investigation should be conducted:
1. There are allegations with alleged evidences that mass scale deliberate killings had taken place. The perpetrators of such crimes must be accounted for in order to send a strong signal to the other developing nations that, no one is immuned from such crimes.
2. MR is not a politician but he is a thug and unscrupulous. If the war is put behind, he will resurrect the LTTE Phenomenon; he will do anything or even manufacture events to perpetuate the fear psychosis of the Sinhala rural public to his narrow advantage.
Therefore, the only way is to advance the war crimes investigation to such a degree that he is forced into reforming thus aligning Sri Lanka along the international standards.
“On the other hand, if your objective is to punish all of Sri Lanka and not so much MR (as most Sinhalese perceive this campaign), then you are on the correct path.”
I am very sorry that you feel that way. My objective is justice and good governance. The Sinhalese need to separate Sri Lanka from the ruling regimes. Sri Lanka is not under attack but the MR regime is; there are many Sinhala who would like to see justice and some even actively participate in gathering evidences. No regime should be allowed to kill its own citizens in mass and get away with it!
“In other words, you will only be happy when the Sinhalese are forced into doing what you want them to do.”
Correction; I will be happy if the MR regime starts respecting freedom, democracy, multiculturalism, and above all taking steps towards community reconciliation. I am convinced that, if no pressure put on MR, he will perpetuate the status quo just to suit his own ends. He is a master at gerrymandering; he knows when to talk and when to use goons. If nothing works, white van treatment; he will go at any length to get what he wants!
Dear Wijayapala and Brning issue,
I saw Wijayapala’s comment about a web site Re the foremost place to Buddhism and yours providing the link he sought by chance. I checked the link and it did not work. After some searching found the article in question at http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/3496/ps040.pdf?sequence=1
Regarding the Buddha statue incident (not specifically referenced to Trinco in the article) it is written in camouflaged language and hides the true state of affairs.
A reference is made on p49 and in footnote 25 but does not name the location and does not reference the case proceedings.
What I wrote in an earlier comment when this came up, gives the court case reference where it was shown that a large number of similar religious entities have actually been set up in Trinco including Kovils and Christian religious monuments the total of which was over ten (probably 13 or 14 but not sure as I cannot remember it now) out of which (if I remember correctly) 3 were Buddhist and ALL monuments were Unauthorised.
The case to remove the statue failed due to a counter plaint of a fundamental rights application for equal treatment before the law as only the Buddhist statue was singled out for removal while the others were not. The removal failed not due to the Clause on Religion in the Constitution.
As the above shows, this so called well written paper is not interested in presenting an argument based on the truth.
Burning Issue, this has been one of your favorite grouses that you repeatedly bring up on GV. Basing complaints on half truths an inuendo does not help reconciliation.
Strangely, this document prohibits copying of content and if anyone wanted to quote anything written, it has to be tediously retyped. Disallowing editing of content is understandable but disallowing copying content is strange.
“The sooner the war is put behind, the sooner MR’s failures in everything else will be exposed to the masses. On the other hand, if your objective is to punish all of Sri Lanka and not so much MR (as most Sinhalese perceive this campaign), then you are on the correct path.”
Agree 100%.
GoSL must be hoping that the war crimes nonsense will drag on for the foreseeable future (which it will given the attitudes of those groups promoting ‘war crimes’ trials), enabling it to use it as the ‘external threat’ factor to excuse its own hubris, arrogance and well-attested corruption.
Wijayapala,
“But how do you think the Tamils (or any other community in their position) would react if asked to wait 25 years for justice?”
Good point. We have to ask them. And have to remind them about Scotland, and Quebec. And that Sinhalas are not a monolithic enemy. They need to make it easier for sympathetic Sinhalas to work with them. The suggestion of a 25 year moratorium is a psychological instrument. To calm the sinhalas whilst giving them notice. To provide Tamils with a opportunity for a win-win solution. The only way Sinhalas can prevent Tamils from seceding (realistically) would be to permit the Tamil diaspora to re-establish their business interests without hindrance and protected by laws, good governance and independent judiciary.
The Tamil diaspora are very capable of taking over Sri Lanka economically. When they realise that they may not be interested in overt political power. The hidden power is stronger. A leaf could be taken out of the Malaysian Chinese book of how to turn defeat in to victory. Rather than forming a political party to represent Tamils it would be much more effective to form generic and economically powerful lobby groups representing Tamil interests. By entwining Sinhala interests with their own interests, the Tamils can be a powerful force. Look at the Jews in the USA.
The irony is that the most reliable way for Sri Lanka to move forward as an independent country would be to ask the Tamil Diaspora to rescue it. Tamils need to understand this and take it when/if the sinhalas offer it.
If the sinhalas do not give the Tamils (and themselves) this opportunity then I can almost certainly guarantee that SL will be a protectorate of one power or another. The die has been cast and the Rajapakses have been given till 31 December 2011. The new protectors will want to establish their business interests without hindrance and protected by laws, good governance and independent judiciary (too bad for Namal). They will almost certainly appoint Tamils as their representatives, simply because of their qualifications and that they are trustworthy. This will unfortunately place Tamils in the unenviable position of being resented by the sinhalas. Back to square one.
I hope that the Tamils and Sinhalas can see this urgent need to work as partners. Giving the North to Douglas and the East to Karuna/Pillyan will only result in Indian interests being firmly established in SL. Rajapakses don’t mind this sort of partnership because they are only interested in wealth and power. Partnership I prefer is a genuine one at grass root level with the overall interest of the whole community at heart.
Ravana,
“The irony is that the most reliable way for Sri Lanka to move forward as an independent country would be to ask the Tamil Diaspora to rescue it. Tamils need to understand this and take it when/if the sinhalas offer it.
“If the sinhalas do not give the Tamils (and themselves) this opportunity then I can almost certainly guarantee that SL will be a protectorate of one power or another….The new protectors will want to establish their business interests without hindrance and protected by laws, good governance and independent judiciary (too bad for Namal). They will almost certainly appoint Tamils as their representatives, simply because of their qualifications and that they are trustworthy.”
So either way, the Tamils will take over Sri Lanka. It seems that I have gotten the last laugh over Burning_Issue!!
For those who are interested in a contribution by Wijayapala in another incarnation please visit the following (this is not his real identity):
http://www.asiantribune.com/node/6832
The article describes connectedness between Tamil and Sinhala.
Wijayapala and Mango are right. Ravana, your post-Dec 31, 2011 ‘protectorate’prognosis ignores the implications of your own chosen pseudonym plus the small matter of quarter of a million armed/weapons savvy youngsters. Maybe you should try ‘Vibeeshana’instead?
Dear DJ,
You and I both know “protectorate” comes in various different guises. It does not have to be done with arms. In fact it is the American policy to avoid armed conflict as far as possible. An example of a protectorate is Australia. How did they lose their elected PM?
Australia engages in liberal laws partly because the people actually exercise their power and are permitted to do so. However, it also liberalises laws readily in order to please foreign expectations.
Other “protectorates” (if you get the metaphor) are Singapore, South Korea, Japan. Some who have been shed include Iraq and Iran. In each of these cases the basic freedoms of people and liberty did not matter as much as protecting US interests.
“The Next Decade: where we’ve been and where we’re going” by George Friedman clearly enunciates the American policy of No Permanent Friends but Permanent Interests.
I don’t blame the Americans for protecting their interests. You and I may do the same in their shoes. However, when I consider your statement about sinhala conquistas as a comment on another post (i.e. that if SF was in power conquista agenda would have been established by now), and the comment on this article about JVP waiting on the wings (ala 1980′s) I do have to step back and reflect:
1) Sarath Fonseka- Yes I agree that SF would have consolidated the agendas represented largely by a the sinhala masses who could be termed conquistas. Unlike your rendition of this as a possibly undesirable outcome I think he (SF) and the conquistas would have had a vision for all Sri Lankans (including all classes and ethnicities) working amicably together in a corruption free society with a level playing field. The JVP was also in the wings to balance any dictatorial tendencies by SF. Yes he would have consolidated the Armed Forces as a deterrent against the Powers that play the Great Game. However, he is not a fool and has demonstrated his capacity for strategy. He and those allied with him would have ensured (inevitably) that India, China and US were treated in an equally friendly manner and that no power would have specific leverage in Sri Lanka. Most importantly this group would have liberalised laws which are desired by the US but not to the extent that typical US policy could be enforced on SL. (This is it in a nutshell filtering a lot of allied issues).
2) JVP- “Polpotist”?! Well I must confess that this was my view of the JVP as well until some way during the last Eelam war. Then I began to see the tendency that the JVP had of using the established legal system even against the President of the land. That took courage and I have to say that I was impressed. Then after the war I read accounts which further exonerated the JVP from total responsibility for the atrocities in the 1980′s. In fact my eyes were opened about state sponsored terror during that era. The evidence that I saw was not from JVP sources but from quite independent non-political sources. That has prompted me to gather evidence from sources close the JVP. A picture is building up. I knew about shadowy groups called the “Black Cats”, “Green Tigers” etc. But I did not previously know about a shadowy organisation called PRA. There is a lot about the shadowy era of the 1980′s we are yet to learn. One thing I am aware of the arms bearing capacity of the JVP is that they were that a very small group were given authority to bear arms. Vast majority of the membership were purely political activists. Where they went primarily wrong was when they panicked at Government persecution and provided membership to local arms bearing thugs. That act basically destroyed the JVP credibility and the Government did the rest. None of this excuses the abduction, torture and murder of thousands of youth of that era. It is of interest that the thus traumatised JVP remains loyal to Sarath Fonseka of that era who would have been part of Government machinery. This suggests two things: 1) SF was not part of the Mahasona type actions. 2) There are no permanent friends or enemies but only permanent interests.
I know that the JVP had sympathetic soldiers at the time who trained them. I have no doubt that they would have members of the armed forces who are sympathetic to them now. But like the US of the modern World, the modern JVP is very unlikely to act in haste. Buy yes, I agree that their hidden power is greater than meets the eye.
In both of the reflections above, I suspect that the JVP, and SF for that matter are significant thorns on the sides of any overt/covert actions by the Powers of the Great Game to control Sri Lanka for various strategic reasons. I think SF and JVP need to learn to accept that the Great Game will be played whether they like it or not but negotiate with the Great Powers. I suspect however, the irrepressibly corrupt Rajapakses with significant liabilities hanging over their heads are so succulent that the Great Powers have no interest in either the JVP or SF. Only a mass movement at the Grass Roots which uproots the Rajapakses is likely to provide either JVP or SF the opportunity to grab the attention of the Great Powers and to dictate their own terms.
In considering such factors, Tamils have to swallow some pride, and consider what is strategically most useful for them as the most significant minority in SL. Playing minority politics is likely to be utterly useless.
“However, he is not a fool and has demonstrated his capacity for strategy.”
Then how is he (Fonseka) sitting in a jail cell right now??
Dear Burning_Issue
“Peoples’ security is significant and overrides any other meaningful realistic obstacles for effective administration one may envisage.”
How much devolution is needed to achieve “people’s security?” What if devolution won’t improve people’s security very much (or only symbolically/psychologically), while further degrading Sri Lankan governance? That is my fundamental understanding of devolution in the Sri Lankan context- in practice it will provide very little for the minorities and it will ruin the country.
“Both Muslims and Upcountry Tamils should participate in their respective regional governance.”
How? And why have they never demanded regional governance? Shall we be more honest and say “Tamils” vice all “minorities?”
“First, there must be willingness to reconcile with the minorities on the part of Sinhala polity; they must be sincere in this endeavour.”
The problem, as I tried to explain, is that many Sinhalese believe that the Tamils will never be happy with anything they are given. The upcountry Tamils suffered far worse than their northeastern cousins, not even having the right to vote or participate in politics for decades, yet they never took to the gun to assert themselves.
“The APRC was set up to build consensus and a report was endeavoured by an eminent individual and was duly submitted to the President.”
The APRC “majority” report failed to resolve two very basic issues: 1) the unit of devolution and 2) the exact powers to be devolved, and how they would be devolved, showing once again that the pro-devolutionists are good at talking in terms of vague generalities and platitudes but not so good with the details.
“What is it that the Sinhala public wants? They are not supportive of any form of devolution; they turn blind eye to ill treatments of the Tamils; are they happy that the minorities exist as second class citizens? ”
I want a strong, efficient unitary state, with no 13A, where the minorities have the same individual rights as anyone else. If the devolutionists and Eelamists can dream, why can’t I?
“Did you feel that the Darusman report was impartial?”
In a nutshell, I say yes.
Then we are at an impasse, because I felt that it was extremely biased against Sri Lanka. The report itself was poorly-written with a sloppy attention to details. The panelists clearly did not give a damn about Sri Lanka or what had transpired, more or less the future.
“The perpetrators of such crimes must be accounted for in order to send a strong signal to the other developing nations that, no one is immuned from such crimes.”
Why only developing countries? Are you saying that the developed countries should be immune? And what does sending signals to other countries, developing or otherwise, have to do with unseating MR or achieving reconciliation in SL????
Only when the Tamil diaspora hauls Adele Balasingham and other LTTE survivors among them for war crimes will it have the moral authority to demand that the Sinhalese do the same for their own leaders.
“Therefore, the only way is to advance the war crimes investigation to such a degree that he is forced into reforming thus aligning Sri Lanka along the international standards.”
What “international standards”??? When was the last time any other country not defeated in war was able to be forced to reform?
“Sri Lanka is not under attack but the MR regime is;”
I am sorry too but what you are saying does not add up. MR for better or for worse was elected to power, not self-appointed through force like Prabakaran was. He did not fight the war alone but through mobilizing his popular support base behind him; arguably this is precisely where Prabakaran failed as the Tamils in SL overwhelmingly did not want to return to war in 2006 and thus did not actively support the LTTE side of the equation. For that reason, any genuine “war crimes” indictments will have to be levied against MR’s support base, not just MR or his cronies alone. You may hate the Sinhalese for this, but the truth is that they believe that the end of the war was worth the price in human lives lost, even among those who lost sons or fathers on the battlefield as a result.
“I am convinced that, if no pressure put on MR, he will perpetuate the status quo just to suit his own ends.”
And I am equally convinced that the more outside pressure is put on MR, the longer he will stay in power with the status quo.
Dear Wijayapala,
“How much devolution is needed to achieve “people’s security?” What if devolution won’t improve people’s security very much (or only symbolically/psychologically), while further degrading Sri Lankan governance?”
I note your veiled message that, any amount of devolution of power will not suffice for the Tamils as their end game is secession. The recent regional election has shown that the Tamils have overwhelmingly supported for a political solution within the undivided Sri Lanka; this is a strong message when they could have either apathetically abstained or voted for extreme elements; they did not.
The Sri Lankan governance has been degrading ever since the 1948 constitution has been tampered with. Given that, there is no chance that the country would revert to 1948, we must find a best way forward considering all issues and giving weight to all concerns.
“That is my fundamental understanding of devolution in the Sri Lankan context- in practice it will provide very little for the minorities and it will ruin the country.”
I agree; there has to be a workable consensus and the parties must be sincere. But I disagree on the point about “in practice it will provide very little for the minorities and it will ruin the country”; on the contrary, the whole idea of devolving power is to enable local accountability. There has to be equitable representation of all groups within the regional governance. There should a mechanism by way of a binding arbitrational panel/s sitting centrally to deal with issues resulting from local impasses. It is thoroughly workable with greater successes than the current unfair system.
“The problem, as I tried to explain, is that many Sinhalese believe that the Tamils will never be happy with anything they are given.”
How would they know? Did the Sinhala agree to give anything at all? How would anyone know if the Banda/Chelva pact had worked or not? What about the Dudley/Chelva pact? Let’s be honest and say that, the Sinhalese deem sharing power with the Tamils amount to conceding to shared ownership of the nation and this is not acceptable to them. I am sorry that this may upset you but that is what I believe with the turbulent history on my side.
“The upcountry Tamils suffered far worse than their northeastern cousins, not even having the right to vote or participate in politics for decades, yet they never took to the gun to assert themselves.”
I agree that the Upcountry Tamils have been treated rather shabbily; they were made to feel aliens and stuck in areas where they are surrounded by the “hostile” Sinhala. You may probably need to read some of the things that Thondaman Snr said about the emergence of VP and post Kent & Dollar farm events! They never wanted to assert themselves but wanted to be treated fairly. This is a reflection on the Sinhala than anything else. The regional set up should give them a voice with adequate representation.
“The APRC “majority” report failed to resolve two very basic issues: 1) the unit of devolution and 2) the exact powers to be devolved, and how they would be devolved, showing once again that the pro-devolutionists are good at talking in terms of vague generalities and platitudes but not so good with the details.”
Why was the report not published? How do you know about the short comings? What are the recommendations on the report?
“I want a strong, efficient unitary state, with no 13A, where the minorities have the same individual rights as anyone else. If the devolutionists and Eelamists can dream, why can’t I?”
I am afraid that you dream was realised in 1948; we collectively destroyed it and getting it back seems impossible. Of course dreaming important but I cannot see any positive signals on that front when the Tamil Language provisions remain shelved for over 20 years. I personally would be happy with your dream if it can be realised but people of Sri Lanka are not cultured enough and more importantly, the politicians are visionless and suffer from self-centered power hungry attitude.
“Then we are at an impasse, because I felt that it was extremely biased against Sri Lanka. The report itself was poorly-written with a sloppy attention to details. The panelists clearly did not give a damn about Sri Lanka or what had transpired, more or less the future.”
I am sorry that you feel this way; the panel was tasked to look at the evidences present and advise the Secretary General on the case of further investigations. There were two parties in question and the report found credible evidences exist that war crimes were committed by both sides. The video footages that emerged mainly about the alleged crimes committed by the SLA; thus more specific emphasis were placed. If the GOSL had allowed reporters like in other operations around the world, we would know of events from third party perspectives. Hence, an investigation is required to address “The panelists clearly did not give a damn about Sri Lanka or what had transpired, more or less the future” don’t you agree? Don’t you agree that Sri Lanka can put her case and challenge the evidences that appear implicating them in war crimes?
“Why only developing countries? Are you saying that the developed countries should be immune?”
Please point me to an event where a developed country has committed mass killings of its own people?
“Only when the Tamil diaspora hauls Adele Balasingham and other LTTE survivors among them for war crimes will it have the moral authority to demand that the Sinhalese do the same for their own leaders.”
Wijayapala, the above is an emotionally charged statement! MR is a head of the state that has international accountability. He has a duty to all of his citizens; he had not only failed them but allegedly willfully targeted them knowing that there were none combatants with women, children and old folks existing at the mercy of the president. You will say that, if the MR had held back, the LTTE and VP would have escaped! Where would they have escaped to? If that is the case why didn’t most of them escape? There could have been an organised surrender and why wasn’t that avenue explored? There is definitely a case for a thorough investigation and why was not the LLRC mandated to do just that? If an investigation pinpoints that Adele Balasingham has a case to answer, I will extend my support for her complying. In fact, I would like to see the full facts published exposing the LTTE for all their short comings; they had opportunities to surrender earlier and many thousands of lives would have been saved.
Dear Burning_Issue
“I note your veiled message that, any amount of devolution of power will not suffice for the Tamils as their end game is secession.”
Not really. Maybe for some, but there are others like you who believe that the magical “political solution” will negate the need for secession. The problem is not that you or most other Tamils have some hidden agenda or “end game,” but rather that when this “political solution” actually arrives you will only then realise that it is not so magical after all. If the Sinhalese were in your place, they would do exactly the same thing.
“The recent regional election has shown that the Tamils have overwhelmingly supported for a political solution within the undivided Sri Lanka; this is a strong message when they could have either apathetically abstained or voted for extreme elements; they did not.”
I have a rather different interpretation. The Tamils overwhelmingly rejected the party of Anandasangaree, who is probably the most credible Tamil leader to the Sinhalese, in favor of the LTTE lapdog TNA. As kadphises pointed out in another thread, Suresh Premachandran nailed the coffin on negotiations by chortling “The Tamil people’s demand is that they exercise full powers of self-rule within their homeland consisting of a merged North and East.” Surely he knew that “homeland” and “merged North and East” are totally unacceptable in the South, which proves without a shadow of a doubt that the TNA is NOT interested in a negotiated “political solution, but rather wants an endless confrontation with the government.”
“on the contrary, the whole idea of devolving power is to enable local accountability.”
And where will the provincial governments get the funds to exercise these powers? In particular, how will the war-devastated Northern and Eastern Provinces be able to run their own affairs with their own resources???
“Did the Sinhala agree to give anything at all?”
No, but the point I am making is that when they were forced to give the 13A, even that was not enough.
“How would anyone know if the Banda/Chelva pact had worked or not? What about the Dudley/Chelva pact?”
They would have failed miserably because they did not have popular support. The fact that Banda and Dudley had proposed them to begin with demonstrated how little they were connected with their electorates. I might have mentioned to you before how I consider SWRD Bandaranaike to have been the second worst leader in Sri Lankan history. He brought us “Sinhala Only” so I’m not surprised at all he could come up with another dumb idea like “Banda-Chelva.”
“Let’s be honest and say that, the Sinhalese deem sharing power with the Tamils amount to conceding to shared ownership of the nation and this is not acceptable to them.”
I don’t see how devolution is the same as “shared ownership of the nation.” Devolution draws lines in the “nation.” The Tamil Congress under GG Ponnambalam did not want devolution but sought “power-sharing” through his 50-50 idea. Misguided as it was, that idea conveyed more “shared ownership of the nation” than devolution.
“The regional set up should give them a voice with adequate representation.”
You did not answer my point- how come the upcountry Tamils have never demanded this “regional set up?”
“Why was the report not published? How do you know about the short comings? What are the recommendations on the report?”
Please give me some time to find the findings of the Majority Report, it has been a couple of years. The report may not have been published in full, but there was not a full consensus reached by the majority on some important points.
“The video footages that emerged mainly about the alleged crimes committed by the SLA; thus more specific emphasis were placed.”
The Darusman Report denied that there was evidence that the LTTE had used people as human shields, despite the mountain of evidence provided by the UTHR-J and SLAF aerial videos. For that reason alone it is worthless.
“Don’t you agree that Sri Lanka can put her case and challenge the evidences that appear implicating them in war crimes?”
Not when the investigators already begin with a “guilty” verdict, like the Darusman panelists. That is precisely why most Sri Lankans are dead set against such a stacked “investigation” and why all of you are making MR stronger by insisting on it.
“Please point me to an event where a developed country has committed mass killings of its own people?”
So it is perfectly acceptable for countries to commit mass killings of other people, as long as it’s not their own?
“Wijayapala, the above is an emotionally charged statement!”
Let me understand correctly: demanding war crimes investigations is not “emotionally charged” as long as they’re not against Tamil leaders or those claiming to lead Tamils?
“He has a duty to all of his citizens; he had not only failed them but allegedly willfully targeted them knowing that there were none combatants with women, children and old folks existing at the mercy of the president.”
What is your evidence that MR deliberately targeted civilians?
“You will say that, if the MR had held back, the LTTE and VP would have escaped! Where would they have escaped to?”
The same place that Adele escaped to?
“If that is the case why didn’t most of them escape?”
DBS Jeyaraj answered that question- Prabakaran believed all the way to nearly the end that the int’l community would save the LTTE.
“If an investigation pinpoints that Adele Balasingham has a case to answer, I will extend my support for her complying.”
She already has a case to answer. We are wondering why nobody is investigating her.
Daer Wijayapala,
http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/07/24/consistent-rejection-state-demands-tamils-led-war-separate-state
CBK’s perspective of peace, secularism and nation building; It is very relevant for our current discussion!
Dear Wijayapala,
“The Darusman Report denied that there was evidence that the LTTE had used people as human shields, despite the mountain of evidence provided by the UTHR-J and SLAF aerial videos. For that reason alone it is worthless.”
http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf
I have reviewed the Darusman report; I did not go very far to see the following points:
“Despite grave danger in the conflict zone, the LTTE refused civilians permission to leave, using them as hostages, at times even using their presence as a strategic human buffer between themselves and the advancing Sri Lankan Army. It implemented a policy of forced recruitment throughout the war, but in the final stages greatly intensified its recruitment of people of all ages, including children as young as fourteen. The LTTE forced civilians to dig trenches and other emplacements for its own defences, thereby contributing to blurring the distinction between combatants and civilians and exposing civilians to additional harm. All of this was done in a quest to pursue a war that was clearly lost; many civilians were sacrificed on the alter of the LTTE cause and its efforts to preserve ots senior leadership.”
“From February 2009 onwards, the LTTE started point-blank shooting of civilians who attempted to escape the conflict zone, significantly adding to the death toll in the final stages of the war. It also fired artillery in proximity to large groups of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and fired from, or stored military equipment near, IDPs or civilians installations such as hospitals. Throughout the final stages of the war, the LTTE continued its policy of suicide attacks outside the conflict zone. Even though its ability to perpetrate such attacks was diminished compared to previous phases of the conflict, it perpetrated a number of attacks against civilians outside the conflict zone. “
It appears within the executive summary; I am sure there will be plenty of reference to the LTTE short comings within the report. I had to manually type the quotes; if any mistakes, I stand by that.
OTC,
No that is not the link I was looking for. Burning_Issue had shown me a link with very specific information how Sinhala litigants were defending building Buddha statues in public spaces in the north by citing Article 9. It advanced his argument much much more than this garbage PDF attacking Sinhala Buddhists that you’re referring to.
“Burning Issue, this has been one of your favorite grouses that you repeatedly bring up on GV. Basing complaints on half truths an inuendo does not help reconciliation.”
Neither does attacking someone who is trying to understand our perspective. I had challenged Burning_Issue to find an example where Article 9 was invoked against non-Buddhists, and he delivered. I should have kept better track of that link.
To Wijayapala and Burning issue,
Wijayapala,
The “Foremost place to Buddhism” within our Constitution is a sensitive subject. Hence any opinion expressed about it in a Public Platform such as GV should be factual and done with Responsibility. Spurious claims will inflame opinion of followers of other religions if the True Facts are with held.
BI has raised the Foremost place to Buddhism issue with me a long time ago (probably a year back). Subsequently I have seen Burning issue raising this question several times on GV. Here are two recent occasions.
“Buddha statues are being erected on state patronage within North & East in private lands!” http://groundviews.org/2011/05/01/notes-on-possibilities-after-the-un-report-including-nationalism-and-%e2%80%98the-geopolitics-of-emotion%e2%80%99/#comment-31942
“On the contrary; you have done immense disservice to many who eloquently shown as to why a special status to Buddhism in Sri Lanka an obstacle to the quest of nation building.”
http://groundviews.org/2011/05/17/vesak-and-violence-against-women/#comment-32530
Here are the TRUE facts about the Trinco Buddha Statue affair.
A Buddha statue had been erected overnite on 16 May 2005, without permission from any authority, on land belonging to the State/Urban Council,Trincomalee.
The AG filed a plaint in the Trincomalee courts seeking removal of the Buddha statue.
Subsequently a fundamental rights plaint was filed by a Dehiowitta Piyatissa Thera, chief priest of the Chinabay Sri Bodhirajamaha Vihare against the AG, alleging that the AG had directed the UDA to take steps under Section 28 of the UDA Act to remove the Buddha statue.
The petitioner had stated that there were around 17 illegally erected religious statues on State lands in Trincomalee, out of which, seven were Hindu Kovils and six churches or Christian statues. It was alleged that the AG had singled out the Buddha statue for removal by the UDA.
The petitioner further stated the AG and his department had instituted a case in the Trincomalee District Court seeking the declaration that the statue was an illegal structure in order to have the statue removed on that basis.
The petitioner had alleged that the selective and discriminatory conduct was in violation of the Article 12 (1) and (2) of the Constitution.
This is Article 12
Right to equality.
12. (1) All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) No citizen shall be discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion, place of birth or any such grounds:
Where do you see the Litigants taking Refuge under Article 9 of the Constitution (Primacy to Buddhism) as alleged?
This is Article 9
9. The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).
Any claim stating that the litigants sought protection under Article 9 is Fraudulent and is calculated to drive a divisive wedge to scuttle reconciliation.
If you, Burning Issue and I are all referring to the Trinco Buddha Statue case, here are only TWO Plaints filed in court. One by the UDA in the District Court of Trinco and the other a Fundamental Rights petition filed in the Supreme Court.
UNLESS Burning Issue is referring to a DIFFERENT Buddha Statue, which is probable as he refers to private land (Trinco Statue is on Public land) He wont be able to provide you with ANY Case Record where Protection was claimed under Article 9.
What you can observe from the above is that Burning Issue is SILENT about the SEVEN ILLEGAL HINDU KOVILS and the SIX CHRISTIAN Edifices but finds the Buddha Statue alone objectionable.
Apparently the Buddhist in Trinco had accepted the 13 ILLEGAL Kovils, Churches and Statues belonging to other Religions for long years without a protest.
Article 9 cannot OVER RIDE Articles 10 and 14(1)(e). Hence No one can claim protection under Article 9 if they transgress Articles 10 and 14(1)(e)
This is Articles 10 and 14(1)(e)
10. Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
14. (1) Every citizen is entitled to – (e) the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching;
Burning Issue,
You have been regularly raising objections about Buddha Statues being erected and those who are doing so invoking Section 9 of the constitution to claim protection.
Can you provide an Authoritative reference to such a claim?
Wijayapala, “It advanced his argument much much more than this garbage PDF attacking Sinhala Buddhists that you’re referring to”
Burning Issue referred you to it not me.
The link he provided did not work but I found the article by searching the name he provided. I agree with you that it is Garbage but BI thinks otherwise. He says “It is very well written by Neil DeVotta”
http://groundviews.org/2011/07/15/a-sri-lankan-identity-and-race-relations/#comment-34624
Dear Burning Issue,
You have been regularly raising objections about Buddha Statues being erected and claiming that those who are doing so are invoking Section 9 of the constitution to claim protection (Personally I do not support the erection of any Religious edifice on Public Property).
Can you provide an Authoritative reference to such a claim?
I have proved that, If all three of us (you, Wijayapala and I) are referring to the same Buddha Statue, illegally erected in Trinco, your claim that the Litigants invoked protection using the Constitutional “Foremost place accorded to Buddhism” is Fraudulent.
The litigants claimed the Fundamental Right to equal treatment instead. In Trinco there were 17 illegal Religious edifices. Seven were Hindu Kovils, six were Christian and four Buddhist. All but the most recent Buddha statue had existed for a long time.
It is significant to note, that the Buddhist in the area, had not sought the Removal of the illegal Kovils or the Churches which have been standing in Trinco for years.
Please see the following posts addressed to you amongst others.
http://groundviews.org/2011/07/15/a-sri-lankan-identity-and-race-relations/#comment-34671
http://groundviews.org/2011/07/15/a-sri-lankan-identity-and-race-relations/#comment-34654
http://groundviews.org/2011/05/17/vesak-and-violence-against-women/#comment-32908
The same details are found in an article written by DBS Jayaraj in Transcurrents.
We (you and I) also had a discussion on this subject about an year back. If I remember correctly, it was about the same time as we discussed the Thesawalami Law.
Propagating such False propaganda will inculcate Hatred between the Minority and the Majority communities. Intellectuals such as you, should act with more responsibility and desist from repeating innuendo that have no foundation in Fact.
I believe you owe it to the Tamil community especially and to all Sri Lankans in general, to put the record straight and to desist from such hate spreading propaganda in the Future if you are unable to prove what you say in a public forum such as GV.
Dear OTC,
“I believe you owe it to the Tamil community especially and to all Sri Lankans in general, to put the record straight and to desist from such hate spreading propaganda in the Future if you are unable to prove what you say in a public forum such as GV”
What is this ranting all about? I bring out the Buddhist issue because I believe in equality. One either believes in equality or not; your form of equality does not aggregate well! I am not a guy who is out to outsmart anyone; I debate on points of issues then and there and do not keep records of things. I closely followed the Tinccomalee issue with Buddhist statue and was able to demonstrate as to how it was protected using the article 9 of the constitution at that time. I will certainly research again.
Wijayapala wrote:
“I had challenged Burning_Issue to find an example where Article 9 was invoked against non-Buddhists, and he delivered. I should have kept better track of that link.”
This means that either I must have fooled Wijayapala or he must be lying to protect me; why would he do that? I cannot devote a lot time to debate on the Groundviews; I am a freelance consultant that takes me all around the world and do not have a luxury of a reference room etc.
After the fall of the LTTE, there are many Buddha statues have sprung up within the N&E erected in private lands. Who do you thing fund such activities? They are being given constitutional protection; I make this charge; if you like you can prove me wrong!
You can shout all you like; Sri Lanka cannot be equal with Sinhala Buddhist constitutional prominence. If Hindu and Christian devotees illegally establishing places of worships, they must be removed; law must apply evenly to all. The big difference between the Buddhist statues and the rest is that, the Buddhist Statues have state patronage this is contrary to the term equality. Please keep your arguments simple and logical; as SD once said if one is intellectually honest, it will help the debates immensely!
Dear OTC,
One more thing; I truly find you rather boring and emotional these days I am very sorry to say! This is so after the emergence of the war crimes allegations and releasing of the C 4 documentary. You were logical and rational when the MR regime was in total control and dictating things. Now that the table has turned a bit, you appear to have lost your marbles!
Dear Burning Issue,
You say, “I closely followed the Tinccomalee issue with Buddhist statue and was able to demonstrate as to how it was protected using the article 9 of the constitution at that time. I will certainly research again”
Over 5 weeks have elapsed but the proof that you bragged about is not forthcoming. It will never come as you were lying.
You say, “The big difference between the Buddhist statues and the rest is that, the Buddhist Statues have state patronage this is contrary to the term equality. Please keep your arguments simple and logical; as SD once said if one is intellectually honest, it will help the debates immensely!”
My arguments have always been simple. A court case moves from lower courts to the Higher courts. The final decision comes from the higher court. The Trinco Buddha statue case finally ended up in the Supreme Court.
The Fundamental Rights petition was based on the Right for EQUAL treatment under the Law which is under article 12.
The Petitioner pointed out to the existence of 17 illegally erected religious statues or places of worship on State lands in Trincomalee.
7 are Hindu Kovils
6 are churches or Christian statues
4 are Buddhist (includes the Buddha statue that caused the controversy)
The petitioner claimed that the Buddha statue was SINGLED out for unequal treatment and he proved his case.
You have been lying all along
The following post addressed to you on August 26, 2011 • 2:06 am gives more details.
http://groundviews.org/2011/08/17/darusman-deconstructed-godfrey-gunatilleke%e2%80%99s-critique/#comment-36009
You have also mentioned the Ch4 so called documentary even though you know it is rubbish. You would have read Dr Noel Nadesan’s open letter to ABC TV regarding it (he is a Tamil himself and editor of the only Tamil newspaper in Australia for 14 years). I have in several posts written here on GV, pointed to the FACT that the ONLY hospital under the control of the LTTE in the war zone did not have a SINGLE LTTE wounded or dead within its precincts. We saw only dead and wounded in CIVILIAN clothes.
Are you that immature not to see these obvious indicators of skulduggery within CH4?
What has happened to the Intellectual Honesty?