The LTTE can never give life to a balanced, healthy base for Tamil Nationalism. As Sham says, the LTTE has to die for the re-birth of such a form of Tamil Nationalism. Prabhakaran can never achieve or propagate a separate state appropriate for the aspirations of the Tamils, especially after mauling and maiming his own kind. The fact that the stifling of voices of progressive and constructive opinion which Arjuna Pandavan has very unthinkingly categorised as ‘collaborationists’ clearly highlights the future of such a separate state. It would be a state of enslavement and cruel dictatorship. So what is this freedom and equality we Tamils are yearning for?

Publius’ argument against the LTTE cleverly couched in academic jargon may be simply reduced to this:

LTTE’s intolerance of ‘other voices’ , its monopoly of power and its effective use of violence have undermined if not disqualified it from being regarded as a legitimate advocate for Tamil statehood. This is because it has failed the ‘liberal (demos) test’. The Tamil nationalist project sans this aspect is simply unmitigated ethno nationalism and as such unacceptable.

This argument is flawed. Instead, had Pubilus sought to make an objective assessment of LTTE’s use of concerted violence, he could not have failed to see that the violence was to neutralize obstacles placed in the path of the Tamil nationalist project. Obstacles, that were engineered by exploiting other militant groups (TELO, EPDP and now TVMP), collaborationists (Neelan Tiruchelvam. Luxshman Kadirgamar) and their ilk. And most importantly, these obstacles had the potential to destroy the Tamil nationalist project.
Publius’ deft dismissal of the ISGA as ‘primitive’ a proposal that he had once thought capable of taking the peace process forward needs careful evaluation. One is compelled to regard this as a preemptive strike, given that it was through this document that the LTTE sought to address the question of fair governance of minorities – an exercise in ‘demos’! So you dismiss the ISGA although you had once supported it.

Publius’ arguments do not stack up mainly because it is Sinhala centric thinking delivered in the garb of liberalism-demos.

Arjuna Pandavan

If the above is the criterion for statehood, it was absolutely wrong to give statehood to Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese have miserably failed during the past 60 years to demonstrate that they do have the potential to treat citizens with equality. There was no nation building but destruction both politically and economically..

The international community should create Tamil Eelam for the people of North East and give chance for them to demonstarte as to how they could be a vibrant, modern, exemplary and democratic state unmatched by any in Asia.

Tamil Eelam will surely transmit its cultured attitudes to flow to the cities, nations and the ends of the earth because it is in their DNA.

What we see now is the retaliatory culture surfacing because of state terror. It is subduing the best culture underrneath.

People of North East face evil and know the cruelty of it. They will always decide to be against it and implement the best systems to overcome evil. They will be determined to preserve the real and ancient Tamil culture to respect fellow human beings and develop their country

They will know that they wanted freedom and would therefore respect the freedom of others. And to extricate evil they will always decide to do good and be exemplary to the entire world. It is falsehood to think the opposite.

it can be grown only after LTTE’s death

1. The question of a more legitimate statehood: I in principle agree with Publius that the LTTE will have to reform its institutions to better its claim for statehood but I am confronted with a practical question: How does this reforming or shift to ‘civil societal’ or ‘demos’ happen with regard to the running of its institutions by the LTTE, for example in the area of taxation? In liberal democracies taxes are ‘coercively’ collected from the citizens (assuming that nobody, given a choice, would want to give away his/her hard earned money) because they are done so by elected governments. That’s a legitimate mode of coercion. What is then the LTTE’s option given the obvious that they do not wish to go through an electoral system of a state that they don’t recognise?

2. The lack of political imagination beyond the claim for a separate state: I am in agreement that the LTTE needs to strengthen and sophisticate the ‘political’ aspect of their struggle as a measure of boosting its legitimacy among the International Community and more importantly to reaffirm their moral political positioning among the Tamil populace. This is as publius argues requires political imagination. Political imagination requires capacity. I don’t see the capacity being in offer.

The lack of a culture of debate within the LTTE hampers the development of such a capacity. Successful nationalist projects have always entertained within at least a limited circle debate and dialogue on key political issues. There is also a capacity issue affecting the ‘non-LTTE Tamil nationalist circle’. They lack credibility and a genuine commitment to the ’cause’ so to speak (eg EPDP, TMVP). The fact that LTTE has a zero tolerance policy towards diversity within Tamil nationalism is also a strong contributing factor.

The capacity is not there also because of the mental block that showing commitment to anything other than separation might weaken their bargaining power. It is a complex mentality where the LTTE will always be maximalist and the South minimalist. Going for negotiations itself is feared by the LTTE as a ploy to weaken them. Peace processes are considered by the LTTE as measures by the Govt to strengthen its legitimacy (eg Ranil’s international safety net) and as intervals used to weaken them organisationally (by supporting splits eg the Karuna split)

The dilemma for Tamils like me is that we are optionless. In terms of identifying a force that provides a counter to the current trimphalist regime of MR hell bent on defeating the Tamil Nationalistic project the LTTE is the only option. The LTTE makes sure that they are the only option for the Tamil people by enforcing a monopoly over the struggle. The South also with its lack of imagination contributes to making the LTTE the only option.

Your statement, “But if Tamil nationalism in Sri Lanka is to survive and regenerate itself, so as to have the capacity to play a role in any future re-conception of the Sri Lankan State as a multi-level, polyarchical, plurinational polity, then at least its more thoughtful members should lose no time in thinking in the directions suggested here,” states your intention that Tamils should accept being a part of the Sri Lankan State as a multi-level etc state.

The Tamils did explore a federal formation since 1956. You know the SL response. The fifty-year history of the conflict leaves no choice for the thoughtful members of the Tamil community but to establish Tamil Eelam. Thoughtful members of the Tamil community no longer wish to be part of a Sri Lanka state under any constitution.

Thoughtful members of the Tamil community know, as I’m sure you do, that the SL govt will never honour any agreements with the LTTE, and that the “majority” will just go outside parliament, establish “constitutional council” and form a new constitution and parliament as was done in 1972. No one, not even Britain who guaranteed judicial review through the Privy Council, came to the rescue of the Tamil community then and no one will again.

How can Tamils have faith in “liberal constitutionalist theory” when the past actions of the Sinhala majority and its governments have shown that such faith is misplaced and that events in other countries show that the international community will not intervene when constitutions are thrown out.

This is what happened in 1972 when Mrs B went outside the Parliament and its constitution and held a constitutional council outside Parliament’s premises to draft the 1972 constitution. As a result the Soulbury constitution and that Parliament technically still exist and the 1972 & 1978 constitutions are as a result illegal.

This broke the social contract, section 29 (2) of the Soulbury constitution with which the Tamil nation and the Sinhala nation bound themselves together. As a result the Tamil Nation reverted to its pre-colonial status as an independent nation.

The sooner that Sri Lanka realizes that separation is the only solution, the sooner that reconciliation can take place for all communities and allow us all to live in cooperation and peace for mutual benefit in this Island. The alternative is war ad infinitum.

With respect to the comment by Dayan Jeyatilleke that, “the separatist striving will come up against the will of the overwhelming majority”: Who cares for the anit-Tamil will of the Sinhala Majority.? Not LTTE nor the thoughtful Tamils. Is he blind to history? Didn’t the Tamil people vote for the TULF after they adopted the 1977 Vaddukkoddai Resolution advocating separation as their platform during election? Didn’t the TNA win overwhelmingly at the polls in 2004.

And if he is referring to the overwhelming Sinhala majority, they have no right to dictate to the Tamils. It is their dictates through their leaders that has brought this war.

One final note, none of this discussion would be taking place if not for the LTTE and its coercive force. Without the LTTE any “rights” for the Tamils would have evaporated after the 1978 constitution and the NorthEast would have been colonized, as per JR’s plan, to such a degree that the percentages of each community in the NE would be the same as in the country as a whole.