November 22, 2005: After the Presidential Elections: A wake-up call to all!
By Sathya
The outcome of the Presidential Election with all the excitement and disappointments of a one-day match is in the opinion of Sathya a wake up call to all, including Sathya whose hibernation was once again rudely disturbed.
Firstly, it was a wake up to the Tamil People. It was indeed a cruel irony that their self-proclaimed "sole representative" was bent on defeating Ranil Wickremesinghe, the Presidential candidate that the vast majority of the Tamil people wanted to see emerge as the victor! Of course, it was not the love for Ranil, but the fear of the Sinhala hardliners arrayed behind Mahinda Rajapakse that propelled the Tamil voters in Ranil's direction.
Ultimately, the Tamil people living in areas under the direct military-intelligence and propaganda control of the LTTE were disenfranchised by the LTTE. It was not a boycott by the Tamil people. It was instead a boycott call by the LTTE backed by coercion, intimidation and force. So how come that the Tamil people behaved in a manner that was diametrically opposed to that of their "sole representative", as evidenced by their preference when they came out in their numbers and voted for Ranil in areas where the Tigers could not directly and physically enforce their control? Well, that is the question that the LTTE will have to ponder over.
Meanwhile, the decision of the LTTE to disenfranchise the Tamil voter at this Presidential Election (in contrast to the creation of phantom voters at the last General Elections!) could well be the third historical blunder of the LTTE - the other two historical blunders being the expulsion of the Muslim people from the "traditional Tamil homeland" compelling the Muslim people to distance themselves from the Tamil national struggle and the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi which compelled India to list the LTTE supremo and his intelligence chief as the most wanted criminals in India.
If the LTTE reckoned that the International Community would empathise with it if Mahinda Rajapakse is elected with the support of Sinhala hardliners, they are in for another rude shock which is bound to follow the earlier shock treatment meted out by the European Union by imposing a travel ban on LTTE delegations.If Anton Balasingham, Thamilselvan or LTTE's international lobbyists were to complain to the West about the "hardliners" in Colombo, they are bound to be admonished for not allowing the people that they claim to "solely" represent to vote and ensure a victory for Ranil Wickremesinghe, their favoured candidate.
The writing is already on the wall with the comment by John Cushnahan, EUs Head of the Election Monitoring Mission at the media briefing following the elections that he would take up LTTE "discriminatory" and "unacceptable" behaviour with the Council of the European Union.The second wake up call is to Ranil Wickremisnghe. His policy of appeasement of the LTTE is not winning him any votes amongst broad sections of the Sinhala people as well as the Muslim people - not to mention the remnants as well as the fledgling Tamil democratic alternatives to the LTTE. Further, the emphasis on negative peace (i.e. the mere absence of war) with a so-called international security net to bail him out if things go wrong and the notion of an agreement only with the LTTE, with the SLFP being made a fait accompli is not exactly firing the imagination of the people in the South.
Ranil would also have realised that this is not the first time that the Tiger bit the hand that fed it. It is imperative that Ranil should now put into practice his campaign preachings about removing the peace process from partisan politics and to extend support to Mahinda Rajapakse's fresh approach to the peace process based on inclusivity and human rights that goes beyond a mere "deal" between the Government of the day and the LTTE.
The third wake up call is to Mahinda Rajapakse. He must put into practice and in deed his stirring words following the taking of oaths that he no longer represents his voters and allies, but all sections of the Sri Lanka society. He can neither pursue the peace process, manage a mixed economy aimed at equitable growth or for that matter govern the country if he allows himself to be held hostage to the forces of ethnic and religious extremism and obscurantism in the south.
He has to put into practice and deed his words following the taking of oaths ceremony that he stands for an honourable peace for all the Peoples of Sri Lanka. While inclusivity in the peace process was sorely lacking in the manner in which it was being managed by Norway, LTTE and the Government of the day since the signing of the ceasefire agreement, Mahinda Rajapakse should recognize that once the process of consultations aimed at a broad consensus is advanced, there will come a time when the principle of "sufficient" consensus may have to be put into place based on the principles of democracy, secularism, pluralism. It is a consensus based on these principles that would ensure sustainability and equality.
The fourth wake up call is to the JVP. The JVP must realize that democracy, devolution and development are inseparably linked and that one cannot be advanced without the other.
In fact power-sharing and resource-sharing could well be the key link between democracy and development and is imperative particularly in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural country like Sri Lanka. Diversity and differentiation rather than uniformity and homogeneity is the essence of Marxist ideology and philosophy. It is incumbent on the JVP, if it is truly a vanguard of the working people and the oppressed masses as it perceives itself to be, to take forward the cry of devolution rather than dismiss it as being archaic and obsolete.
In this regard, statements by the JVP during the election campaign that if the LTTE were to give up its demand for a separate state then the South would be prepared to go beyond a unitary State is welcome and could well be the basis for future negotiations. The responsibility now lies with the JVP as the vanguard of the working people to go before the people with that message rather than wait for a referendum and then call on the people to vote against devolution.
The role of a vanguard Marxist party (as the JVP perceives itself to be) is to raise the level of mass consciousness, rather than to get bogged down in false consciousness.
The fifth wake up call is to the religious organizations which are bent on playing politics. Every religion has its essentials and non-essentials. While the essentials of all religions are the same, it is the non-essentials like rites, rituals, and the institutionalization of religion with their personality cults that divide Peoples along religious lines.
State patronage to one religion in a multi-religious society leads to the alienation of other religions, just as much as the proselytizing based on global financial networks is the worst form of intolerance and threat to religious freedom and harmony between religions. The despicable manner in which religious organizations and personalities dabbled in politics during the election campaign is a wake up call to the people who espouse those religions to be vigilant against self-proclaimed messengers and servants of God.The final wake up call is of course to Sathya to stop throwing brickbats at others and to start looking inwards into the chasm that governs word and deed of Colombo-based "civil" society to which he belongs! More on this at an "appropriate" time!
November 22, 2005
[Previous:June 21, 2005]
June 21, 2005: JM, P-TOMS, TRC or “WHATEVER”: The fear of the unknown
By Sathya
The last time that Sathya woke from his deep slumber was when tsunami wrecked havoc with the lives and livelihood of peoples of Sri Lanka, irrespective of religion, ethnicity or any other identity for which we are prepared to lay down our lives as well as consume the lives of others.
In that column, Sathya made a passionate case for imagination and courage in converting the tragedy into an opportunity of linking tsunami recovery and rebuilding with a redesigned peace process. To recall, “What we need at this moment is imagination, creativity and singularity of purpose.
Perhaps, then we may still stand a chance. If not we are all doomed. Disasters, natural or man-made, can well lead to a new era of opportunities and equality for all peoples of Sri Lanka, if we so will collectively and act in unison. (See Daily Mirror, January 4, 2005).
With those wise words Sathya went into hibernation till he was rudely woken by the thunder and lighting associated with the proposed Tsunami Joint Mechanism (JM), which later metamorphosed into P-TOMS (Post-tsunami Operations Management Structure) and the Tsunami Relief Council (TRC). The term “mechanism” apparently when translated into Sinhala had a terrifying impact on the Sinhala psyche. However, it was not so terrifying on the Tamil psyche which when translated into Tamil (podhu kattamaippu) means a “common structure” and comes closer to the reality that a “joint mechanism”.
But then I guess Sinhala opinion is what matters and therefore the term “joint mechanism” which the President said was a creation of the media in any case, was replaced with the term “Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure” and subsequently with the more populist and less technical “Tsunami Refugee Council”. In a fit of extreme exasperation Sathya will in this column use the term “WHATEVER”, till the name is settled one way or the other.
The most convincing argument in favour of “WHATEVER” is that this the first time since the militarization of the ethnic conflict and after several interludes of peace processes that the LTTE would be part of a structured institution of the Sri Lankan State. This would be by way of representation of the Government, the LTTE and the Muslim polity in the apex, regional and district-level institutions which would work closely with the State’s existing bureaucratic structures.
This however should not be confused as a case of democratization of the LTTE, since bureaucratic control is not sufficient to ensure the democratization process, just as much as the capacity building of the LTTE does not necessarily lead to transformation. On the contrary, the empowerment of the LTTE without transformation, can only lead to the reinforcement of what is.
The second argument advanced in support of the “WHATEVER” is that the rights of the Sinhalese and Muslims in the North-East would be both represented and guaranteed. That is certainly reassuring, but it implies that the LTTE would look after the Tamil interests (i.e. LTTE=Tamils), while the Government and the Muslim polity would look after the Sinhalese and Muslim interests, respectively.
The recent media blitz by the National Peace Council (NPC) in advocating a case for the “WHATEVER”, for instance, observed with absolute sanctity that the ‘WHATEVER” would bring together the Government, Muslim community and the LTTE in a common endeavour.
But, how about bringing together the “Peoples” (in the plural). Why did the NPC forget the Peoples? And, what of the rights of the Tamils living in the North-East who live under the diktat of the LTTE and have to contribute cash to the LTTEs coffers and children to its fighting forces and all the other rights that we cherish like the right to dissent and the right to life? Are we therefore saying that it is a matter between the LTTE and the Tamil people to sort out as some Sinhalese democrats with a Sinhala guilt seem to argue and who feel that the North-East is not ready for democracy? But then can it be otherwise? These are questions that arise not from Sinhala chauvinists, but by Tamil democrats. In this context, the absence of a human rights clause in the WHATEVER document is indeed worrying.
The third argument advanced in support of the “WHATEVER” is the classic “what then is the alternative argument”. It is premised that the existing `No War, No Peace” scenario could be threatened by not conceding to the LTTE its fetishism of being the “sole representative” and the “sole arbiter” of Tamil interests hinged on the notion that nothing shall reach the Tamil people till it reaches the LTTE first.
It is argued that any move to check this fetishism would lead to the LTTE raising its clarion call of “War or Peace”. But then, for how long can one allow the peace process to be held hostage to the repeated and constant threats of war? And, can one have a peaceful environment in a “No War, No Peace” situation where children continue to be conscripted, dissidents on both sides continue to be killed, and dissent is silenced by terror? For that matter, can the prevailing “No War, No Peace” situation be sustained in the absence of peace negotiations aimed at a durable, just and a permanent solution? But then, can it be otherwise?
These are some questions that is haunting Sathya. But, on the other hand, as Sathya the rational thinker as opposed to Sathya the conscience keeper keeps reminding, should we confine ourselves to the strait jacket of looking at the future, only through the past. Does it matter to the victims of tsunami what lies ahead, when their concerns are located in the here and the now? And, cannot today’s terrorist become a pacifist democrat tomorrow? (Of course, a peacenik may go further and pose the question cannot the Tiger change its stripes?!) Has Sathya forgotten his passionate appeal soon after tsunami to seize the opportunity and to link post-tsunami recovery and reconstruction to advance the peace process? Should not the President who, when compared to her predecessors and contemporaries amongst Sinhala political leaders in Sri Lanka, clearly has the vision and the determination to address the unresolved Tamil Question but is impeded by Sinhala extremism and obscurantism, be given another chance of restarting the stalled peace negotiations and the peace process through the evolving WHATEVER?
These are also questions that Sathya cannot simply dismiss.
Hence, Sathya has taken the decision to support the “WHATEVER” as well as the bold and courageous initiative taken by the President as a necessity based on humanitarian and practical considerations, but not as a principled position since there are many principles that will be violated in the name of peace, just as many lives were consumed and human rights violated during the ceasefire period in the name of peace.
As to whether the JVPs concern that the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty would also be violated, although remote given the safeguards built into the “WHATEVER”, cannot be ignored given LTTE’s singularity of purpose in seizing every opportunity in its march towards “Thamil Eelam” and the donor community’s vacillation.
The concerns of the JHU and religious extremists, on the other hand, stems more from Sinhala racism rather than from the teachings of Lord Buddha and will ironically only pave the way for LTTE’s ‘Thamil Eelam” and its perceived manifest destiny.
With that Sathya returns to his deep slumber till the next time he is woken up. Hopefully, then it would be the sound of the peace tolls and not the death knell.
June 21, 2005
[Previous:June 4, 2005]
9th August, 2004: The Troubled Peace Process – Time for a Reality Check
By Sathya
The peace process is clearly stalled. There are no signs of the recommencement of direct negotiations which was suspended last year when the LTTE sent a letter to Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe dated 21st April, 2003 that it had “decided to suspend its participation in the negotiations for the time being”. However, the LTTE stressed that it was still committed to a negotiated settlement and was not pulling out of the peace process, although its spokespersons on several occasions characterised the 6 rounds of talks from September 2002 to March 2003 in venues spanning Oslo to Hakone as a “waste of time”.
While direct negotiations ( “Track One” Negotiations in conflict resolution jargon) remains suspended, the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) signed on 22nd February 2002 by then Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and LTTE leader Velupillai Pirabhakaran with the stated objective of “bringing an end to armed hostilities” and create “a positive atmosphere in which further steps towards negotiations on a lasting solution can be taken” has so far prevented a large scale outbreak of hostilities or war between the two parties. However, the period since the signing of the ceasefire agreement also witnessed gross human rights violations that included child conscription, political killings, abductions and extortion from the very inception. The perpetrator was the LTTE. The recent round of killings and child re-recruitment, particularly in the Eastern province, although a direct fall-out of the internecine conflict within the LTTE has spilled over into the heart of Colombo city as well as, according to unconfirmed reports trickling in last week, into the LTTE’s nerve centre in Vanni.
To further compound the deteriorating security situation, neither Colombo nor Kilinochchi seem to be clear about the agenda of talks, if and when they do start. While the LTTE has been consistently insisting that “institutionalizing” its Interim Self-Governing Authority (ISGA) Proposal forwarded to the UNF Government in November, 2003 should form the sole basis for negotiations and should be de-linked from the process of seeking a final political solution, the present UPFA Government has been equally persistent that any interim arrangement should be part of a final political and constitutional settlement.
However, it now appears that President Chandrika Kumaratunga is willing to show some flexibility in commencing negotiation on an interim authority as indicated by the press release, following her meeting with Norwegian deputy Foreign Minister Vidar Helgessen on 27th July, where it was stated that her government was “willing and is keen to commence negotiations on an interim authority within the framework of a united state”. The hawks in her ranks, however, managed to insert a lead story in the Daily News of last Wednesday (4th August) with screaming headlines, “UPFA says `no’ to LTTE’s ISGA proposals”. The story attributed this stance to President Kumaratunga and cited SLFP General Secretary Maitripala Sirisena as the source. As a case of confusion confounded or as confusion clarified, the Daily News the following day carried the following clarification that “ the Government emphasises that that these media reports attributed to the statement said to have been made by the President at the Executive Committee Meeting of the Alliance Government at the President’s House recently are totally misleading the public. In fact, what was stated at the meeting by the President was that the Government’s stance on the resumption of peace talks with the LTTE remains unchanged.”
So, what exactly is the stance of the Government? This was clarified in the Government’s official website which comes directly under the President’s secretariat, where it was stated that “The president maintains that the government of Sri Lanka is willing to discuss with the LTTE its proposals for an interim administration alongside the talks to reach a final solution acceptable to all communities”. But, the issue remains contentious since the LTTE has been insistent on its position that its ISGA proposal should constitute the sole basis for negotiations. In other words, we may well be heading towards a uni-linear and a single-issue agenda trajectory which is precisely what the LTTE has been propelling the peace process towards.One may recall that at the 2nd Session of Talks at Rose Gardens, Thailand from 31 October to 3 November, 2002, a decision was taken by the Government and the LTTE to set up 3 Sub-committees. These were the Sub-Committee on Immediate Humanitarian and Rehabilitation Needs in the North-East (SIHRN), the Sub-Committee on De-escalation and Normalization and the Sub-Committee to commence work in connection with relevant political matters.
As regards SIHRN, great pains were taken to demonstrate that it was not an interim administration. This was once again seen as a pragmatic and innovative measure to accommodate LTTE concerns that the formation of an interim administration within existing constitutional provisions would tantamount to it accepting the Sri Lankan constitution as it presently stands. This is seen as an anathema by the LTTE After several months of intense activities centred around SIHRN the LTTE in a letter addressed to the Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister on 21st May 2003, requested him to inform Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe that the LTTE now wanted an “interim administrative structure” to be set-up with “adequate powers to undertake Northeastern reconstruction and development activities”. Several months earlier the LTTE had already withdrawn from the Sub-Committee on De-escalation and Normalization in view of issues relating to High Security Zones (HSZs) in Jaffna.
What is further revealing is that the Sub-Committee on political parties where it was decided that “the parties will jointly and separately address in depth, at the current stage of the peace process, relevant subjects such as other peace processes, political solutions to ethnic conflicts, models and systems of governments, issues of post-conflict transition, coordination of international assistance, and reconciliation processes” never even met. As a matter of fact at the 6th Session of talks in Hakone Japan from 18-24 March, 2003 the Government and the LTTE decided to “expand some preliminary issues and a framework for political matters into a `complete plan’ at the 7th Session of talks. This of course did not take place since a month later the LTTE opted out of direct negotiations and Track One negotiations went into a state of limbo.
From the above it is evident that the LTTE set the agenda and shaped events where the agenda for talks finally became reduced to a single issue, namely the setting up of an interim administration for the North-East with full plenary powers of governance over the North-East under the hegemony of the LTTE, ideally through extra-constitutional means. This is clearly spelt out in the ISGA proposals of the LTTE which was unveiled with much fanfare in late October, 2004.
So, where does one proceed from here? Firstly, it is imperative that the UPFA Government should assume a clear and a consistent position as regards the agenda for negotiations. The constituent members of the UPFA Government should understand that the term “Government” includes all its consistent members. In this, it is imperative that the SLFP and the JVP, should clarify their respective position on the agenda for talks. Despite differences between the JVP and President Chandrika Kumaratunga on how to advance the peace process, which may have well prompted her to step down from the chair of the Executive Committee of the UPFA as a signal that she would proceed with her peace strategy with or without the JVP, the observation made by a high ranking member of the JVP and Minister of Agriculture and Livestock Anura Kumara Dissanayaka at the Cabinet briefing last Thursday is encouraging and should be a sufficient basis for the SLFP and the JVP to formulate a common negotiation strategy vis a vis the LTTE. The observation was that, “there should be an administrative structure for the North and East, during the transition period from the current situation to a final settlement. But our stand is that the Interim Authority must be part of the final solution”.
It is for the UPFA Government and its “think tank” now to formulate a clear proposal that embodies the above and link the entire transitional process spanning the interim to the final. Where appropriate the proposal should draw on the LTTE’s ISGA proposal which in fact contains core political issues as perceived by the LTTE. The time has also come for civil society to take a more proactive role in formulating its own proposals which may be placed before the Government and the LTTE and all other stakeholders as a means of breaking the current impasse.
Meanwhile all steps should be taken to ensure that the ceasefire holds and that the parties adhere to the ceasefire agreement. Despite the deficiencies in the ceasefire agreement, the entire peace process at present hinges on the scrupulous adherence to the provisions in the ceasefire agreement. Any tendency towards adventurism at this stage by the two parties could well signal the total collapse of the peace process and the renewal of war. However, it is also imperative that adherence does not mean appeasement. The transition from an administrative mechanism to the interim to the final cannot be just a mechanical process that is devoid of human rights, including pluralism, democracy and the right to life. Contrary to perceptions in sections of civil society as well as the international community that human rights, pluralism and democracy over-burden a fragile peace process, it is the recognition and observance of these principles that nourishes and sustains any peace process. If today the peace process in Sri Lanka is fragile it is precisely due to the violation of human rights, and the principles of pluralism and democracy. This is something that we in civil society should understand, even if the Government and the LTTE fail to do so.
09th August, 2004
January 4, 2005: After tsunami: Linking peace building with reconstruction
By Satiya
Reports of Sinhalese volunteers, from districts adjoining the North-East and elsewhere, streaming into the affected areas to give relief and succour to their Tamil and Muslim brethren is reflective of the sentiments in the south. There were also reports of security personnel in the North contributing 300 pints of blood to the Vavunia base hospital. Further, the statements issued by the Presidential Secretariat and the Peace Secretariat calling on the LTTE to join hands with the Government in a concerted and coordinated effort at overcoming the calamity were timely.
Tsunami, which washed away lives and wrecked havoc on properties and sources of livelihood regardless of religion and ethnicity, has undoubtedly contributed to the bonding of human relations across the ethnic divide.
As President Chandrika Kumaratunga reflected in her address to the nation, "the tsunami has devastated our land with relentless indifference to regions, provinces, ethnicities and religions and all other man-made frontiers".
Reports of Sinhalese volunteers, from districts adjoining the North-East and elsewhere, streaming into the affected areas to give relief and succour to their Tamil and Muslim brethren is reflective of the sentiments in the south.
There were also reports of security personnel in the North contributing 300 pints of blood to the Vavunia base hospital. Further, the statements issued by the Presidential Secretariat and the Peace Secretariat calling on the LTTE to join hands with the Government in a concerted and coordinated effort at overcoming the calamity were timely.
These sentiments were also reciprocated by the head of the LTTE's political wing, S.P.Thamilselvan following his meeting with the Norwegian Ambassador. He is reported to have said that "this new tragic situation has laid the foundation for both parties to come together and work towards closing the division between the two parties.
The LTTE is very happy and encouraged by the government's offer and this would help break the rift between the two parties". But there have been other reports which are deeply disturbing. Reports of the LTTE preventing relief operations in areas under their control, the seizure of relief items from relief convoys elsewhere and the stage-managed protest against the visiting Government delegation headed by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse in Jaffna and Valvettithurai once again reveals the innate hegemonic trait of the LTTE that nothing can move in the North-East without passing through it.
Further, the puerile and infantile attitude of the TNA Members of Parliament in boycotting the national efforts initiated by the Government has only served to bring disrepute to the Tamil people who are only too willing to share their grief and succour with their Muslim and Sinhala brethren.
Likewise, the Government should ensure that politico-military strategy and agenda is not introduced into relief efforts in the North-East and that the sole driving force should be its responsibility as a government to its citizens irrespective of class, caste and ethnicity - not to mention politics.
There are similarly shocking reports of vultures in the south swooping on the relief items being sent to the North-East. In particular there seems to be an organized move by certain Sinhala extremists' forces in Trincomalee to prevent supplies sent by TRO from reaching the besieged and the suffering people of the North-East.
Although it is known that TRO is an arm of the LTTE that is no reason for preventing it from engaging in relief and humanitarian work. That these vultures are also swooping down on their own people in the south by stealing jewellery items and other valuables from the deceased victims of Tsunami is another matter.
In all this gloom and agony left behind by Tsunami, perhaps there is a silver-lining as is the case with most disasters.
The Tsunami waves may have in fact rolled back the war clouds by venting its fury on the naval infrastructure of the security forces and the LTTE in Jaffna, Mullaitivu and Trincomalee.
Yet another factor that would make both the LTTE and the GoSL think twice, if not ten times, before embarking on or provoking hostilities is the combined might of national and international opinion following the Tsunami horror.
As far as national opinion is concerned, the sheer weight of the tragedy, the immediate priority relating to relief efforts and the magnitude of the future task of reconstruction will surely make the people, irrespective of their ethnicity, rise up against any military adventurism by their sole or democratic representatives. As far as international opinion is concerned, any move by the two parties to resort to war mongering and sabre rattling will lead to both the Government and the LTTE being reduced to a pariah status.
The LTTE in particular which prior to the tsunami had intensified its conscription drive and appear to be continuing after tsunami by exploiting the vulnerability of the survivors and the displaced should take note.
But this alone is not sufficient if one is to ensure that the task of relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the war-ravaged areas that stalled because of the stalemate in the peace process, as well as the challenge of relief and reconstruction of the areas ravaged by Tsunami is to proceed without threats of war breaking out.
Firstly, the LTTE or its proxies the TNA should immediately join the Special Disaster Management Task Force set up by the President in the national effort at providing immediate relief to the people affected, salvaging the destruction caused by Tsunami and taking forward the task of reconstruction.
Such a move in addition to benefiting the besieged and suffering people in the North-East would contribute to confidence-building measures and allay any distrust and suspicion in the South as regards LTTE's motives and intentions.
The Government should reciprocate by giving priority to the establishment of an interim authority for the North-East with due pride of place to the LTTE, while guaranteeing pluralism.
The LTTE, similarly, should take the initiative in bringing to an end the bloody internecine killings, which should be reciprocated by the coalition formed by Karuna following the split within LTTE.
Other Tamil political parties like the EPDP, EPRLF and PLOTE should be allowed to engage in relief and reconstruction activities in the North-East without hindrance by the LTTE in a spirit of cooperation and fraternity.
Secondly the Government and the LTTE should jointly amend the ceasefire agreement (CFA) to remove the clause which allows the parties to withdraw from the CFA after giving two weeks notice and replace it with a moratorium against all forms of offensive military operations for a period of 4 years.
In addition, the districts of Mullaitivu and Kilinochchi, which were excluded from the CFA in a misplaced exercise in creative ambiguity, should be brought within the ambit of the CFA. During this 4-year period all attempts should be made to go beyond the establishment of an Interim Authority for the North-East with pride of place to the LTTE, to the forging of a final constitutional and political settlement to the Ethnic Question that guarantees democracy, pluralism and power sharing based on self rule and shared rule.
Simultaneously and parallel, all parties in the South should declare a moratorium against all forms of narrow partisan politics and strive to form an Interim National Government of Reconciliation and Reconstruction.
An Interim Constitution may be considered for the purpose of institutionalising an Interim Authority for the North-East with pride of place to the LTTE, the abolition or reform of the Executive Presidential System and power sharing between the ruling coalition and the opposition during this period.
A final and a comprehensive constitution that addresses all other areas relating to governance, including an equitable and a durable solution to the vital Ethnic Question, should be finalized before the completion of the 4-year period. A framework on Fundamental and Human Rights should inform the process from the outset.
Thirdly the international donor community, based on the above commitments by the relevant actors and forces within Sri Lanka, should release the aid commitment totaling US$ 4.5 billion made at the Tokyo donor conference of last year without any delay.
In order to ensure that the commitments by the Government and the LTTE are adhered to and funds distributed equitably, a group of countries representing the donor community as well as India may consider sending a Multi-National Peacekeeping and Reconstruction Force which would monitor and enforce the ceasefire agreement as well as assist in the task of reconstruction.
Norway could concentrate on its role as the facilitator and not be burdened with the monitoring of the CFA which has proven to be ineffective and contentious in any case.
What Sathya has spelt out above may sound out of the world. But so was tsunami till it hit us. Peace-building and Reconstruction, with international support and monitoring, need to go hand in hand.
Further it needs no elaboration that Peace and Reconstruction are indivisible and cannot be confined to just one part of the country. What we need at this moment is imagination, creativity and singularity of purpose. Perhaps then we may still stand a chance. If not we are all doomed.
Disasters, natural or man-made, can well lead to a new era of opportunities and equality for all peoples of Sri Lanka, if we so will collectively and act in unison. May we all face up to the challenge in the year 2005 and years to come with unity and purity in thought, word and action.
January 4, 2005
[Previous:August 09] [Next: June 21, 2005]
2nd August, 2004: July 1983 Pogrom – An Historical Apology
By Sathya
Twenty-One Years after one of the most meticulously planned and executed state-sponsored pogrom in world’s contemporary history by the then President J.R.Jayawardene and his henchmen in the cabinet, the present Head of State President Chandrika Kumaratunga apologized to the Tamil people and the Nation. The occasion for this historic apology was a symbolic ceremony on Friday 23rd July at the Presidential Secretariat, where some of the victims of `Black July’ were awarded compensation, following the findings and recommendations of the Presidential Truth Commission. Although the setting-up of the Truth Commission under the PA Government a few years ago was dictated largely by partisan politics aimed at creating maximum embarrassment for the UNP and did not conform to the norms and practices of Truth Commission elsewhere, the apology by the President was unconditional and was by no means partisan. The operative section in her address needs to be etched in our collective memory, so that the barbarism demonstrated by the State and by the mobs mobilized by it for the purpose of terrorising the Tamil people into submission is never repeated. Sathya likewise wishes to etch these words in his column.
To quote: “At least now I believe that I and we as a nation and especially the Sri Lankan State should come of age, look the truth in the face and make a national apology, first to all the victims of that day in Black July and then beyond them to the entire Nation. Perhaps it is the responsibility of the State and the Government to engage in that exercise first and foremost, and then all of us as the Nation, every citizen in this country should collectively accept the blame and make that apology to all of you here who are the representatives or the direct victims of that violence, and through you to all the other tens of thousands who suffered by these incidents. I would like to assign to myself the necessary task on behalf of the State of Sri Lanka, the Government and on behalf of all of us, all the citizens of Sri Lanka to extend that apology. It is late but I think it is still not too late”.
The response on the part of the LTTE and their proxies in parliament was typical. For instance, S. Elilan Trincomalee District political head of the LTTE at a public meeting in Trincomalee in memory of the victims of the Welikada prison massacre in July 1983 is reported by the TamilNet website as saying, “We regard Sri Lanka’s President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s public apology for the 1983 pogrom against the Tamils as a deceptive attempt, driven by political expediency rather than principles to placate the Tamils”. The TNA parliamentarians present typically took the cue and in their speeches cast aspersions on the motives of Chandrika Kumaratunga.
Sathya, who left the professional and social mainstream to join the Tamil National Movement precisely because of July 1983 pogrom, accepts the apology of the President unconditionally and without inhibitions. It was indeed an act of courage for Chandrika Kumaratunga to have articulated not only her sentiments, but the sentiments of the vast majority of the Sinhalese who were themselves horrified by the 1983 July pogrom. The burning of the Jaffna Library in 1981 and the anti-Tamil pogrom of 1983 which were entirely State-sponsored stand as symbols of eternal shame to the UNP. Sathya recalls the anger he felt when President J.R.Jayawardene and his key UNP cabinet ministers paraded before the TV after maintaining a deafening sound of silence for four long and bloody days of sheer barbarism by hoodlums and security personnel under the patronage of prominent UNP politicians. They in their statements simply ignored the traumatized Tamil People and instead sought the apology of the Sinhalese people for the shortages and long queues that had formed to buy bread because of the riots. The Tamils who had survived the carnage, of course, were either in refugee camps or too terrified to join any queues. Ranil Wickremesinghe was then a cabinet minister. He must acknowledge this, assume individual and collective responsibility, and apologise to the Tamil People if he is serious about reconciliation.
Likewise, it would have been morally, politically and historically more correct had the President also referred to mistakes made by her Government as well as the party that she belongs to. The passage of the “Sinhala Only” Act of 1956, the attack on Federal Party MPs by hoodlums in Galle Face Green as they were staging a satyagraha facing the Parliament, and the heckling of these Tamil MPS as they walked into parliament with blood-drenched shirts by Sinhalese parliamentarians, including Prime Minister S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike, the anti-Tamil riots of 1956 and 1958, the discriminatory education policy under the guise of `standardization’ in the early 70s, and the indiscriminate arrests and incarceration in prison of Tamil youth political activists all contributed to the erosion of self-respect of the Tamils and the eventual resort to armed resistance by Tamil youths as a means of re-establishing that self-respect that their parents had lost.
Sathya also recalls with regret the feudal ceremony that was conducted to celebrate the capture of Jaffna from the grip of the LTTE following Operation Riviresa in 1995. Although the Tamil People also abhorred the manner in which the LTTE engineered a forced exodus of civilians out of Jaffna during Operation Riviresa that led to immense deprivation and massive displacement of the people of Jaffna, it is clear that the public ceremony with Colonel Ratwatte walking up to President Kumaratunga to hand over the scroll announcing the capture of Jaffna was feudal, silly and pompous. It also hurt the sensitivities of the Tamil people, including those who bitterly resented the LTTE. Victories in battles are not something to be celebrated, since there are also defeats that may follow. That is the nature of War as the disastrous “War for Peace” campaign later revealed, when the State lost territory as well as manpower.
Be that as it may, this is supposed to be peace times. Although, we are not in a post-conflict situation, the time for reconciliation is NOW. It is neither too early nor too late. In this context, the time has also come for the LTTE as well as other Tamil ex-militant organizations which entered the democratic mainstream, to extend an apology to the Sinhala and Muslim Peoples for attacks against innocent civilians and ethnic cleansing that took place in the name of “liberation”. The Anuradhapura massacre on Poya Day on May 14, 1985 when more than 150 pilgrims who had thronged the city were mowed down and the ethnic cleansing of the Muslims from the North, including massacres in mosques in the East, in the 90s although carried out by the LTTE are just two of numerous such atrocities that were carried out by the LTTE and other Tamil militant organizations. They, in the same manner that President Kumaratunga extended an apology on the part of the State as well as all Sri Lankans for the 1983 July pogrom, owe the Sinhala and Muslim Peoples an unconditional apology on behalf of the Tamil People in whose name these atrocities were committed. In any event, Sathya, a one time spokesperson and a member of the leadership of a Tamil politico-military organization which later joined the democratic mainstream only to soil its hands in that polluted stream, extends an apology to the Sinhalese and Muslim peoples. He expects his former comrades to do likewise.
The lessons that Sathya learnt about the seeds of violence in relation to the ethnic conflict can be summed as follows. Firstly, the peaceful and non-violent forms of struggle against institutionalised discrimination by the State may not have taken a violent form if not for the use of violence by the State to crush these non-violent and democratic forms of struggle. The ethnic conflict may well have become protracted and intractable. But, it was the violence unleashed by the State to crush all forms of dissent that led to the ethnic conflict itself becoming violent. Secondly, the victims of violence soon become the mirror image of the perpetrators of violence. That is what happened to Tamil militancy. It began to acquire the ugly face of the State that it was fighting against.
The lesson that Sathya learnt (or is in the process of learning) on the seeds of peace and reconciliation can be summed as follows. While the past must be addressed in order to reach the future, the present is an all important key to reconciliation, since it is in the present that the past ends and the future begins. Let us acknowledge the past, but not get bogged down in it. Let us rectify ourselves in the present and envision a better future, since the future is always carved out in the present. To be overburdened by both the remorse of the past and the anxieties of the future only lead to a state of paralysis.
In sum, let us walk hand in hand in the collective endeavour of making this island of ours one country that belongs to all, while recognizing the full richness of our respective ethnic, religious and cultural diversities. It is not utopia. It is the only existential path to survival.
2nd August, 2004
[Previous:July 26] [Next: August 09]
July 26, 2004: Unethical religious conversions: Is there a role for legislation?
By Sathya
Now that an Anti-Conversion Bill has been placed on the Order Paper in parliament by the JHU, the issue of unethical conversion as well as responses to it are back again on the agenda. Another proposal initiated by Minister Ratnasiri Wickremanayake but diplomatically titled, "Act for Protection of Religious Freedom", although not tabled in parliament is doing its rounds.
The responses to the Bill itself by way of a flurry of petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Bill is further bound to keep alive the issue. The purpose of this week's Sathya column is not to bring the draft bill and the proposed legislation under scrutiny, but to pose the more fundamental question, is there a role for legislation aimed at preventing unethical conversions and, if not, what then is the remedy.
My simple answer to the question is No, there is no role for legislation, but, Yes, there is something called `unethical' religious conversions which needs to be addressed and redressed. Sathya does not accept the argument that there is no such thing as unethical religious conversions in Sri Lanka and that nothing can or must be done to neutralise the threat that unethical conversions pose to religious co-existence, social stability and cohesiveness.
Let me elaborate on both these positions which may appear to be a contradiction - but, is not.
Let us begin with the question of recourse to legislation in a bid to prevent religious conversions. I do not believe that it would work. Neither is it desirable. The reason is not that, as some would argue, such legislations cannot be implemented or its implementation regulated. There are numerous legislations on social issues spanning child labour to ragging which cannot be totally implemented or regulated to our satisfaction. Yet, these legislations are important since they act as an indicator of basic norms of conduct - they set certain social standards which are necessary for the establishment of a humane society as well as basic decency in human conduct.
The reason that I do not accept legislations to curb religious conversions is also not because it infringes on basic choice as some would argue. Religious conversions are in fact a fundamental right based on personal faith and beliefs. However, when conversions are justified on grounds that religion is no different from market place transactions and that there is no such thing as a "free lunch", then it militates against my notion of religion. Unhindered "freedom" is akin to the Elephant singing "Each Man for Himself and God for All" as it danced amongst the chickens.
Sathya's primary opposition to legislation to curb religious conversions stems from his perception and belief that there is no single path to salvation and that faith is essentially also about choice. That path could vary from intense devotion (Bhakthi), to intense self-less action (Karma), to the search for knowledge and wisdom (Gnana). Hinduism, the religion that Sathya was born into, rebelled against and has returned to like the prodigal son, caters to individuals with diverse personalities who may be located at varying levels of consciousness and existence. For instance, the concluding section of Bhagavad Gita, following a discourse on the different paths to salvation and liberation between Krishna and Arjuna, has Krishna proclaiming: " Thus, has the Wisdom, more secret than all secrets, been declared to you by Me; having reflected over it fully, you act as you choose". (Ch 28, Sloga 63).
My opposition to legislation to curb religious conversions also stems from my social democratic instinct that opposes any form of hegemony. In the Sri Lankan context any legislation to curb religious conversions is bound to proclaim the pride of place that our constitution bestows on Buddhism. This opens up space whereby any legislation to curb religious conversions may actually be used to establish the hegemony of one religion over the others. Such legislation could also be used against charitable and social service organizations set up by religious bodies (other than Buddhist) to help the needy and the destitute.
But, as a social democrat who leans more towards social rights and duties as opposed to the unfettered rights of individuals, Sathya is also concerned about the manner in which ‘unethical’ conversions adversely impact on the individual psyche as well as our society which is multi-religious and where stability can be maintained only through religious co-existence - not, religious hegemony. We would be playing the ostrich if we were to pretend that the `unethical' conversions taking place at present and the reactions and resistance to it are not social issues. In fact `unethical' conversions are a real issue that could lead to an explosive situation if not addressed and contained.
But, how does one define "unethical" conversions? In order to answer this, one needs to look a bit more closely into the concept of Christian `charity'. The doling out of material benefits and charity certainly is a laudable act. But, the motive and intentions are equally important.
An act in itself is neither good nor bad. It is the intention behind that act that determines the quality of that act in relation to the doer. That act of charity also becomes an issue if in the process it does violence to the self-respect and self-esteem of those who receive them. In this context, instances where converts are asked by their "shepherd" to demonstrate their renunciation by burning the scriptures and the symbols of the religion that they hitherto believed in are clearly acts of violence. It also does violence and is a case of intolerance, if the recipient of charity is urged to embrace another religion not out of conviction, but out of economic and material necessity. The methods used range from the crude to the subtle, but there is no doubt in Sathya's mind that those who seek to convert know this.
So, how does one respond to "unethical" conversions without recourse to legislation? Clearly and needless to say, violence and attacks on churches is unacceptable and should be met with the full force of the law and order machinery.
The response to unethical religious conversions is a matter that must be addressed at the level of the community as well as inter-faith dialogue and self-criticisms. The exact modalities and areas of intervention should be explored and made use of.
Firstly, it must be clearly recognized and acknowledged that there is something called "unethical" conversion. To call for empirical evidence as the prerequisite for a dialogue is a non-starter, since the methods employed are ever so subtle and sophisticated. Further, the mainstream Christian institutions have on several occasions conceded that some fundamentalist Christian sects do in fact practice an aggressive form of proselytizing that demonstrates intolerance to other religions and insensitivity to the adherents of those religions. The public perception that stands testimony to this also cannot be ignored.
Secondly, it must be recognized that Religion to an individual can either be one of faith or of identity - or, both. As a faith, attempts at conversion cease to be a problem. Anyone grounded in a particular religion out of faith and is anchored in that faith is in all likelihood bound to look at all religions as one, but with different trajectories all ultimately heading towards the same orbit and destination. To such persons conversions, ethical or unethical, ceases to be a problem. But, such persons who have reached that high level of spiritual evolution and consciousness are in a clear minority. The vast majority, however, see religion as an identity.
It is precisely when one religious identity purports to be superior to another religious identity and seeks to convert on that basis or alternatively where one religious identity uses violence or the full might of the State to prevent such conversions, that the seeds of disharmony, discontent and violence are planted.
The alternative to legislation clearly lies in an on-going inter-religious dialogue between religions as well as within local communities and civic organizations. However, it is imperative that there is a parallel process of intra-faith dialogue that takes place within religions or their institutions. All religions or ideologies, when they become institutionalized invariably begin to subordinate that ideology or theology to that institution.
All religions and their institutions need to be introspective and examine their role and location within society if Sri Lanka is to continue to boast that it is an Island cohabited by the believers of the four great religions of the world. If we fail in this endeavour that boast could well turn out to be a curse.
19th July,2004
[Previous:July 12] [Next: July26th]
July 5, 2004: Forgotten Children of War: Whose Responsibility?
By Sathya
The treatment of the Karuna affair, if it may be called that, by the media (including last week’s Sathya column) as well as by policymakers has largely focused on matters relating to security and impact on the peace process. In the process, a humanitarian problem of immense proportion has been by and large ignored. This is the plight of the under-age recruits who were demobilized by Karuna following the `Good Friday’ putsch against his forces by the Vanni-based leadership in April. This then constitutes the theme of this week’s Sathya column which was prompted by two reports that he chanced to read last week.
The two reports in question are that of the Human Rights Watch and a document circulated by human rights activists under the name `Collective for Batticaloa’, both of which portray a bleak and a heart wrenching situation facing the demobilized children of war in the Batti-Amparai region. Incidentally Sathya prefers the term `children of war’ to child soldiers, since not all of the under-age recruits were deployed in direct combat, though a considerable number were.
The Human Rights Watch report prepared by its South Asia researcher Tej Thapa highlighted the fact that over the last three weeks, the LTTE had commenced the forced “re-recruitment” of child combatants released by Karuna. In a stinging indictment, the report accused the LTTE of, “stealing children from their homes to put them on the firing line. Despite all their promises, they are demonstrating absolute disregard for the most vulnerable part of the population it claims to represent”.
Although the above issue has been in the public domain for some time, Sathya also wishes to share with the readers a lengthy passage from a report issued by the `Collective for Batticaloa’, which refers to a humanitarian problem that remains etched in Sathya’s psyche and has tormented him over the past week . To quote: “It has been estimated that approximately 60 percent of the returned children are young girls. Many of them are instantly recognizable because of their very short hair. While the hair may grow longer, issues of anxiety that these young women face may not disappear. Returning to school is not easy. Some have outgrown in age their level of school knowledge…Social ostracization and fear surrounding the returnee impedes easy integration. As one respondent said, the child has to walk alone to school. Nobody would walk along with her out of fear. Parents of the other children are scared that their own children might be recruited in a new wave of recruitment if they befriend these children…Schools too are worried about how returning children might either `lure’ other children into the fold of the LTTE or be a threat to the well being of their own children. They are marked people. They, the children are `shy’, reticent and withdrawn for the most part….Girls with their closely cropped hair are highly visible and are marked. At many check points they are singled out for scrutiny, making all heads turn and look at them. Previously, before the release, the short hair, acted as a deterrent to their running away as they would have been easily discovered. At present they are targets for re-recruitment and social ostracization. It is a psychologically traumatic state of mind for the child”.
Yes, it is psychologically traumatic not only to the child, but to all those who come face to face with these children of war or read reports that high light their plight. Those of us who are not traumatized, need to have our heads examined.
And, this brings Sathya to the issue relating to who is responsible and what is to be done? Certainly, one `actor’ (to use a hackneyed cliché) is of course the LTTE. But, it is futile appealing to that `actor’ since like all good actors the LTTE would deny responsibility. The other actor or actors who shoulder responsibility is the Government as well as the UNICEF. It is these actors who need to be told to stop acting and to fulfill their responsibilities, not only in addressing the cause of the problem (which may be beyond their control), but certainly in addressing the consequences of the problem. Reports from the ground indicate that the proverbial buck is being passed around. NGOs dealing with humanitarian and psycho-social trauma seem to think that the under-age recruits are the concern of the UNICEF which is mandated with an Action Plan for the rehabilitation of child soldiers. The UNICEF on the other hand while having a mandate to intervene, seem to think that their mandate is only the ‘Action Plan’ that involves the setting-up of Transit Centres for the rehabilitation of child combatants handed over by the LTTE directly to UNICEF.
But, herein lies the `Catch 22’. The Action Plan that the UNICEF entered into with the LTTE through its humanitarian arm, the TRO, covers only the child combatants handed over by the LTTE to UNICEF. Notwithstanding that the LTTE continue to release children with one hand while recruiting with the other, the UNICEF’s Action Plan does not cover the child combatants and under-age recruits who were demobilized by Karuna and who went directly to their homes and respective families. UNICEF must be credited for going public on these recruitments in recent times, despite its earlier stance of appeasement of the LTTE and remaining mum. It is also commendable that UNICEF is going through the rituals of registering these children. But having registered them, the UN agency does not seem to have a clue as to what to do next. Further, it is ridiculous to expect the affected families of the children of war demobilized by Karuna to hand over their children to the UNICEF-TRO run Transit Centres in Kilinochchi, and with no guarantee that UNICEF will be able to take the children out of the LTTE-controlled areas in the event of outbreak of hostilities..
Likewise, the Government cannot wash their hands off this humanitarian catastrophe and treat the issue of demobilization of the children of war in the East as a matter that is internal to the LTTE. The Government would then be abdicating its responsibilities to its citizens. In Sathya’s opinion, what is required is for the Government and UNICEF to formulate a separate Action Plan that involves the families of the demobilized children as well as the local community. For obvious reasons, this can be made operational only in Government-controlled areas, with the option of setting-up rehabilitation centres in areas outside the East, if the need arises. Care must be taken that these rehabilitation centres do not end up as another Bindunuwewa. In view of the forces of chauvinism and vigilantes lurking within State structures, the UNICEF and other international humanitarian NGOs should be given the primary responsibility for the running of these camps as well as the rehabilitation and re-integration programmes for the affected children.
In this regards, Sathya also wishes to address a related issue. There have been reports of some families showing resistance against the LTTE’s recruitment drive. There are some intellectuals who feel that ultimately this is the most effective deterrence to the LTTE’s recruitment drive. Some of these intellectuals and activists seem to feel that the `liberal’ intervention that involves lobbying with the Government and the international community would come to naught and that what is required is the `radical’ intervention aimed at strengthening the resistance capacity of the families and local community against the LTTE.
The latter option suggested by arm chair radicals, in the opinion of Sathya, is more romantic than radical. Or as Subramanya Bharathi, the Tamil poet penned, “brave only in words” (Vaaisolil Veerar). The resistance being shown by some families in the East to the LTTE is largely individual and based on a parental instinct to protect their children. It is yet to assume the form of collective resistance. In fact, recent reports indicate that the LTTE has already commenced a drive against the parents who are defying the LTTE that includes physical assault as well as death threats. Given the LTTE character, it will not be long before these death threats are executed, literally speaking.
Given the magnitude of the humanitarian problem highlighted above and the nature of the LTTE which has scant regard for human rights and continue to feed children to their war machinery, the responsibility lies squarely with the Government and the international community, through the UNICEF and INGOs, to rehabilitate the demobilized children of war and to protect them from re-recruitment, at least in the Government-controlled areas. It is then that the local community can become empowered or at least feel empowered enough to collectively resist the inhumane practice of child recruitment. To romanticize individual resistance from families at this juncture and giving it exaggerated publicity will only do more harm than good to the children and their families.
5th July, 2004
[Previous: June 28][Next:July 12]
June 21, 2004: An Emerging Proxy War via the Media?
By Sathya
The day following President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s address to the Nation on Saturday the 12th June, the trilingual print and electronic private media gave full publicity to a TamilNet website lead story datelined Sunday the 13th June and headlined, “Tigers lambast Kumaratunga’s political duplicity”. By Monday it was generally assumed by the public, policymakers and the international community that the LTTE had officially rejected the President’s thinking on the modality to be followed in recommencing the peace talks with the LTTE. On a closer scrutiny it would have become obvious that the TamilNet was in fact citing a lead story of the LTTE official organ, “Liberation Tigers” which appeared in May 2004!
This perception that the LTTE had officially responded to the President’s address to the Nation was on the assumption that the TamilNet website is a front of the LTTE which, of course, no one would deny. However, the TamilNet is not LTTE’s official organ. Further our private print and electronic media did not check the veracity and the sequencing that went behind the report. It was as though the media was either relishing the sensationalism that goes along with bad news or were taking an overtly partisan line aimed at embarrassing the Government. As to what impact that this form of reporting would have on the peace process was lost sight of. In this particular case, the private media clearly lacked conflict sensitivity, not to mention professionalism.
However, it would also be somewhat naïve to assume that the TamilNet would have re-carried the story the day after the President’s address without clearance from the LTTE. And, the lead story in “Liberation Tigers” issue of May’ 2004 did castigate the President for her perceived dilatory tactics and duplicity by resorting to a “dilapidated and timeworn strategy of cheating of the LTTE and the donor nations”, further adding that, “weakening the LTTE, diluting the strength of Tamil nationalism, distorting Tamil unity are the areas in which the President’s forces are keenly interested in”. The article in LTTE’s official organ, the “Liberation Tigers” did also end with a chilling message that if the international community did not prevail on the President to mend her ways, to quote, “the foundation for peace laid with international assistance during the last three years would be shattered and Sri Lanka will again be converted into bloodbath. War or Peace? The answer as of date is in the hands of donor nations and their actions alone will decide whether it is war or peace”.
Hence, while the above is not an official reaction by the LTTE to the broad peace strategy that the President enunciated in her address to the Nation, the fact that the TamilNet chose to carry an earlier article in LTTE’s official organ, “Liberation Tigers” the day after the address, is a clear case of a proxy propaganda war that is presently being carried out by the LTTE. In fact, another LTTE proxy, Suresh Premachandran of the TNA, did repeat the same chilling message in a telephone interview to the MTV Newline Programme on Friday the 18th June in response to a question on the significance of the detection of the suicide kit in Grandpass, Colombo the previous day. He said that while it was not clear to him as to whom the suicide kit belonged, ultimately it is for the President and her UNFA Government to decide whether there would be war or peace.
This is indeed a perverse reversal of the clarion call addressed at the TULF by Prime Minister J.R. Jayawardene following the 1977 anti-Tamil riots, “if you want to fight, let there be a fight; if it is peace, let there be peace….It is not what I am saying. The people of Sri Lanka say that”. The proxy of the people of Sri Lanka repeated it once again in 1983, when following the anti-Tamil pogrom of the July 1983, President J.R.Jayawardene (he had meanwhile made the quantum leap by transforming himself from a Prime Minister to an Executive President) took steps to remove the TULF from parliament on the grounds that “it is the natural request and desire of the Sinhala people to prevent the country being divided”. He was now speaking as the proxy of the “Sinhala people”.
Coming back to the proxy propaganda war being waged in the media and by the media, one cannot similarly ignore the complaint made to the Norwegians by the LTTE as regards the SLBC direct broadcast of a one hour programme of the Tamil Broadcasting Corporation (TBC) London called `Oorodu Uravada’ (i.e. “In Conversation with our community”). According to the TamilNet, the LTTE head of its political wing, S.P.Thamilchelvan complained to the Norwegian Ambassador Brattskar, during their meeting in Kilinochchi on 16th June that Sri Lanka’s state media engaged in a `malicious and false’ propaganda regarding the situation in Batticaloa district.While Sathya is strongly supportive of space and air time being given in the State media to an “alternative” democratic Tamil opinion at a time when the Tamil private print and electronic media either engage in false and malicious propaganda for the LTTE or are silenced, Sathya is also of the opinion that the TBCs “Oorodu Uravada” programme in SLBCs Tamil National Service does tend to transgress the divide between projecting an alternative opinion and crass propaganda aimed at justifying some of the counter-terrorism engaged in by Karuna and his faction against sympathizers of the Vanni-based LTTE leadership. This has clearly got to stop, if the broadcast is to continue to play its legitimate role in projecting an independent as well as an alternative Tamil democratic opinion to its Tamil listeners, who are starved of an independent and an alternative opinion. But under no circumstances can any programme in the State media be used to justify killings of civilians, irrespective of who does the killings and who the victims are. As regards reports of fighting between the armed formations of the LTTE and the Karuna factions, it is indeed the responsibility of the State and private media to highlight the dangerous situation developing in the Eastern province, after having checked the veracity of these reports.
In conclusion, the State as well as the private print and electronic media have a responsible role to play in ensuring that there is objectivity and sensitivity in reporting events and analysis, particularly when it come to the peace process. The LTTE, similarly, having obtained funding from donor agencies for its Peace Secretariat and acquired license from the previous Government to import sophisticated radio and transmission equipments, has to be more responsible in how they engage in propaganda. There is a distinct danger that while during the 1994-95 PA-LTTE talks, the heavy reliance on exchange of letters between the two parties led to that exchange turning into a propaganda war, we may now have a classic case of propaganda war by proxy using the media.
This is indeed detrimental to trust building and the articulation of the respective interests of the parties and other stakeholders in the peace process in a manner that recognizes their self-respect as well as mutual respect.
21st June, 2004
[Previous: June 14] [Next:June 28]
June 7, 2004: Duplicity in Killings
By Sathya
The cowardly killing of Aiyadurai Nadesan a reputed political columnist, writer and a Tamil nationalist, is yet another act of brutality in the on-going serial internecine killings that plagues the Batti-Amparai region, following the split in the LTTE. These killings have generated both a fear psychosis as well as revulsion amongst the people, with neither the Vanni-based leadership nor the Karuna faction paying heed to these concerns and condemnations. It is meaningless looking into who started it first, although it is no secret that the Vanni-based LTTE leadership did choose to resort to the force of arms to quell dissent from Karuna and his rank and file in the Batti-Amparai region.
Although the initial victims in the bloodletting, following the move by the Vanni-based LTTE leadership to wrest control of the Batti-Amaparai region from the Karuna faction, were the functionaries and cadres on both sides, the victims in the recent spate of killings are what could be termed as “soft targets”. These soft targets include a politician (Sathyamurthy), an academic (Thambiah) and a journalist (Nadesan), while a senior bureaucrat (Maunaguruswamy) and another academic (Thirchelvam) survived an assassination attempt. The “soft targets” also include pauperized sections of society as well as former members, whose only mistake may have been to give food and shelter or provide information to this or that faction of the LTTE under duress and paid a heavy price as a result.
That, in all these cowardly acts, both the LTTE as well as the breakaway Karuna faction were involved is beyond any doubt. In this bloodletting, there is also an interesting difference in the propaganda and rhetoric adopted by both sides. On the part of the LTTE, it has consistently claimed that the perpetrators of these killings are the military and Tamil paramilitary groups. There is almost an aversion at pointing the finger directly at Karuna’s group, lest this belies its claim that the Batti-Amaparai region has been cleared of the Karuna menace. Further, in those cases where the LTTE is the perpetrator, it adopts its usual stoic silence, while allowing its media fronts to do the necessary justification, cover-up or plain news blackout in the Tamil media. The Karuna faction on the other hand appears to be falling over backwards in a might hurry to either claim responsibility for some of these killings or justifying them, so as to register their presence on the ground to the public as well as the international community.
In all this the role of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission is typically ambivalent. When the LTTE went on the rampage last year by resorting to an orgy of political killings of its adversaries who do not recognize them as the sole representatives, as well as Tamil members of the Sri Lankan intelligence, the SLMM took the position that they came within the ambit of a law and order problem and not a violation of the ceasefire agreement and, therefore, was not within its mandate. However, in the present spree of killings where the supporters of Vanni-based LTTE had suffered more at the hands of the Karuna faction, as Nadesan pointed out in his last article in the Sunday Veerakesari, the SLMM has suddenly begun expressing horror at the barbaric killings. They have also secured the commitment of the LTTE to track down the “criminal” elements. It is to its credit that Norway has suddenly woken-up, although it may have prevented the killings in the past had they done so then. It now remains to be seen as to how the SLMM would respond when the Vanni-based LTTE leadership unleashes its counter- retaliatory killings (if there is such a term) against soft targets in the endless orgy of killings and counter-killings. The recent firing on devotees at a Hindu temple in Batticaloa and the decapitating of two persons who were abducted from the temple is indicative of the anarchy prevailing in the Batti-Amparai region is a case in point.
Another factor which needs close scrutiny is the Sri Lankan security apparatus in the Eastern province. The killings, in particular, of Thambiah, the don from Eastern University and Nadesan in the heart of Batticaloa, widely believed to be the work of the Karuna faction, have led to allegations of complicity in the killings by the military-intelligence apparatus. Whether it is true or not, it is somewhat naïve to assume that the security personnel would be unhappy about the internecine killings. When the politicians and policymakers in Colombo associated with the peace process under the UNF Government (with temptations on the part of the UPFA government to follow suit) were not too disturbed about handing over the Tamil people to the LTTE as their “sole representative” (and may have even cynically thought to themselves, “they deserve each other in any case”), one cannot rule out the temptation on the part of the security apparatus to fish in troubled waters.
Be that as it may, Tamil society continues to be bedeviled by internecine and fratricidal killings. It has spread like cancer and has eroded the very legitimacy of the struggle for justice and equality vis a vis the Sri Lanka State. The LTTE, including its alienated Karuna faction, continue on the path of nihilism of destroying everything that stands in its way. The Tamil people, despite the military might of the LTTE and their sabre-rattling proxies in parliament, are becoming increasingly orphaned and powerless. Other
ex-militant groups who have entered the so called democratic mainstream are yet to go beyond being half-democrats with ambitions of becoming the sole alternative to the sole representative. Their failure in projecting a common democratic front to the LTTE proxies is a case in point. The notion that “if you are not one of us, then you are a traitor” is what consumed the lives of Tamil intellectuals and political activists who were committed to ensuring the dignity, security and socio-economic advancement of the People of the North-East, along with the Peoples of other regions. The list is far too long to be cited in this column. In fact it may need a separate column to merely list out the names. Pluralism and political diversity has become an anathema to those who claim to struggle for emancipation and justice. It is also a contradiction that will continue to dog Tamil nationalism in its struggle against Sinhala chauvinism. Tamil nationalism is fast losing its high moral ground. Perhaps it already has and is fast decaying.Aiyadurai Nadesan (or G.Nadesan as he signed off his columns in the Veerakesari) loved his People more than his pen. He was more a Tamil nationalist than a journalist. Hence he embodied all the contradictions contained in Tamil nationalism. The Tiger flag placed across his body at the funeral perhaps epitomizes this contradiction. As D.B.S.Jeyaraj observed about Nadesan in his column in the Sunday Leader, “His comments too never go to the extent of unbridled LTTE sycophancy like some others, since he himself is a Tamil nationalist and much of what he wrote was from that perspective….Since he was a `pro-Tiger’ due to compulsion rather than conviction, he sometimes took on a `Tigerish’ line. This was the case with many journalists in his position.”.
Sathya couldn’t agree more. Yet, whatever be the contradictions, Nadesan had the right to live and write as he sought fit, in keeping with his conscience. That right was denied to him by his assassins.
7th June, 2004.
[Previous: May 31][Next: June 14]
July 12, 2004: Colombo Suicide Blast – LTTE denies and Government ponders
By Sathya
Yet another female suicide bomber attained martyrdom and entered the famed photo gallery of Black Tigers by blowing herself up after having failed to get her target Douglas Devananda, the leader of EPDP and cabinet minister. The LTTE, promptly and predictably, denied responsibility, condemned the suicide attack and blamed it on “some elements who are working to disrupt peace efforts”, aimed at confusing the “people who are hoping for peace and disrupt the prevailing environment”. The LTTE in short said all the right things in public with the Canadian Foreign Minister giving the denial credibility by proclaiming that, “No person or group has claimed responsibility for this deplorable act. I urge all parties to refrain from casting blame while an investigation is under way”. It was as though the Canadian Government’s intelligence services never really knew that the LTTE never claims responsibility to suicide attacks and that martyrdom is bestowed and publicly proclaimed only after a period of time. But the targets are rarely admitted in public.
The US Embassy, on the other hand, in its statement wagged its finger at the LTTE which was carried in the Government-controlled Daily News with screaming headlines. Contrary to the feigned wisdom shown by the Canadian Government, the statement issued by the US Embassy, obviously with clearance from the US State Department, said that “although no one has claimed responsibility for the bombing, the incident bears the hallmarks of an LTTE attack”.
So, what has our own Government got to say as to who is responsible and why? Before Sathya turns his antenna in that direction, suffice it to say that the LTTE would certainly be disappointed if the Government actually believed its denial, since the suicide attack was in fact meant to be a message to the Government! The denial of the LTTE was of course for international consumption.
Now, what would have prompted the LTTE to strike at that given time and at that particular target? The answer in Sathya’s opinion is that the hit on LTTE members in Batticaloa on Black Tigers Day on July 5, a day venerated by the LTTE in recognition of its martyrs (but, undoubtedly despised by the loved ones of the victims of Black Tigers and by those who see such suicide attacks as acts of cowardice by those who order it), it was just a matter of time that LTTE leader Pirabhakaran would order a retaliation to what was clearly a case of extreme provocation. It was a message to the Government in the language that the LTTE speaks and unfortunately thinks is the only language that its enemies understand. In this instance, it was the language of the suicide blast in the vicinity of the Prime Minister’s Office, a strategically located police station, three foreign missions and two ministries. The message was, literally speaking, loud and, figuratively speaking, clear.
In short the message was that if the Government does not rein in Karuna’s hit squads or cease what the LTTE perceives as a “proxy war” waged through Karuna or in the name of Karuna, then it will strike. And, such strikes would not be confined to the Eastern theatre, but will reach into the heart of the capital city. If Douglas Devananda was targeted, it was a case of trying to kill two birds with one stone by also removing a threat to its `sole representative’ status. That Douglas Devananda had always been in LTTE’s hit list and will continue to be so is another matter.
The Government clearly had no illusions about LTTE’s involvement when it issued a statement that “the perpetrators of this act show callous disregard for human lives and are reverting to violence as means of settling disputes”. Although the LTTE was not named, the reference to “reverting” to violence was an oblique reference to the LTTE. Yet, the Government could not get itself to even say that it had the hallmarks of an LTTE attack, while its political spokespersons have gone out of their way to say that even if it was the LTTE, the target was after all a Tamil political opponent and therefore not a matter of grave concern as far as the peace process is concerned.
Every government of the day have this uncanny way of demonizing the LTTE when a war is on and having to dress the LTTE up as an angel or as an enemy of someone else, if it wants to talk to the LTTE. Why the devil cannot one speak to the demon? (Pardon the cynical pun, which has now become a habit to Sathya). Certainly, the LTTE does not come forward to negotiate with the Government of the day, because it sees it to be an angel? The pendulum swing from demonizing to evangelizing the LTTE is what makes successive Governments suspect in the eyes of the Tamil people as well as the international community, not to mention its own people – the Sinhalese. Sathya regrets having to refer to the Government in relation to ethnicity. But, that is precisely what the Governments have done by washing its hands off internecine and fratricidal killings within the Tamil community. This takes Sathya to two cases of black humour which invariably accompanies tragedy.
The first is the wisdom displayed in sections of the Tamil media that since the suicide bomber wore a nylon suicide jacket, as opposed to the denim jackets normally worn by LTTE suicide bombers, that it could not have been the LTTE. And, another newspaper while carrying the caption that the LTTE denies responsibility, indicated in its second heading that the female accomplice of the suicide bomber and worked in the EPDP office in Jaffna. The implication was that the LTTE could not have done it. Somehow the Tamil journalists who either filed the story or gave those stories the loaded headings seem to think that the readers are so gullible to think that the LTTE is not capable of technological innovation by switching from a bulky denim jacket to a less conspicuous nylon jacket. Or, that LTTE does not know the art of infiltration.
The other case of humour was the statement issued by the UPFA General Secretary Susil Premjayanth that “it was revealed in the police investigations that the sole intention of the suicide bomber was to kill Douglas Devananda’. So, the sole representative was after the sole alternative. That humour turned black when the Reuters quoted a Government spokesman of saying “It is the LTTE going after a political opponent. It is that and absolutely nothing else. It is resorting to violence to kill an opponent; it is not reverting to hostilities”. Clearly the Government was trying to neutralize the UNPs prankish campaign that peace was on the rocks and that the suicide bombers were back in Colombo in view the UPFA’s mishandling of peace process. Pirabhakaran must indeed be gnashing his teeth if he thought that the Government had not really got his message and may well be tempted to repeat the message. But, this time around it may not be a Tamil political opponent.
But, coming back to the point, the several statements coming from politicians in the SLFP also revealed a lurking chauvinism that grips most southern politicians. This is manifest in the mindset that as long as Tamils kill Tamils, there is no problem. So, when the LTTE engaged in its orgy of political killings including the killing of Tamil intelligence officers during the UNP’s lap around the peace track, the UNP and the Colombo establishment turned a blind eye. It was after all a case of Tamils killing Tamils. Now, it is the turn of the SLFP taking a similar position. Some things do not change. Chauvinism is not always crude. It can be very subtle indeed, akin to the commonly heard refrain “some of our best friends are Tamils” or “some of our best friends are Sinhalese”. Sathya’s antenna never fails to go up when such patronizing statements are made. In fact, with such friends who needs enemies!
In this case, the Sinhalese progressive are also not above guilt. In this context, Sathya wishes to reproduce a paragraph from his very first column titled, “Peace and Democracy are Indivisible” which was penned several months ago, but in another context. To quote: “It is forgotten by those well-meaning Sinhalese progressives who, perhaps as a result of their Sinhala “guilt”, see the LTTE as having given the Tamils their self-respect…. Those who speak eloquently today about the need to empower the LTTE in the process of transforming them were quite unconcerned when other Tamil ex-militant organizations were going through the painful process of transforming themselves in the face of continuing chauvinism by the State and adventurism on the part of the LTTE. The same applies to international NGOs who take the task of engaging the LTTE with a missionary zeal, but view with contempt those Tamil militant organizations which laid down arms and entered the democratic mainstream. It is about time that Sinhalese progressives and democrats, who give expression to a collective Sinhala `guilt’ by extending to LTTE the credit of giving the Tamil people their self-respect and dignity, do some soul searching. Their position is untenable and also contrary to the principles of Democracy, Human Rights and Peace. These principles cannot be realized and enjoyed in one of the part of the country, while the people living in another part are denied these cherished values which alone give meaning to human existence, dignity and self-respect.”
Sathya’s stand taken then has become reinforced now in view of the utterances by spokespersons of the UPFA Government that the bomb blast in Colombo was no big deal, since the target was “only” a Tamil political opponent.
12th July,2004
[Previous:July 05] [Next: July 19]
June 28, 2004: The `Karuna Factor’: A Challenge or Obstacle to the Peace Process?
By Sathya
`Colonel’ Karuna is once again in the news, after his retreat and demobilization following the `Good Friday’ (9th April) putsch by the Vanni-based LTTE leadership against the Karuna forces in the Batti-Amparai region. The `news’ as revealed to the media by Karuna’s woman comrade Nilavini, who surrendered to the Vanni-based LTTE last week, is that the military-intelligence establishment provided Karuna, his family and some of his comrades protection in Colombo, a few days after the Good Friday offensive. Further, Ali Zahir Moulana a UNP National List Member of Parliament and a close confidante of Ranil Wickremesinghe, with equally close contacts with the Vanni-based LTTE leadership, revealed publicly that he had established contacts with Karuna at the request of LTTE Batti-Amparai leader Ramesh in order to escort Karuna and his comrades to Colombo as part of a deal aimed at offering Karuna an `exit’. He explained that he had done so on humanitarian grounds.
Following these revelations Ali Zahir Moulana resigned his seat from parliament so as to save his leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and the UNP from any embarrassment. That the UPFA was going to seize the opportunity to embarrass the UNP was also evident in the press briefing by Media Minister Mangala Samarasinghe and the reportage in the State media institutions which went to town on the Ali Moulana-LTTE nexus (read UNP-LTTE nexus). The UNP (indirectly) and the LTTE (directly) , on the other hand, accused the UPFA Government of duplicity and adventurism in extending support to Karuna and that its action could threaten the peace process and the ceasefire agreement. This allegation was denied by the UPFA Government, although the Media Minister Mangala Samaraweera did not rule out the possibility of individuals in the military-intelligence apparatus of establishing contacts with Karuna.