transcurrents

Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam and the Tragedy of Tamils

July 29th, 2007

By D.B.S. Jeyaraj

Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam was assassinated by the LTTE on July 29th 1999. Though eight years have passed his memory remains evergreen among all those who loved and admired him. This article was first published in two parts in the “Sunday Times” of Sep 12th and 19th , 1999. It was written originally in a bid to combat the cowardly attacks vilifying Neelan after his death. It is reproduced again as tribute to Neelan’s memory.

The ‘Tamil Times’ is a monthly journal being published in London from January 1982. It departed from tradition for the first time in 18 years and devoted the entire contents of its August issue towards the assassination of distinguished Tamil politician Neelan Tiruchelvam.

Though not described as a memorial number the entire issue – apart from advertisements – published news items, comments and articles on Dr. Tiruchelvam’s death. Even the editorial was transformed into a miscellany of notable quotes about him. The cover too was a montage of Dr. Tiruchelvam’s images. In the dark cloud of silence that has enveloped mainstream Tamils after Dr. Tiruchelvam’s killing the deviant action of the Tamil Times stands out as a silver lining.

Ever since Dr. Tiruchelvam was brutally assassinated on July 29 in Colombo the civilised world has been reacting in horror and disgust, messages of sympathy have been pouring in from all corners of the globe. US President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Azworthy, Australian Foreign Minister Graham Downer, Indian External Affairs Minister Jaswanth Singh are but some of the prominent personalities who have condemned the killing and paid tribute to Dr. Tiruchelvam’s memory.

Organisations such as the Amnesty International, Minority Rights Group and International Commission of Jurists, too, have done so. What is remarkable about this is that Dr. Tiruchelvam was neither a head of state nor even a government minister. Only personalities of that ilk have been recipients of such accolades in the past.

The tributes paid by a cross section of the world’s eminent statespersons, political leaders, academics, human rights activists, scholars, jurists and intellectuals illustrate the multi- dimensional attributes of the remarkable person that was Neelan. The Tamil Times issue in that sense is a glowing testimony to the calibre of a gentle person whose death has evoked world-wide eulogies steeped in very high quality. This spontaneous response of a near universal and greater nature however has to be juxtaposed with another reaction that is particular and to some extent lesser.

This response or non- response, whether contrived or otherwise is best illustrated by Nirupama Subramaniam’s perceptive report in the ‘Indian Express’ of August 3. She says, “Tiruchelvam’s senseless killing may have outraged the world, but Sri Lanka’s Tamil community, which has mortgaged its soul to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) remains unmoved and unprotesting. While there have been no calls from anyone in the Tamil community except the former militant groups, specifically condemning the LTTE for the killing, the justifications have begun”.

Nirupama, who incidentally hails from Tamil Nadu in India, goes on to cite instances of this. Among these are details of conversation among Tamils at a book launch in Wellawatte. This is what the Colombo Correspondent of the ‘Indian Express’ wrote: “According to those present at the function many justified the killing on the grounds that Dr. Tiruchelvam was close to the government. The general feeling was that while alive Dr. Tiruchelvam made no positive contribution to the Tamil cause, and his death made no difference to the community, a lawyer present at the function reported”.

These sentiments allegedly expressed by sections of the Colombo Tamil community are indeed outrageously wrong and callously insensitive. They are however symptomatic of a deep-seated malaise that has afflicted the Sri Lankan Tamil community. While the silent majority among them remain overtly detached and non-committal, a vociferously vituperative minority continues to attack and character assassinate a man who has already been assassinated.

In the case of Dr. Tiruchelvam one is able to discern all the signs of blaming-the-victim syndrome and also, to borrow a phrase from Indian commentator Praful Bidwai, manifestations of ‘victimising the victim’ itself. While he was alive Dr. Tiruchelvam was the pet target of direct and indirect Tiger propaganda. Almost every Tiger organ within and outside Sri Lanka dished out venomous and hateful news and comments about him. The LTTE poet laureate Puthuvai Rathinadurai writing under the pseudonym Viyaasan wrote hate poetry ceaselessly against him. Several others, including some Tiger fellow travellers who had their petty pickaxes to grind, also followed suit.

Many persons with different motives hitched their wagons to the LTTE star. An easy way to curry favour or avoid Tiger displeasure was to attack a vulnerable target. The inoffensive democrat that he was Neelan Tiruchelvam fitted the bill. Thus the past four or five years have seen a cacophony of diatribes against him. Most prominent among them was a distinguished. Tamil politician whose lifelong ambition of being a Parliamentarian has been consistently rejected by Tamil voters.

A Tamil tabloid published in Colombo also plays a negative role in this regard. This weekly led and continues to lead the media hound pack in a vicious campaign against Dr. Tiruchelvam. The king pin is an ex-militant turned Tamil parliamentarian from a Tamil party. This tabloid has contributed greatly towards undermining Dr. Tiruchelvam’s image among Tamils.

Many years ago before the LSSP aligned with the SLFP, Sirima Bandaranaike referred to N. M. Perera in Sinhala as the man who ‘nomaraa maru’ her late husband. This was in reference to the Trotskyite leader’s sustained campaign of political strikes against S.W.R.D Bandaranaike. Likewise this tabloid too can be accused in Tamil of ‘Kollaamal Kondra’ in the case of Neelan. The lone assassin standing at the Rosmead Place-Kynsey Road intersection destroyed only Dr. Tiruchelvam’s body. But as far as the Tamil reading public was concerned Dr. Tiruchelvam’s political reputation had been exterminated before.

What is repugnantly repulsive about the situation is that the vilification of Dr. Tiruchelvam continues among sections of the Tamils even after his death. As was the case before his death most of this maligning is based on a wholesale distortion of truth. The Tamil people who like to boast of their millennia old cultural legacy seem oblivious to the fact that one of their hallowed values is being violated in the most disgusting way.

The age old custom of not vilifying a dead person is being flouted flagrantly in the most foul manner. It must be noted that the LTTE weekly ‘Eelamurasu’ published in Paris too was constrained to preface a critique of Dr. Tiruchelvam with a public apology to the readers for dishonoring the Tamil cultural tradition of speaking ill of the dead.

The Tamil tabloid in Colombo has been publishing despicable news and views about Dr. Tiruchelvam after his death too. The man who was assassinated brutally is now being character assassinated relentlessly. That a paper which claims to be the largest selling Tamil weekly can go on denigrating a dead person who cannot defend himself speaks volumes about the socio-cultural morass the Tamil community has sunk into. The abysmal nadir in this respect however has been reached by ‘vocal Warriors’ of upper crust Tamil society.

The various pro-LTTE websites, e-mail exchanges and English journals have been publishing various articles criticising Dr. Tiruchelvam after his death. Some of these written by ‘prominent’ but not necessarily eminent Tamils have been collected as part of a single web page in the New York Tamil Sangam website. It is a good indicator to gauge the depths of depravity the Sri Lankan Tamils have descended to. All decent people will be appalled by the incredibly vitriolic attacks defiling the memory of an intellectual giant whose only ‘crime’ was to strive for a peaceful settlement.

The New York Tamil Sangam is in many ways a front for the LTTE in the USA. Nevertheless the office bearers and most members are acknowledged professionals from the cream of Tamil society. Yet they are able to indulge in a vulgar exhibition that offends all canons of decency.

Worse still are the motley crew of demolition experts writing about Dr. Tiruchelvam. They are supposedly members of the Sri Lankan Tamil elite. Some are alumni of Oxford and Cambridge; some have dined and wined at the inns of Lincoln, Gray, Inner and Middle Temple; some have Ph.Ds from the prestigious universities of the west. Yet they have all like Caesar’s enemies ‘drawn their swords separately to strike jointly’ in a revolting display of necrophobia.

A Tamil poet described them succinctly ‘Savathukku Mele Moothiram Peyyurangal’ (They are urninating on a corpse). What is deplorable about this sordid affair is that many of these people are old Royalists and Thomians who knew Dr. Tiruchelvam personally and had at various times obtained favours from him too.

One’s disgust increases even more when these Tamil websites pat themselves on their backs by publishing congratulatory responses from readers over the articles published.

These responding readers range from retired UN experts to nuclear scientists, from Catholic priests to university lecturers. How is it that such ‘educated’ people subjected to the emancipator aspects of modern Western society and claiming to be the legatee of an ancient and honorable culture violate the basic tenets of decent conduct?

It is almost as if impelled by a desire to ingratiate themselves with their masters, the LTTE, each one is standing up to be counted by the Tigers as having approved their action. In a bid to ingratiate with the LTTE, the diatribe authors are competing among themselves, too. One of them has published his ‘masterpiece’ as a glossy booklet and is distributing it free by post to sections of the Tamil Diaspora.

In contrast to this gutter sniping is the conspicuous public silence of other Tamils. Except for a few, most Tamils have neither condemned the killing nor expressed their appreciation of Dr. Tiruchelvam openly. It is this ‘deafening silence’ that is being interpreted by certain elements as a ’sanction’ of the assassination. The truth however is that as Nirupama Subramaniam expresssed it well “Tamil souls have been mortgaged to the LTTE”. In many cases it is a mortal fear of the LTTE that has contributed to this non-committal behaviour.

There have been several instances of people condemning the killing in private but not daring to say so in public. Some who have been critical about the killing when conversing with trusted confidantes have performed somersaults publicly. In our villages there is a habit of not mentioning the snake or devil by name. This is because of the fear that some harm would befall them as these personify evil. Similarly the Tamil psyche too does not dare mention the LTTE by name let alone criticise it. The naive belief is that by avoiding public comments against the LTTE they could ward off possible danger from it. If only all those Tamils who are well aware of Dr. Tiruchelvam’s positive and dedicated role in the sphere of achieving Tamil rights dared to articulate their feelings publicly!

What a qualitative difference it would make to the current climate. But no, the evil within exerts a stranglehold on the collective vocal chords of the community. So Dr. Tiruchelvam’s detractors are able to create and promote the impression that he was a traitor who had to be eliminated.

The assassination of Dr. Tiruchelvam and its aftermath serve to portray vividly the totalitarian hold exercised by the LTTE over the collective conscience of the Tamil community. An entity with neo – fascist tendencies and is accountable to none has appropriated the leadership of the Tamil people. The right to express a different viewpoint let alone dissent is effectively tabooed. Again what a vortex the community has been sucked into.

The majority of Sri Lankan Tamils are Saivites. The right of dissent is an age old Saivite Tamil tradition.

One of the great ‘Thiruvilaiaadals’ (Great Divine Feats) by Lord Siva pertains to Nakkeeran the Madurai poet who composed the ‘Tirumurugaattuppadai’. There arose a doubt in the mind of the Pandyan King as to whether the fragrance of his queen’s hair was natural or artificial. Lord Siva in an avatar wrote a stanza saying it was natural. The King concurred. But Nakkeeeran the head of the Tamil Sangham or Academy objected. He said it was artificial. Lord Siva began arguing with Nakkeeran and finally revealed himself and expected submission from the poet.

But Nakkeeran refused and continued to say Lord Siva’s opinion was wrong. Then Lord Siva threatened to open his third eye in the forehead and burn Nakkeeran. Still Nakkeeran was unrelenting saying ‘Nettrikkann Thirappinum Kuttram Kuttrame’ (Even if you open your third eye your opinion is wrong). An angry Siva burnt him to ashes but later relented and resurrected Nakkeeran restoring him to grace.

The Nakkeeran episode has come to represent the courageous tradition of dissent within the Tamil ethos. Today like many other things the tradition and right of dissent too have been exploded by the barbaric hordes masquerading as Tamil saviours.

Given the tremendous transnational condemnation over Dr. Tiruchelvam’s killing, it is easy to discern why the LTTE and its minions have to keep on character assassinating the man even after killing him. These attempts though despicable are in a sense feebly pathetic. Even as torrents of enlightened world opinion pour down in condemnation of the LTTE, a small group tries hard to vilify Dr. Tiruchelvam and justify his killing. Again this will succeed to a limited extent only among certain shades of Tamil opinion.

Subramaniya Bharathy the great Tamil poet of early twentieth century when glorifying the Tamil language sang ‘Maraivaaga Namakkul Palangkathaigal Pesei Payanillai, Thiramaana Pulamaienil Velinaattar Athai Vanakkam Seithal Vendum’ (There is no use in talking about past matters among ourselves, if possessing merit it must be praised by foreigners) .

Although this was in reference to the merits of Tamil, it also applies to Neelan Tiruchelvam and his Tamil detractors. While these so- called pseudo nationalist Tamils character-assassinate Tiruchelvam within the Tamils, International opinion that matters continues to respect and honour his life and work.

Contrary to the viewpoint that he worked against Tamil interests, Tiruchelvam was a man who had dedicated himself to the upliftment of the Tamils and the redressing of their grievances. Only unlike many of his abrasive and chauvinist kinsfolk he possessed a larger vision which realised that the ultimate well-being of the Sri Lankan Tamils was possible only in a united but not necessarily unitary Sri Lanka where all communities including that of his own could co-exist in a climate of peace, amity and harmony with justice, equality and dignity.

Despite being maligned by extremist sections on both sides of the ethnic divide he strove relentlessly to achieve this goal until a misguided suicide bomber cut short a fruitful life on that fateful day.

It would indeed be a grave error for Tamils to feel that Tiruchelvam was not concerned about the Tamil plight or depict his principled issue-based support to the Kumaratunga regime’s endeavour at Constitutional reform as a collaborative act.

He was a moderate in terms of his adherence to democratic principles and abhorrence of violence. A salient aspect of his political philosophy was illustrated during his speech in Parliament on June 15 this year, opposing Capital Punishment.

He said “I would like to express my strong moral opposition to this measure…. we cannot glorify death, whether in the battlefield or otherwise. We on the other hand must celebrate life and are fiercely committed to protecting and securing the sanctity of life, which is the most fundamental value without which all other rights and freedoms become meaningless.”

This principled opposition to the politics of death, displacement and despair certainly did not make him a devotee of what is now described as the dominant mode of the Tamil political struggle.

By his courageous and honest refusal to pay lip service to the so called armed struggle Tiruchelvam placed himself in the unenviable position of being perceived by the proponents of Tamil virulence as an opponent of Tamil rights. Of course other Tamil elements with their own petty axes to grind promoted this perception and projected Neelan in a negative light.

The crux of the matter is that Tiruchelvam was certainly not a moderate when it came to Tamil rights. By character, training and inclination he chose Constitutional reform as the mode of achieving it.

Ranging from the time he wrote a dissenting report to the conclusions of the Victor Tennekoon Commission on Devolution to his efforts at Constitution making in association with the People’s Alliance Government he has never ever compromised on the fundamental rights of the Tamils.

He was a Constitutionalist but like the founding fathers of the USA, a revolutionary constitutionalist. The Tamil pseudo-nationalists criticising the draft constitution as a ’sell out of the Tamils’ are yet to present a coherent and effective critique on those lines. The draft in its original form was a path breaking exercise amounting to quasi- federalism in the entire South Asian region.

On the other hand the mirror images of the Tamil hawks within the Sinhala community seem to have identified the Constitution in the making as a potential threat to Sinhala chauvinist hegemony in the Island and until the time of his death were bitterly critical of Tiruchelvam. A point lost on his Tamil detractors.

Unlike many prominent Tamils who seem wittingly or unwittingly oblivious to the tragic Tamil predicament Tiruchelvam was a man very much concerned about it.

Since political hypocrisy was not one of his attributes Tiruchelvam realised that the establishment of Tamil Eelam was neither desirable nor attainable. The pursuit of such a mirage through a violent compaign could only result in long term misery for the Tamils he felt.

The fact that the arena of conflict was primarily the Northern and Eastern Provinces meant hardship and suffering of the highest order for the Tamils. Besides he was very worried about the dispersal of the Tamil community from their areas of historic habitation and their consequent relocation to other parts of the world.

‘It is this permanent migration that would be the most detrimental factor to the well-being of the Tamils in Sri Lanka’ was a constant comment of his. A reduction of numbers would result in diminished political importance he felt. In that context a letter by former Central Bank Governor N.U. Jayawardena that was published in a Colombo newspaper some time ago is relevant.

Mr. Jayawardene in that pointed out two things. First he said that the Sri Lankan population would achieve zero growth by 2025 and stabilise itself. Second given the current rate of Sri Lankan Tamil outward migration its population percentage at that time would be only 1.9%. As such it would become a ‘Manageable minority’ was NUJ’s conclusion.

The drastic long term effect of the conflict on the Sri Lankan Tamils is something that is either not realised or willfully ignored by the ‘Vocal Warriors’ of the Tamil Eelam armed struggle. The question of whether the LTTE will win or lose the war becomes irrelevant in a situation where the Tamil population itself would become a feeble entity as it is already becoming.

Those who proclaim triumphantly from their safe abodes overseas that the LTTE cannot be militarily defeated must ask themselves whether such a possibility falls within the objectives of their so called ‘enemy’. The longer the conflict rages on the more the economy of the Tamil areas decline. Population decreases. In the final analysis the Tamil war that began with a bang will decay into a pathetic whimper.

There was also the factor of geopolitical reality that was against the birth of a Tamil state on the Island. However much the sacrifice and valour of the Tigers there was just no way they could achieve their goal in the long run. For these reasons and more Neelan Tiruchelvam was among those actively involved in trying to get the war suspended.

He was also working diligently behind the scenes to get the government to resume talks with the LTTE. Tiruchelvam felt that only third party facilitation initially and subsequent mediation would succeed. This view that the war should end and talks with the Tigers should be initiated did not endear him to many sections of the government.

This coupled with his uncompromising stance on constitutional issues like changing the unitary structure of the state led to deteriorating relations between him and the upper echelons of the current regime. After his death many government figures are painting a glossy yet untrue picture of the situation that prevailed.

Tiruchelvam wanted talks between the government and LTTE for another reason too. He was realistic enough to know that the major player on the Tamil side was the LTTE. Because of their destructive capacity only the Tigers possessed bargaining clout that could extract maximum rights for the Tamils at the bargaining table he felt.

Besides there was a humane aspect too. Though he did not agree with their aims or methods Tiruchelvam had a great deal of compassion and sympathy for the young cadres of the LTTE sacrificing themselves on the altar of Eelam. ‘It was a needless waste of young lives for an unwinnable cause’ he felt.

Although he has been demonised as a Tamil traitor working against the LTTE, history will record in the future that such charges were way off the mark. Although many Tamils are unable to see it now there will come a time when posterity will acknowledge and realise the value and importance of Neelan’s current role.

The allegations made by Tamil sections against Tiruchelvam can be effectively countered only with the passage of time. In an environment where enlightened global opinion appreciates Tiruchelvam’s positive role, it may seem incongruous to pay particular attention to the negative reaction among a section of the Tamils.

Nevertheless the fact remains that though the man was a citizen of the world he was rooted in the Tamil ethos. It would have been simple and indeed safer for him to ignore the Tamil plight and involve himself with other issues. Nevertheless he remained concerned and tried in every way possible to prescribe a political remedy that would cure the malady.

It is therefore necessary that attempts be made to salvage his unfairly tarnished reputation among the Tamils. A start could be made perhaps by publishing the various Parliamentary Speeches he made and the memoranda he wrote on behalf of the Tamils. Also his role in Tamil politics should be placed in proper perspective.

Neelan Tiruchelvam’s loss is irreplaceable and his life cannot be redeemed. But what can be done is to redeem his tarnished name among sections of the Tamil people.

The bard of Avon in his immortal classic dramatises the eloquent oratory of Mark Anthony. Though Brutus and his cohorts had influenced public opinion to revile Julius Caesar, Anthony reverses the situation through adressing the people in that famous oration which begins: ‘Friends, Romans, Countrymen’

Likewise the good name of Neelan has to be salvaged and restored for posterity. This is the least that can be done for this gentle and noble soul who was indeed goodness personified while living.

Entry Filed under: transCurrents