War for Peace then and now against Terrorism
December 1st, 2007
What’s next? What will be the future of the Tamils in Sri Lanka? Is the government really serious about seeking a just political solution based on sharing power with the ethnic minorities? Will weakening or even destroying the LTTE result in the changes to the governing system needed for national integration and unity to enable all ethnic communities to coexist in a peaceful, secure and promising environment? The co-chairs of the Tokyo Donor Conference and India, having declared there is no military solution to the conflict are urging both the Sri Lanka government and the LTTE to negotiate a political settlement. How realistic is this appeal? Is there a credible basis for serious negotiation? Is President Rajapaksa’s military plan intended to weaken the democratic forces as well that are demanding changes to the failed unitary system?
By Dr. S. Narapalasingam
The priorities of the past and present governments have been on parochial matters at the cost of ignoring the long-term national interests. It was possible to address the grievances of the ethnic minorities and grant equal rights and opportunities under the unitary constitution, but this did not happen over the past half a century because of self-centered electoral politics. The imperative to be seen as the protectors of the interests and future of the Sinhalese outweighed other broad concerns. How can the deprived minority communities believe their safety, security, rights and future will not be denied under the same flawed structure, which the Sinhala nationalists backing the present government want to maintain? Will there be a real change in the system of Sinhala majority rule, without foreign mediation? When will the four co-chairs (later proclaimed as the co-chairs of the illusive peace process) and notably India intervene to stop the pointless war? While these questions have been agitating the minds of the anxious people caught in the cycle of war, the November 27 Heroes’ Day speech of the LTTE leader has poured oil on the burning war flame. If this fire is not doused immediately it will destroy many more lives and property.
The war and politics
Dr. Jayadeva Uyangoda in his recent analysis (Daily Mirror 21 November 2007) on the escalation of the military offensives claimed by the government as necessary to defeat LTTE terrorism has said: “The war is politics conducted by other means and politics is the war conducted by military means. In this rather unusual context, the only plausible and realistic goal one can strive for is prevention of war escalation”. This suggestion too is unhelpful to stop the killings and minimize the suffering of the innocent citizens caught in the pointless war. Continuation of the war must be prevented by withdrawing support to those exploiting the war for achieving their narrow political aims. The co-chairs also have a role in ending the war by tangible actions that compel the parties to cease destroying life and property. It is time all parties realize the final losses to the society will be much greater than any momentary gains achieved during the war. It has helped the government to win the budget vote at the crucial second reading on 19 November.
The charges and threats aimed at influencing the outcome of the budget vote show how the war has been exploited by the government. Even earlier, the military offensive against the LTTE was cited as crucial, despite the huge cost to the defence establishment and the economic cost and hardship of the people struggling to make ends meet. This was also intended to retain the government’s slender majority in the Parliament. With a different political agenda, the JVP opted to support the war from the opposition benches. Financing the costly war is also helping the government with its jumbo cabinet to divert attention away from lavish spending, the high cost of living and other pressing problems of the masses unrelated to the ‘war against terrorism’.
The war is also said to be for liberating the Tamil people from the clutches of the LTTE. In her characteristic way, Tisaranee Gunasekera has exposed the prolonged neglect of the problems of the civilians in the North-East, which the Tiger rebels have been repeatedly saying will remain unresolved as long as the power is in the hands of the Sinhalese. She has said:”The peace process of Ranil Wickremesinghe was built on the premise that Tamil people did not matter; only the Tigers did. The war effort of the Rajapakse regime is too premised upon the same fallacious thinking. Eastern development is limited to government propaganda. The APC is a time buying exercise, an attempt to confuse the more gullible Tamils and the more impressionable members of the international community. Unless President Rajapakse is willing to give up his unitarianism he cannot agree to a political package that can satisfy moderate Tamils. Given the nature of his allies and of his own ideological predilections this is not a choice he can opt for”. (Sunday Island 18 November 2007)
In a review of recent developments, the Sunday Times (November 18) observed: “Not surprisingly then, prosecuting the war against the LTTE remains not only Rajapaksa’s biggest selling point, it is possibly his only selling point as well. Support me and help me rid the country of the Tiger, Rajapaksa says without any pretence and it is not a bad slogan either: there is nothing Ranil Wickremesinghe or anyone else can say to counter that. It is also a slogan with which Rajapaksa has held the JVP in a tight bind. When the UNP is calling on the leftists to match their criticisms of the government with the more pragmatic step of voting against it, Rajapaksa’s clever retort is to point out that destabilising his regime would amount to weakening the battle against the LTTE”.
Addressing members of the Sri Lanka Nidahas Graduates Association at Temple Trees on November 15, President Mahinda Rajapaksa said only the “Tigers want to defeat the budget”. He averred that the security forces would chase behind terrorists and attack them with all their might in order to emancipate the people of the north from the clutches of the LTTE and bring territorial integrity, peace and prosperity to all the citizens in Sri Lanka”. (Daily Mirror 16 November 2007). If peace and prosperity depends on the success of the security forces, will they also be able to ensure the rule of law, good governance free of corruption and nepotism and sound financial and administrative management? All these are lacking in Sri Lanka because of the abuse of power for quick pecuniary and political benefits.
Reports about conspiracy to topple the government and thereby strengthen the LTTE also appeared on the eve of the vote on the 2008 Budget. The Construction and Engineering Service Minister Rajitha Senaratne (a UNP dissident who joined the government early this year) addressing the media at Seth Sevana November 15 said: “Some were trying to topple the Government with help from persons like Charles Gnanakoon by trying to lure Government Ministers for money”. He had also said: “There are two groups in Parliament. One is attempting to topple the Government and strengthen the LTTE’s hands and the other (the government) is striving to protect the country and its sovereignty from terrorism”. (Daily News November 16). The Sinhala Buddhist religious party, Jatika Hela Urumaya (JHU) is supporting the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, mainly because of the war against the ‘LTTE terrorists’. It is clear, without the LTTE the government will be in a fix now.
On the other hand, the coalition government’s majority in the Parliament also depends on the support of the upcountry Tamil, Muslim and the liberal Sinhalese parliamentarians from the several minor parties in the alliance. They all want a permanent political settlement and this has also made it necessary to keep alive their hope. Both these schemes cannot go on together for long. The argument that a political settlement is not feasible without weakening the LTTE is not accepted by moderate Sri Lankans and the international community. They want the government to put forward a framework for a credible political settlement that can meet the aspirations of all ethnic communities as an alternative to the present majority rule in which the ethnic minorities have no effective role. If the proposed changes to the present structure are reasonable for all the ethnic communities to co-exist peacefully and seen to be suitable for fulfilling their aspirations, the LTTE will have no case for continuing the ‘liberation’ struggle.
But the doubts about the government’s keenness to change the structure which is heavily in favour of the ethnic Sinhalese remain strong in the light of the obstacles placed to the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) process. The interest of the main opposition party, the UNP is on toppling the Rajapaksa government than on the political reform process. It is boycotting the APRC meetings and has no interest now in forming a National Government, though the UNP leader said before the 2005 Presidential election he would form one on winning the Presidency. This also shows the problem with the politics in Sri Lanka that is influenced by the self-interest of major party leaders. The JVP too is out of the APRC process, because they are against changing the present unitary structure. It seems they too are obsessed with an ideology that is inappropriate now.
One of the four demands put forward days before the Budget vote November 19 by the JVP leader Somawansa Amarasinghe is the abolition of the APRC. In this regard, the outspoken Western Peoples Front leader Mano Ganesan MP is reported to have said (Lanka-E-News- 14 Nov. 2007): “Accordingly the government can now abolish the APRC. This will help the whole world to know where this government stands in the all important issue of ‘peace and political solution’.” Politics in Sri Lanka has been influenced for several decades by the importance given to the needs of the main ruling party for holding on to power. Mano Ganesan has observed: “I respect and appreciate JVP leader for coming crystal clear on his party’s intentions. There are SLFP and PA politicians in the government who are for war as well as for a power-sharing political solution beyond this (present) constitution. What are their responses to the JVP demands? Are they intending to give into JVP demands and keep quite for the sake of their ministerial perks? This is the crucial period in the history of this country. It is not because of the budget. Budgets can come and go. We have to look beyond the budget’.
Sinhala nationalism and Tamil nationalism
Recent report of the International Crisis Group gives the nature of the attitudinal change amongst a section of the ethnic Sinhalese majority after the resumption of war, which, of course, the LTTE wanted desperately to take forward their struggle for Eelam -’Tamil homeland’. To quote: “The election of President Rajapaksa in November 2005 halted the slow movement towards reforms. While many had hoped he would abandon the hardline approach that won him office and move to the centre to govern, the opposite has been the case. His government has increasingly adopted a hardline nationalist vision, leaving little room to be outflanked in the name of Sinhalese interests. The JHU has joined the government, and Sinhala ideologues are influential advisers. Since mid-2006 the government has been fighting the LTTE with the aim of defeating or at least severely weakening it militarily”. The LTTE leader in his 2007 Heroes’ Day message has invoked Tamil nationalistic feelings to get more support for continuing the struggle for independent Tamil Eelam. The concepts of ‘Tamil homeland’, ‘Tamil Nation’ and ‘the right to self-determination’ are considered as myths by the Sinhalese and unrealistic by moderates within and outside Sri Lanka. No country is willing to support the division of the island into two separate states. India, in particular, is strongly against the division.
In 1984, the LTTE leader told the interviewer Anita Pratap (Sunday Magazine, India 11-17 March 1984): “There cannot be a blueprint or a time limit for a freedom struggle. Everything depends on the situation in our homeland and happenings on the international scene.” Both have changed drastically but his goal and method haven’t. Instead of accusing the international community, it would have been useful had the reasons for the change in the international scene been examined closely. His reason for rejecting the political system in Sri Lanka holds valid even now. He said: it “has always tried to impose the will of the majority on the minority. This system not only failed to solve the basic problems of our people but, in fact, aggravated our plight”. This should have been the thrust of the argument right across the globe for seeking a viable alternative to the present conflict-ridden system.
There are also contradictions in the stated positions, aims and strategies of President Rajapaksa’s regime. These have been ignored by many analysts, including those who believe ‘maximum devolution’ under the existing structure will guarantee unity and peace. No one knows what ‘maximum’ really means and what safeguards will be provided to prevent the center abusing its overriding power and either suspending or withdrawing the devolved powers at some later stage. Maximum devolution if it means powers to administer the regions independently catering to the needs and aspirations of the local people, then this requires significant changes to the present constitution.
Sanjana Hattotuwa in the Daily Mirror 24 November-’A friend of Rajapaksa regime’-has very effectively described the real situation. To quote: “There’s no real debate or engagement possible with visceral logic, because it is impregnable, exceedingly intolerant of critiques and as extreme as that which drives the damnable violence of the LTTE. Yet, it is also the fundamental appeal of this President who is now a mirror image of the Sun God in the North, which I find is particularly telling of the societies that gave rise to and legitimized them both. This appeal lies not only in the man’s personal charm, but in the idea he represents and articulates to a Southern constituency. It is a promise, not always delivered yet always portrayed as imminent, of a return to peace and of a Sri Lanka harmonious and prosperous sans the LTTE”. The remark on promises not delivered but portrayed as imminent is very apt.
India’s advisory role
According to PTI report 21 November, Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee conveyed his government’s interest on the early resolution of the conflict to his Sri Lankan counterpart Rohitha Bogollagama during a 40-minute meeting in Kampala, Uganda. Making a distinction between Tamil extremists and non-extremists, the Union Minister told the speedy implementation of a set of devolution proposals was necessary to avoid alienating the non-extremist Tamils from the political mainstream.
The PTI report also said: “At the same time, India encouraged Sri Lanka to carry on the dialogue with the LTTE for a solution to the problem within the territorial integrity of the country. What India wanted to see happening in Sri Lanka was greater devolution of powers to Tamils in that country to retain their linguistic, cultural and ethnic identities”. The apparent contradiction is consistent with India’s open-ended foreign policy evident from her cool response to the recent turmoil in neighbouring Myanmar and Pakistan.
Indian Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, who delivered the second Lakshman Kadirgamar Memorial Lecture on ‘Growth prospects in South Asia: Challenges and Opportunities’ on November 11 was more specific. He said “continuation of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka would deepen the divisions in the society and make a negotiated settlement more difficult”. He warned: “Neither side could finally prevail over the other through conflict. Peace must be forged at the negotiating table and an agreement must win a vote of confidence from the people. The conflict would have an adverse impact on the economy, which was evident now”. With regard to the perception that India had ‘frozen’ its Sri Lanka policy after the assassination of the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the Union Minister said that “just because New Delhi was no longer the mediator it was not correct to suggest that Indian policy was stagnant. India is concerned and continuing encouragement of a political settlement acceptable to all”. Like other Indian leaders he too reiterated, “India is committed to the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka”. While stressing that the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka arose “out of a sense of discrimination and a sense of negation of cultural, linguistic and human rights”, he said it “should be resolved through a negotiated political settlement that includes a credible devolution of powers”. The word ‘negotiation’ is repeated time and again like mantra ignoring the practical difficulties.
Nevertheless, the kind of structural arrangement needed to resolve the conflict once and for all was clear from his statement-”While there should be a strong central or federal government for the country as a whole, it is equally important that the political system recognises the geographical or linguistic or ethnic divisions among the people and creates political institutions that will accommodate these differences and give voice and representation to all sections of the people”. Another clear admission was that both sides in the conflict had taken an irreconcilable stand making a negotiated settlement difficult. Given the insular stand of the present government reinforced by the rise of Sinhala nationalism not only India’s but also the advices of other powerful countries have fallen on deaf ears. The fact is mere advice alone doesn’t go far enough.
India’s reluctance to intervene directly is also explained by Col. R. Hariharan (Retd.) in his recent article-’Two years of President Rajapaksa’. According to him a major deterrent is India’s strong business partnership with Sri Lanka with no prospect of the LTTE mending relationship with New Delhi, let alone with Tamil Nadu. With the continuing ban on the LTTE, any move by India seen helpful to the Sri Lankan Tamil ‘terrorists’ is unlikely. India’s present stand suits President Rajapaks’s plan very well. India has put the security forces on the alert against LTTE activity on her soil. President Rajapaksa has used “it to further his military agenda, at the cost of the peace process, without overtly courting adverse reaction from India”.
Another expert B. Raman, former Additional Secretary Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai thinks that India’s present detached role could harm her own interest. In his recent article-’Sri Lankan Tamil cause: An uncertain future’ he has observed: “Caught between the illusions of two political leaders President Rajapaksa and LTTE leader V. Prabhakaran), the prospects for a negotiated political solution have further receded. It is not only the Tamil community, but even Sri Lanka as a whole, which faces an uncertain future. The calculated inactivism of the Government of India is contributing to a drift, which could prove detrimental to India’s interests. Public opinion in Tamil Nadu should be more active in persuading the Government of India to see that under the pretext of ending the terrorism of the LTTE, the Sinhalese majority does not once again crush the legitimate Tamil political aspirations”. The warring parties should seriously look into the causes that led to the present war-related crisis instead of focusing on vengeful attacks. The war has now become a fight for saving their prestige.
With regard to public opinion in Tamil Nadu, the controversy over the eulogy written by scholarly Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanithi soon after LTTE’s political wing leader S. P. Thamilselvan was killed in the Sri Lankan Air Force aerial bombardment indicates that the prospect of TN persuading New Delhi to play a proactive role in resolving the conflict in Sri Lanka is bleak. The Chief Minister’s political rival Ms. Jayalalitha is demanding his resignation on the grounds of violating the law by paying tribute to a member of a banned organization. Furthermore, Ms. Jayalalitha with her tougher stance against the LTTE is also branding all who have supported the LTTE as traitors to India. Only some minor party leaders in Tamil Nadu are openly supporting the LTTE. The LTTE leader in his 2007 Heroes’ Day speech called on the global Tamil community to support their freedom struggle. The reality is the bulk of the community is in Tamil Nadu and any worthwhile support must come from them.
Unitary in theory and practice
Gomin Dayasri, a leading attorney and member of the Expert Panel appointed to assist the APRC who assisted in preparing the minority (dissenting) report containing a set of recommendations to resolve the ethnic conflict, in his article-’A wake up call’-published in ‘The Island’ 15 November has expressed dismay on the failure of successive governments to address the Tamil grievances. This is significant first for the candid admission of the existence of Tamil grievances which to some Sinhala nationalists are just imaginations of the minority Tamils and second the acceptance that the Sinhala majority governments have ignored them.
Not all the ten items in his list of grievances have a long history of neglect, though all have contributed to the escalation of the ethnic problem to the present crisis. The basic ones responsible for its emergence are: (1) the non-implementation of the language provisions; (2-3) safety and security concerns in the light of State-sponsored anti-Tamil riots; (6) lack of development of predominantly Tamil regions in the North and East (any development being linked to the colonization schemes for settling Sinhalese families there); (7) Sinhalese dominated security forces/Police; (8) discrimination in recruitment for employment; (9) inadequate infrastructural benefits; and (10) irregular manner of land alienation.
Having listed the grievances, he has then proceeded to claim that all what is needed to settle the issue is a simple “curative treatment within the present Constitution with ordinary legislation and by administrative regulations in addition to a decommissioning of arms”. In one stroke he thinks the people who had endured deprivation, fear, frustration, indignity and uncertainty as second class citizens without equal rights, opportunities and treatment will forget the past 50 years of ill-treatment and accept the same old system that permitted political parties competing for power to use the minorities as ‘political football’. The earlier confidence in the unitary system would not have eroded, if the language and other problems affecting the well-being of the Tamil speaking people have not emerged and after emergence they have been promptly dealt with. Here too the gap between words and deeds was wide. What had made the bad situation worse were the recent tragic happenings with impunity. The government is responsible for many of them including those carried out by paramilitary personnel operating in collaboration with security forces. The authorities made no serious effort to stop the extra judicial killings, abductions, extortion and forced disappearances.
Under the unitary system, even legislative Acts intended to address the problems caused by the 1956 Sinhala only official language Act and other discriminatory policies were not implemented fully. Together with the past record of discriminatory policies and practices that pleased the Sinhala-Buddhist nationalists, who consider the ethnic Sinhalese as a superior group in the island, there is valid reason to doubt the suitability of the unitary system to build a united, stable and peaceful country. The determination of the LTTE leadership to avoid getting into this trap is understandable. But to have relied solely on objectionable violent methods that distanced India and other influential countries from the Tamil struggle for self-determination was a costly mistake. The over-confidence in the exclusive violent path chosen for ‘liberation’ also led to the elimination of knowledgeable, tactful and pragmatic Tamil leaders like Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam who would have been useful both nationally and internationally in seeking a political settlement. The loss to the Tamil community is tremendous and it is being felt increasingly now.
Initiatives to stop the war needed
The LTTE leader has ruled out the possibility of a political settlement with the present government. Its influential defence secretary declared on Prabhakaran’s birthday November 26, the intention to finish him off sooner than later! Violence seems to be the only available means for both sides to seek their separate goals. As mentioned earlier, this is more vengeful and for protecting the prestige. The major blunder committed by the LTTE was in getting transformed from freedom fighters to terrorists and to be isolated by the influential countries. India was the first country that banned the LTTE and others including the USA, UK and the EU followed suit several years later. Violent attacks targeting civilians like the two on November 28 in Colombo and Nugegoda is counterproductive. International condemnation was swift and strong. The UN and other concerned organizations as well as foreign governments must realize that such desperate attacks are part of the war of attrition.
This also shows that the LTTE is not interested to have the terrorist label removed and gain international recognition as a rebel movement campaigning for the empowerment of the powerless ethnic Tamil minority. According to the LTTE, nearly 20,000 cadres have sacrificed their lives since November 1982 in the struggle for Eelam. The risk to the future of the Tamils in Sri Lanka will rise further if the war continues and Tamil lives are lost daily as seems to be the case now. Tamils cannot afford to get their just cause brushed aside because of the diversion away from it. This is a real dilemma for the community.
It is not the Tamils alone, even the members of other ethnic communities stand to lose if the war continues. The war cannot be won by promoting Sinhala nationalism and Tamil nationalism. This will also not help to improve the living conditions of the millions who are struggling for better life. The future of Sri Lanka depends crucially on the positive moves on the political front. These are essential for building trust, unity, stability and a peaceful environment for rapid development. Internal conflicts have a devastating effect on development and in the poorer countries on the well-being of the citizens. The war must be stopped somehow. This is the immediate challenge facing all yearning for peace in Sri Lanka.
[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]
Entry Filed under: transCurrents
