transcurrents

Blast from the past: Praba Interviewed by Anita in 1984

Anita Pratap is the Indian scribe who has been granted the most number of interviews with Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) leader Velupillai Prabakharan.

We reproduce an interview given in 1984. Many of the views expressed provide an insight into the tiger supremo’s mind and are relevant even today:

Velupillai Pirapaharan, leader of the Liberation Tigers for Tamil Eelam, tells Anita Pratap.

[Anita Pratap]

Q: What made you opt out of a conventional system and spearhead a liberation movement which you knew would be outlawed?

A: The democratic parliamentary system, or what you refer to as the conventional political system in Sri Lanka, 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. For decades, the repression by the state has made the life of our people miserable. The non-violent democratic struggles of our people were met with military repression. Our just demands were totally ignored, and the oppression continued on such a scale as to threaten the very survival of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. It was these circumstances which led me to form our liberation movement. I felt that an armed struggle was the only alternative left to our people, not only to ensure our survival but ultimately to free’ ourselves from the Sinhala oppression. I have always been aware that our movement would be outlawed. It is for this reason that we organized our movement as a clandestine underground structure from its inception.

Q: Could you elaborate on some of your personal experiences that compelled you to believe that an armed struggle was the only solution for the Tamils of Sri Lanka? Were you, your family members and friends, directly victimized by the discriminatory policy of the Sri Lankan government?

A: The shocking events of the 1958 racial riots had a profound impact on me when I was a schoolboy. I heard of horrifying incidents of how our people had been mercilessly and brutally put to death by Sinhala racists. Once I met a widowed mother, a friend of my family, who related to me her agonizing personal experience of this racial holocaust. During the riots, a Sinhala mob attacked her house in Colombo. The rioters set fire to the house and murdered her husband. She and her children escaped with severe burn injuries. I was deeply shocked when I saw the scars on her body. I also heard stories of how young babies were roasted alive in boiling tar. When I heard such stories of cruelty, I felt a deep sense of sympathy and love for my people. A great passion overwhelmed me to redeem my people from this racist system. I strongly felt that armed struggle was the only way to confront a system which employs armed might against unarmed, innocent people.

Q: At what point of time did you lose faith in the parliamentary system? What precipitated this disillusionment?

A: I entered politics at a time-in the early Seventies-when the younger generation had already lost faith in parliamentary politics. I entered politics as an armed revolutionary. What precipitated the disillusionment in parliamentary politics was the total disregard and callousness of the successive governments towards the pathetic plight of our people.

Q: How did you come to start the Liberation Tiger movement?

A: I originally formed the movement with a group of dedicated youths who sincerely believed that armed struggle was the only way to liberate our people.

Q: What was the reason for identifying yourselves as ‘Tigers’?

A: I named the movement ‘Liberation Tigers’ since the tiger emblem had deep roots in the political history of the Tamils, symbolizing Tamil patriotic resurgence. The tiger symbol also depicts the mode of our guerrilla warfare.

Q: When you decided to form the ‘Liberation Tigers’, what was the reaction of your family members and those close to you?

A: As soon as the Tiger movement was formed, I went underground and lost contact with my family.

Q: When did you last meet your family members? Are they reconciled to your outlawed existence?

A: I have not seen my family members for the last 11 years. I do not think they regard me as an ordinary person leading an ordinary life. They are reconciled to my existence as a guerrilla fighter.

Q: After 14 years of struggle, do you think you are any closer to achieving your goal?

A: After all these years of struggle I feel that we are advancing towards our goal. The ‘83 July holocaust has united all sections of the Tamil masses. There is a massive support for the armed liberation program of our movement. This is certainly a step towards our goal.

Q: On what way have the experiences of the past 12 years changed you as a person?

A: These years of struggle have strengthened my determination and sharpened my vision.

Q: Till now what has been your most rewarding experiences?

A: It is difficult for me to identify a particular experience as rewarding. The life of a guerrilla fighter is full of experience: experiences of sorrow, happiness, frustration: each of which brings its own rewards.

“Nature is my friend. Life my philosopher and history is my guide.”

Q: The experience over the years must have changed your outlook. What are some of the dominant impressions and convictions that you gained by virtue of this experience? Moreover, your experiences would have convinced you of the inefficacy of certain principles and theories in practical situations, while at the same time bringing home the validity of yet others. Can you pinpoint some of them?

A: Twelve years of experience has convinced me beyond doubt that the armed revolutionary path we undertook was the correct one. The other liberation groups who criticized our armed strategy as terrorism have now realized that armed struggle is the only way out for the emancipation of our oppressed people. Moreover, the guerrilla warfare has been an effective form of struggle. Several successful guerrilla raids have convinced our people that the Sinhala forces can be defeated and freedom can be won.

Q: Who is your friend, philosopher, and guide?

A: Nature is my friend. Life my philosopher and history is my guide.

Q: How does it feel to be the most wanted man in Sri Lanka today?

A: An Irish leader once remarked that when the British indict a person as a terrorist it implied that he was a true Irish patriot. Similarly, when the Sri Lanka government refers to me as the most wanted man it means that I am a true Tamil patriot. Hence, I feel proud to beindicted as a wanted man.

Q: Which was your most frustrating moment of your life?

A: I cannot pinpoint such a moment in my life. But the most frustrating aspect has been the betrayal of some of my trusted friends: those who pretended to be sincere to the cause. But turned out to be self-seeking opportunists.

Q: How did the split between you and Uma Maheshwaran come about?

A: I do not approve the formulation of the question In fact, the issue should not be viewed as a conflict or split between me and Uma Maheshwaran. It was a problem between an individual and the Tiger movement. I am in no way responsible for the problem. It was Maheshwaran who created the issue. A leader of a revolutionary movement should commit himself totally to the discipline of the organization. If a leader violates the basic rules and principles then there will be chaos and the organization will crumble. Uma Maheshwaran violated the rules of our movement and as a disciplinary action he was expelled by the central committee. Being the founder of the movement and the person who appointed Maheshwaran as the chairman, I had no other alternative but to uphold the decision of the central committee.

Q: Today one finds that there are several Eelam liberation groups. Invariably they work at cross-purposes. When the goal is the same, should not there be a unification process? After all, there is more to be gained by using your combined strength against the common enemy. In principle, are you opposed to the rival groups uniting?

A: I have clearly and explicitly stated that I am in favor of such unity moves. I even wrote to these groups on 5 September 1982 welcoming the idea and suggested that we all be prepared to form a united front of all other liberation groups, shed our differences and work out a common program of action. But. unfortunately, these groups failed to formulate a common working program. Instead, at every unity meeting they fought against each other and fell apart. The tragedy is that these groups have no sincere intentions to unite and there is a wide gap between their words and their deeds. I sincerely feel that these groups should set an example by forging unity among themselves rather than blaming the Tigers for their disunity. Once they unite, we are prepared to join hands with them.

“I am not alone. I lead a powerful national movement and a wide section of the Tamil masses support me.”

Q: Spokesmen of rival groups have told me that all except you are open to the idea of uniting. Is this true?

A: This is absolutely untrue. It is only a propaganda by other groups to undermine our movement.

Q: Are you alone in the struggle?

A: I am not alone. I lead a powerful national movement and a wide section of the Tamil masses support me.

Q: Do you experience moments of loneliness? And if you do. how do you combat it?

A: I have never felt lonely at any point of time. Loneliness is only a problem with those who are buried in their own individual egos. A true revolutionary transcends individuality and develops a collective, social consciousness. I live and struggle for a common collective cause.

Q: Do you have any regrets about not leading a normal life?

A: There are millions who, as you put it, lead a normal, ordinary existence. But we are fighting for a cause, for a noble ideal which gives us a profound spiritual satisfaction.

Q: Are you worried over the fact that most Tamil youths face a bleak future in Sri Lanka?

A: The youths are fighting a battle for freedom. I foresee a bright future for them.

Q: Is it true that more and more Tamil youths are taking part in the liberation struggle?

A: Yes, more and more youths are joining the revolution under our leadership since they have realized that armed struggle is the only way to redeem themselves and their society.

Q: How would you defend your movement from being called a “separatist” one. and that you all are not freedom fighters but “terrorists”?

A: It is wrong to call our movement “separatist”. We are fighting for independence based on the right to national self-determination of our people. Our struggle is for self-determination, for the restoration of our sovereignty in our homeland. We are not fighting for a division or separation of a country but rather, we are fighting to uphold the sacred right to live in freedom and dignity. In this sense, we are freedom fighters not terrorists.

Q: Would you rather die than be caught by the Sinhalese army?

A: I would prefer to die in honour rather than being caught alive by the enemy.

Q: The Liberation Tigers ofTamil Eelam (LTTE) staged the 23 July 1983 ambush in which 13 Sinhalese soldiers were killed. The ambush was allegedly the reason for the Sinhalese retaliation on innocent Tamils. Did you expect such a massive retaliation?

A: The July violence should not be assessed simply as a Sinhala retaliation for the guerrilla ambush. This view is a gross oversimplification of the event. The island has been plagued with anti-Tamil racial violence which erupts periodically over the years. There were violent racial holocausts even before the emergence of our movement. Violent riots erupted in Trincomalee a couple of weeks before the ambush. Therefore, the phenomenon of anti-Tamil racial violence cannot be traced to a single event. We are engaged in a protracted guerrilla warfare. There have been several guerrilla raids, several ambushes, and we have killed several Sinhala soldiers and policemen The July ambush was only a part of the warfare we are engaged in. It is incorrect to assume that one particular military operation has precipitated the entire violence. The July riots, you would have certainly observed, was not only aimed at the physical extermination of our people but it was also aimed the destruction of the economic power base of the Tamils in Colombo. Our view is that the July holocaust was a pre-planned. well-orchestrate genocidal pogrom against the Tamils, carried out by the racial elements of the ruling party. Initially, these racist elements did attempt to put the whole blame on the Tiger. Then, suddenly they blamed the left parties for the riots. But in actual fact, it is the racist leaders of the present government who should be held responsible for this tragic loss of life and property of our people.

Q: Why did you stage the July ambush? There are various versions afloat. According to some, it was an act of reprisal as four Tamil women had been raped. Based on my investigations I felt that, you had to prove a point to the Sinhalese army who were jubilant over the death of your close associate, Charles Anthony, leader of the military wing on 15 July. The point I guess that you had to assert was that the LTTE despite the loss of one of its ablest leaders was still strong and capable of taking on the Sinhalese army. Is this theory correct?

A: There is an element of truth your findings about Charles Anthony and the ambush. The attack was partly a retaliation, a punishment of the Sinhala army. But still we feel that the lives of 13 soldiers cannot compensate the life of a great revolutionary and freedom fighter like Charles. The ambush was also a part of the guerrilla warfare directed against the enemy.

Q: Do you think that the round table negotiations will lead to the formulation of a permanent settlement?

A: I am of the opinion that the round table conferences will not bring about a permanent settlement to the Tamil issue. Our view is based on the experience of several decades. The Sinhala leaders never made a sincere attempt to resolve the Tamil issue. The present negotiations will also meet the same fate All the major Sinhala parties and the Buddhist organisations are opposed to granting any form of regional autonomy to the Tamils. They are even opposed to giving minor concessions. Hence nothing substantial will emerge from this conference.

Q: Do you hold the TULF (Tamil United Liberation Front) leaders responsible for retarding the liberation struggle? Do you view them a betrayers?

A: It is true that the opportunistic politics of the TULFare retarding the liberation struggle. They have never taken any concrete steps to further the struggle. On the contrary, they give false hopes, create illusions, and try to keep our people in perpetual bondage. They entered politics only to further their selfish ends. They never had any sincere intentions to liberate our oppressed people, nor did they ever put forward any concrete programme of political action. They never expected that they would be caught in the storm of a liberation struggle. The flame of a revolution is fast spreading all over Tamil Eelam. But the TULF leaders are trying their best to smother the fire. In this sense you can term the TULF leaders as betrayers.

“I think that the government of India should recognise the fair and legitimate demands of our people and accept our right to self determination.”

Q: Is it true that the TULF leaders are afraid to go to their hometown and stay there not because of the Sinhalese but because of the Tigers?

A: They are frightened not of the Tigers, but of the fury of the people who voted them to power on the promise of an independent state for the Tamils.

Q: Do you think that India’s good offices will result in anything tangible?

A: India’s efforts have given a positive hope to our people. But I do not think that the Sinhala racist government will utilize India’s offer to resolve the problems of the Tamils.

Q: Ideally, what should India do in such a situation to help the Tamils?

A: I think that the government of India should recognize the fair and legitimate demands of our people and accept our right to self-determination.

Q: Would you suggest military intervention?

A: We have the courage, confidence and determination to fight and win our freedom. We should fight and free ourselves. But we do need India’s support and sympathy.

Q: What is your personal assessment of President Jayewardene?

A: If Jayewardene was a true Buddhist, I would not be carrying a gun.

Q: What do you think is Jayewardene’s intention behind holding these negotiations? Is he buying time?

A: There are several reasons behind holding these peace negotiations. Firstly, Jayewardene wants to appease the Indians. Secondly, he wants to restore the colossal damage the riots have done to the image of the country. Thirdly, it would help him to seek financial aid from western agencies. Fourthly, the President wants to buy time to build up the Sinhala military machine.

Q: Is President Jayewardene a prisoner in the hands of the hawks in his cabinet or is he acting on his own? Is he being pressurized by the Buddhist clergy?

A: Jayewardene is acting on his own. He has supreme powers. The hawks in the cabinet and the Buddhist clergy are behind him.

Q: What is the role of the Buddhist clergy in Sri Lanka?

A: The Buddhist clergy has played a dominant role in shaping the political trends in Sri Lanka. They have played a crucial role in whipping up anti-Tamil feelings among the Sinhala people.

Q: Do you think that the Buddhist clergy is well on its way to establishing Sri Lanka as a Sinhala Buddhist nation?

A: Sri Lanka is already a Sinhala Buddhist nation and the Buddhist clergy has contributed a lot for this cause.

Q: Is it the result of the Buddhist clergy’s chauvinism or is it the result of a natural alignment following the Catholic clergy’s association with the Tamil?

A: The Buddhist clergy’s chauvinism has played a significant role in the establishment of a racist state system. Sections of the Tamil Catholic clergy has sympathies with the Tamil cause but the Sinhala Catholic clergy displays strong Sinhala national chauvinism and is opposed to the Tamil demands.

Q: Do you have ties with other liberation movements of the world? Which are the organizations who provide training and arms to the LTTE?

A: We have ties with other world liberation movements. I cannot answer the second part of your question.

Q: Which country in the world has proved to be most sympathetic to your cause?

A: I do not wish to comment on this matter.

Q: What is your ideological commitment?

A: Revolutionary socialism.

Q: Do you expect attacks on the Tamils in the future?

A: Yes, I do. The forces of racism and fascism are actively working against the Tamils in Trincomalee and Vavuniya. Tamils will never be safe until they establish an independent state of Tamil Eelam with a powerful patriotic army to protect their life and property.

Q: Is it true that Israelis are training Sinhalese army men on the techniques of anti-guerrilla warfare?

A: So far, we haven’t got any confirmed reports about the presence of Israeli military experts in Sri Lanka. If the reports are true, I won’t be surprised. Sri Lanka is turning into a base for US imperialism and its agents. Whoever the trainers are or whatever their expertise maybe, the Sinhala army cannot crush the will and determination of the Tigers. We have a great moral power, a supreme sense of sacrifice, and a noble cause.

Q: What is your reaction to the alleged heavy induction of arms and ammunition from the United States to Sri Lanka?

A: Induction of US arms is not only a threat to the Tamil freedom movement but also to India’s national security. America’s objective, as you will certainly be aware, is not simply confined to helping the Sri Lankan army to crush the Tamil liberation struggle. Their ultimate aim is to secure a naval base at Trincomalee. Such a happening will convert the Indian Ocean into a war zone, and will increase the tension prevalent in the region.

Q: If and when Eelam is achieved what sort of a nation do you conceive it to be?

A: Tamil Eelam will be a socialist state. By socialism I mean an egalitarian society where human freedom and individual liberties will be guaranteed, where all forms of oppression and exploitation will be abolished. It will be a free society where our people will have maximum opportunity to develop their economy and promote their culture. Tamil Eelam will be a neutral state, committed to non-alignment and friendly to India, respecting her regional policies, particularly the policy of making the Indian Ocean a zone of peace.

Q: In your estimate how long will it take to achieve this Eelam?

A: 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.

Courtesy: Sunday Magazine, India 11-17 March 1984

Realated: On YouTube: Sri Lanka:”Land of Injustice”-by Anita Pratap

27 comments February 29th, 2008

‘Only effective proposals will be a litmus test for Pirapaharan’

The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has completely rejected the 13th Amendment as a solution to the Tamil question and gone further to declare that it could not even prove an effective basis for the commencement of talks. In an interview with The Sunday Leader, TNA Parliamentary Group Leader, R. Sampanthan said that the inadequacy was best demonstrated by the many efforts to present acceptable proposals to form the basis for talks undertaken by successive heads of state. He said that the 13th Amendment concept did not emerge from the APRC but was imposed on the APRC by the President. The Trincomalee District MP claimed that the real issue was not Pirapaharan’s insincerity to peace but the failure of successive governments to present devolution proposals that could challenge him and put him to the litmus test. He added that it was an absolute shame that a party like the UPFA entered into an agreement with an organisation like the TMVP to create a false impression that the UPFA was acceptable to the Tamil people. Excerpts:

By Dilrukshi Handunnetti

Q: President Mahinda Rajapakse has declared that the government’s solution to the ethnic conflict will be ‘the 13th Amendment plus one.’ Is this a feasible solution?

A: The 13th Amendment was enacted around 1988. Since then, successive governments in this country during the periods of Presidents R. Premadasa, Chandrika Kumaratunga and even Mahinda Rajapakse, during his two years in office, were dedicated to the task of evolving a set of constitutional proposals to find a solution to the conflict.

That in itself is an admission that the said amendment was not a solution to the conflict taking into account the manner in which the conflict has developed.

We did not contest the provincial council elections after the 13th Amendment. When I say we, I refer to the authentic TULF that comprised Amirthalingam, Sivasithambaram, myself, Neelan Tiruchelvan and several others. Today it is represented by only one person.

We did not contest for a reason. We informed the Indian government that the constitutional amendment was woefully inadequate, not durable and in no way a solution. This was proved subsequently. The new body could not independently deal with agrarian services and regional transport. The Supreme Court held that the powers of the center were adequate for the center to do anything. Even simple things like the two areas I mentioned could not be decided upon by the PCs.

The 13th Amendment is certainly no solution to the Tamil question and cannot even be the basis for the commencement of anything that can move towards a resolution of the conflict. This is proven beyond doubt by the fact that since its introduction, successive presidents have attempted to propose solutions more durable.

Q: In that case, do you think the President is being very hopeful that the affected parties would settle for what he is willing to offer, which now appears to be a solution proposed 20 years ago?

A: The President must remember in the first instance that when appointing the APRC, he also appointed an experts panel comprising 17 persons – 12 Sinhalese, four Tamils and one Muslim to come up with proposals and help the APRC. He did this for the reason that even he recognised that a new set of proposals was required to attempt seeking a resolution to the conflict.

Eleven persons of this committee came up with proposals that went far beyond the 13th Amendment as the contours of a political solution. Everybody knows that the said report could have been a useful basis for the commencement of useful talks at the APRC. Unfortunately, that was consigned to the dustbin. Thereafter, Prof. Tissa Vitharana came up with a new report based on the reports of the majority and minority experts. Even his report went far beyond the 13th Amendment. The discussion at the APRC took place on that basis.

The 13th Amendment concept did not emerge from the APRC. In my view, the President imposed it on the APRC. That is the inevitable conclusion we had to come to.

While some parties at the APRC level strived to develop something of value, certain extreme parties like the JHU and the MEP were having direct contact with the President, independent of the APRC, conveying their apprehensions about the progressive thinking of the APRC.

It is my impression that the President stifled the exercise, frequently summoned the APRC in recent times to inhibit and curb its activities. Perhaps instructions were also issued as to what can and cannot be done, hence the dilution of the process. These directives were also in line with the thinking of the JHU and the MEP.

When the President came under increasing international pressure to come up with a set of acceptable devolution proposals, he looked for a way out and clung to the 13th Amendment as a lifeline.

Q: You mean, he fell back on the 13th Amendment, though never fully implemented, and 20 years old?

A: If he is speaking of this amendment, he should abide by it. What came out from the 13th Amendment was devolution in a merged Northeastern Province. He can’t think of it without accepting the concept of a merged northeast. If he wants to revert to this, then he must revert to the position enunciated by the Indo- Sri Lanka Agreement which was a merged northeast.

That existed for 18 years under Presidents J. R. Jayewardene, R. Premadasa, D. B. Wijetunga and Chandrika Kumaratunga. Mahinda Rajapakse as a minister and as a prime minister also accepted this position while serving Kumaratunga’s governments.

Q: One argument often put forward by southern political parties is that Velupillai Pirapaharan is insincere in negotiating peace. Do you agree? If not why?

A: The litmus test in regard to that would be to come up with a set of proposals that would challenge him. When Rajapakse assumed presidential office, in his ‘Martyr’s Day’ speech, Pirapaharan called Rajapakse a ‘pragmatic person’ and called upon him to come up with proposals that could meet the reasonable aspirations of the Tamil people.

The question is not Pirapaharan’s insincerity but whether President Rajapakse has managed to put on the table a progressive set of proposals thereby issuing a serious challenge to Pirapaharan.

Not just him, no southern government has. If there was, there could be no justification for the continuity of the armed struggle. The Tamil people are overwhelmingly prepared to support such proposals. Then the armed struggle will have to come to an end.

If the P-TOMS agreement was implemented or an Interim Self Governing Authority (ISGA) was set up, things would have evolved. I am aware that the LTTE was very interested in the resettlement of the war and the tsunami displaced. They would never have been able to destroy what they were instrumental in rehabilitating. But that never happened.

I am not saying that everything is right with the LTTE. Nor do I imply that they have not made grave mistakes. They have. But the fact of the matter is that the Sri Lankan state has never come up with progressive proposals that constituted a challenge to Pirapaharan. He was therefore never put to the litmus test of having to either reject or accept proposals designed to meet Tamil aspirations and also acceptable to the country and the international community.

Q: Can the government succeed in its military efforts in your opinion? Is it likely that the government intends catering to Tamil aspirations only after achieving its military objectives?

A: As long as the struggle of the LTTE can be linked to the just demands of the Tamil people which have not been fulfilled, it is my view that the government will not be able to succeed in its efforts to achieve a military victory.

They may weaken the LTTE but there cannot be a military victory in the real sense. The government should not think that a military victory could be a substitute to a reasonable political solution. If the government thinks that a military victory is possible and thereafter they can ram down the throats of Tamils some political solution, they are sadly mistaken. The Tamils will not settle for such.

Q: President Rajapakse recently told newspaper editors that the north was not being cleared to capture territory whereas the military commanders have pledged to remove every trace of a mini state within the north. Do you think these military advances are as simplistic as portrayed by Rajapakse?

A: I have not the slightest doubt that what the President desires is a military victory. This is not because he thinks that a military victory is a solution to the conflict but because he is unable to come up with a political solution to the problem.

He thinks if Tamils are subjugated through military means then a political solution of his choice, acceptable to his extremist allies, could be rammed down the Tamils’ collective throats. It will prove a sad mistake for Tamils are resilient enough to withstand any such pressure.

Q: Is it your contention that the President is unable to pursue a political solution due to being held ‘prisoner’ by extremist allies?

A: There is no question about his status as a political prisoner. He is in bondage. Yet, I do not conclude that he is of the same wavelength as the JHU and the MEP.

But if he was not, the MoU signed with the UNP gave him a glorious opportunity to disengage himself from these political formations and think differently and arrive at consensus with the UNP which would have conferred the necessary two third majority in parliament and provided the required support in the country. He had his opportunity to try what the Conservatives and Labour did with regard to the Northern Ireland question.

He did not pursue the MoU and refused to utilise the golden opportunity to strengthen himself. These factors go against the President and portray him as one in line with his extremist allies.

Q: Amidst the conflict, the economy is badly hit. Is that not a high priority for parties like the TNA?

A: We are certainly concerned about the peoples’ constant suffering. The middle and lower middle classes have it tough. The majority of the masses are greatly suffering and are being impoverished daily.

It is the government that does not seem too concerned about it. They seem to think that if a military victory is possible, all these issues could be neatly swept under the carpet. That shows both the insensitivity and callousness of this administration.

Q: During the recent budget vote, TNA legislators were largely absent. There was the abduction of some MPs’ family members. But by such abstinence, haven’t you also given into terror tactics and therefore paved the way for repeats?

A: It is a very difficult position when close relations of parliamentarians are abducted. They were kidnapped by the TMVP with whom the government has now struck an unholy political alliance to contest in Batticaloa.

When they are threatened with death, a political party is unable to extend its whip to compel those MPs to vote. That was a serious question that affected individual members. We could not be so insensitive to their concerns and feelings.

But we appealed to the government as it was well within the powers of the government to ensure the release of the abducted. It is not that we kept quiet. We raised it in parliament and with the Speaker and the President. But nothing happened because the state was quite unwilling to intervene and enforce the law.

The law enforcement machinery has collapsed. It’s paralysed. It clearly shows that the state can behave in the most unprincipled way in order to ensure their political survival.

Q: You have raised the issue of MPs’ security regularly. Three Tamil legislators have been killed since November 2005, two from the TNA. Following Thyagarajah Maheswaran’s killing, there was a move to enhance parliamentarians’ security. Are TNA legislators now enjoying increased security?

A: Our security has not been enhanced. Our members are naturally concerned and apprehensive about their security vulnerabilities. We had Natarajah Raviraj and Joseph Pararajasingham brutally killed, former on a public highway within a high security zone and the latter inside a church. Maheswaran was killed in a temple. These incidents have a serious impact on other parliamentarians. But what can we do? It is up to the state to make MPs feel secure.

Forget MPs. Take journalists. What happened to the inquiry into Sivaram’s death? He was a brilliant journalist. I raised the matter in parliament and requested international involvement in the investigation. Here, inquiries are conducted in such a manner that even if arrests are made, they will be released subsequently. We have no faith in the law enforcement and inquiring agencies here.

Q: Nominations have been called for selected local bodies in the east. The UNP has already decided not to contest and you were quoted alleging the holding of a poll would prove ’suicidal’ at this point.

A: There is an organisation, the TMVP that is brazenly committed to a gun culture and more so in the east. A number of persons have been abducted; a series of extra judicial killings and extortions too have taken place. These incidents continue. Many have disposed of their vehicles fearing they would be simply taken away. There is so much of fear created that people will not dare oppose these brute forces.

Q: But then there could be a silent protest of not voting?

A: The law enforcement machinery has totally collapsed. If the LTTE had been present in the northeast at one point of time, at least in the government controlled territory, the law enforcement machinery was functional and in force. People relied on it.

So previously, candidates and voters could effectively depend upon the law enforcement agencies. But due to these paramilitary groups, things have drastically changed. There is the law of the jungle. The law enforcement agencies are now hand in glove with these militants, conniving together and condoning their actions.

This is the big difference. That’s why we have decided we would not risk it. Some of our candidates and elected members have been killed during previous local authority elections. We have no wish to expose our candidates and supporters to brute forces. This election is a farce and a joke. Nobody will take it seriously.

When local polls were held previously in Tamil dominant areas the ITAK swept the polls, as did the SLMC in Muslim dominant areas. The same thing will happen in Batticaloa if not for the TMVP.

Q: Won’t that cause your electoral base to erode?

A: No. The TMVP leader went abroad on a diplomatic passport and had a visa issued on the strength of a Foreign Ministry note. He was driven up to the aeroplane in a car along the tarmac. Today, he is cooling his heels in a British detention centre. He reportedly went to attend a conference on climate change sponsored by the JHU minister in this government. It is this man’s deputy who leads the TMVP in Batticaloa today.

The Tamil people have a long history with regard to their democratic processes dating back to 1956. Since then, they have consistently spoken and voted in support of a certain policy. That’s an indisputable fact. Those in the TMVP today were a party to the Oslo Communiqu‚ and to the ISGA proposals. That was the same political thinking that has existed for decades.

Today the TMVP finds a saviour in Mahinda Rajapakse and supports his policies. This is not what the people have voted for over 50 years at a series of elections. Tamil people are aware of this history and this fraudulent election will never erode our voter base or make them change their stance.

Q: But the government claims the east is cleared and simply wishes to complete the exercise by holding elections there?

A: President Rajapakse’ singular purpose is to achieve a military victory. He is under tremendous international pressure to come up with a political solution and finds himself quite out of depth there.

He has sought refuge in the 13th Amendment and knows that he should show that something is being done. He believes that the outside world can be convinced that he is doing his best. In doing what he is doing, he is primarily cheating himself.

Q: It was reported that the UPFA has signed an agreement with the TMVP to contest for the Batticaloa MC under one banner. Isn’t this official recognition of a link between them whilst conferring political legitimacy upon a renegade faction?

A: It’s a shame that the PA which is the main party in government has signed an agreement with an organisation like the TMVP to create a false impression that the PA is acceptable to the Tamil people. It only demonstrates PA’s political bankruptcy and the poverty of its thinking with regard to the Tamil question. They think by such desperate actions, they can win the support of the Tamil people.

Q: The Indian Premier, Manmohan Singh and British Premier, Gordon Brown in a recent joint statement called for a ‘credible devolution package’ as a key contribution to finding a political solution acceptable to all communities within the framework of a united Sri Lanka. Do you think the government is ready to drop the word ‘unitary’ in favour of ‘united’?

A: Obviously not. In my view, three very significant phases in the APRC process should be considered as manifestations of the President’s reluctance.

One was the abandoning of the majority experts’ committee proposals. Second was the abrogation of the MoU between the PA and the UNP. The third, the SLFP’s devolution proposals that contemplated a unitary structure of government with the district as the unit of devolution. They all reflected presidential thinking.

I don’t think the President has accepted that there can be no devolution within a unitary framework. This is one of the fundamental flaws in the 13th Amendment. This is also why the provincial councils could not make progress with regard to even agrarian services and provincial transport. That’s why the Supreme Court ruled that the centre could take whatever action it desired.

Not just the Indian and British Premiers, several other countries, the Co-Chairs, the EU, and the US independently, and India repeatedly, have called upon the President to come up with acceptable proposals within a united framework. Some have used the word ‘federal’ explicitly. But there has been no response to these calls.

This is the crux of the matter. If these proposals were prepared to accommodate these views, that would have been the litmus test to Pirapaharan and the LTTE.

Q: Do you think that India is currently keen to play a decisive role in helping Sri Lanka to end the conflict despite an unhappy previous attempt?

A:India must play a role. India is a country very close to all of us-close to Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims alike. We all came from there.

Unfortunately, India was betrayed by both the Sri Lankan government and the Tamils. There may have been mistakes all round. But India also has a responsibility to help resolve this country’s conflict in a reasonable and acceptable manner. India must play that role and all of us must welcome that role.

12 comments January 26th, 2008