Archive for October, 2007
by Pradeep Peiris & Anupama M. Ranawana
Ranil Wickremasinghe has been labelled as the United National Party’s most unsuccessful leader to date. Whether you agree with this statement or not, it is a solid fact that this gentleman has lost a total of twelve elections during his tenure as UNP chief. Mrs. Kumaratunge probably felt rather blessed to have him as opposition leader during her presidential years, but her ex-colleague Mahinda Rajapakse seems to have benefited the most from Wickremasinghe, as the latter’s track record as opposition leader is currently at its worst point. Not only was he unable to portray the image of an aggressive opponent, but he has also had no luck picking the right and timely issue against the government, wasting time playing petty politics with Bhikkus and Benz cars and so on. With Mangala Samaraweera’s defection, Wickremasinghe is now attempting to create a unified opposition under the umbrella of the Jathika Sabhava. As a step towards this he recently announced his abandonment of the federal proposal. And once again, things backfire.
History does, after all, repeat
Those who have some understanding of the nation’s post independence political history will be familiar with both the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact of 1957 and the Dudley -Chelvanayagam Pact of 1965, two events which show that even in the early stages of nation building, even those parties that held the majority were unable to stand strong in the presence of extremist outcry. If one looks at recent political history, one recalls a courageous and progressive Constitutional document that was drafted between the years of 1997 and 2000 by such eminent persons as G.L Peiris and Neelan Thiruchelvam. These three great years of work went to waste when the Kumaratunge government found it difficult to defend this document and stand up to extreme pressure from Sinhala Buddhist chauvinists. The only difference is that in the previous instances it was the nation’s leader who gave into nationalist voices but Wickramasinghe decided to drop what he advocated while being the opposition leader.
[Ranil Wickremasinghe, UNP Leader]
Thereby, Wickremasinghe’s latest detour once again confirms the fact that any strong policy stand taken by x, y or z party will not be advocated for long as it is soon weakened by stronger political voices. Cowed down by chauvinistic uproar, Wickremasinghe now changes track, opting for an idea that he hopes will win him stronger support. And perhaps, he has. Some of the remarks made by JVP firebrands like Lalkantha and Aruna Dissanayake seem to suggest that the JVP and UNP are now embarking on an intricate rite of courtship; attacking, opposing but intending eventually to seduce each other. Indeed, the latest moves made by the UNP certainly seem to have been made with the specific aim of avoiding any untoward JVP criticism. With the betrayal and defection of eighteen of his own parties and someone the verge of sliding out Wickramasinghe may not see any other feasible option before him other than bringing about a marriage of ‘untrue minds.’ On the other hand, however, Rajapakse and his band of brothers have managed to set a strong agenda for war that is largely rhetorical and somehow distracts the potential for public uproar at the present economic situation. Wickremasinghe is possibly of the sentiment that an entirely anti-governmental stance would be one that is completely unheard and uncared for. Adding his voice to the majority allows, he may hope, for him to have a place on the nation’s dance card.
Dropping that “F” word.
However, the present UNP policy change seems to suggest that the UNP and its leadership has succumbed to a kind of defeatist syndrome, in a continuation of the UNP’s recent attitude where it sets its own goals and agendas according to those taken by other parties. It is interesting to inquire into whether the policy changes were a result of the conviction of the leadership or a tactical move that deviates quite sharply from the party’s true ideology. Perhaps the junior members of the party may not been fully convinced on the power sharing model but we can be assured that Wickremasinghe believed in it and advocated strongly for it. In fact, to some extent he sacrificed his political career for it. Knowing very well that it was not a popular idea, he still stood by a move towards power sharing during a period when the LTTE shamelessly violated the Cease Fire Agreement, thereby placing a blot on Wickremasinghe’s political career. Hence, it is rational to conclude that the UNP’s latest policy change is completely tactical.
- What will he gain?
So let us ponder whether this strategic move will yield anything of value to the United National Party. Firstly, will the party achieve any substantial electoral gain from making this policy change? If one looks at past election results, and here I refer to the 2005 polls, where the UNP won substantial majorities in eleven out of twenty two districts.
For instance, in Nuwara-Eliya, the UNP won over seventy per cent of the vote, while losing Hambantota to the UPFA by only 28.2 points. The results from the North and East show that if Mr. Pirabakaran did not obstruct Tamil participation in the 2005 election, Wickramasinghe would have received an overwhelming majority of the total votes. The explosive speeches of Wimal Weerawansa kept Wickremasinghe behind Rajapakse by only 2% of the vote. The JVP repeatedly claims that Ranil’s 2005 defeat in the presidential poll shows a strong public mandate against power sharing. If this is the case, then the UNP should consider the 48.43% of the vote they received as an indicator that the general public are at least willing to tolerate the federalism. One can conclude from this that Ranil did not lose the presidential battle due to his firm stand on federalism and he will not win future elections just for dropping this policy stand.
According to Social Indicator’s 2005 pre-election survey report, the public placed more trust in Ranil than in Mahinda by 6 and 2 points based on each leaders ability to handle the peace process and the Cost of Living. Where Ranil fell short was in his ability to safeguard religious and cultural values. Mahinda beat Ranil only by 2 points in his capability of protecting the country. This shows that the people have appreciated Ranil’s commitment to solving the country’s ethnic conflict and stabilize the country’s economy. Therefore Ranil should be satisfied with the reception he has received for his policies, even if their content were a far cry from popular chauvinistic thought. So, Ranil should stick to what he is qualified to do instead of trying to preach a new version of the ‘ariastangika margaya’ for which the JHU holds the copyright.
If the UNP expect to win the hearts of the ‘JVP sahodorayo’ by dropping the Federal Idea, they are certainly dreaming. There are many considerable differences between the two parties which will place heavy obstacles in the path of any political coalition. Unless the JVP suffers from an internal split based on the present debate on whether to support Mahinda or not, it is completely irrational to expect an alliance between the UNP and the JVP. Even if such miracles come to pass, the UNP would only increase their electoral votes by a mere 10%. Hence, it would be more rational to make an effort to woo the SLFPers as crossovers usually take place between the two main parties than with small parties like the JVP that cater to specific niches of society. At the same time, the UNP would be wrong to spend time hunting any JHU votes. We make this argument for the simple reason that those persons who presently vote for the JHU come from a traditional UNP voter base. Unless the JHU is able to drum up another religious conspiracy, it is hard to believe that these monks will be blessed with more than one seat.
Conclusion
Ranil’s latest ‘tactical move’ shows his utter inability to understand his own constituencies. Perhaps it is a symptom of the UNP’s current defeatist syndrome, but does not change the fact that the UNP should have thought more about making a worthwhile strategic move instead of simply giving in to popular thought.
What pushed us to write this article is the damage we see that the UNP’s policy shift will have on the future of this country. Since independence, our majoritarian electoral process has obstructed the creation of a national identity amongst the many communities who share this small island. Time and again, the Sinhala community has violently resisted any move to share power with their Tamil and Muslim counterparts. Every attempt towards creating a consensual democratic process in the country has failed completely, legitimizing violent struggle, not democratic deliberation. Mr. Wickremasinghe’s eloquence and seemingly erudite nature made one believe that he was the one political leader who we could count on to truly solve the conflict through a power sharing arrangement. But he too, fails us. He, like many of his predecessors, chooses the easy route and weakens against the pressure of mounting Sinhala extremism. In order that he does not lose face, he denies that he has made any policy change stating that he is simply dropping the unpopular term ‘federalism’. According to his latest press conference he says that his party continues to opt for a ‘meaningful” power sharing arrangement. “Meaningful” power sharing carries with it any number of connotations, subject, of course, to personal interpretation. Ironically, Wickramasinghe begins to sound like the current incumbent, hiding behind terms and playing with words without giving them any substantiation. One should not be surprised if Wickremasinghe’s ‘meaningful’ sharing of power one day translates to nothing more than the decentralization of power.
October 10th, 2007
by Rajan Philips
“The two WCs!” That was S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike poking fun years ago at the political abbreviations of the plantations-S. Thondaman’s CWC add the rival DWC of Abdul Aziz. Last week, it was ‘one double U-turn’ for the grand old party that Bandaranaike reluctantly co-founded and rapidly left in desperation. Whether it was intentional reversal by the UNP or inadvertent misinformation by the media, the UNP’s repositioning and re-repositioning on devolution caught everyone off guard. It brought the Party some headlines that it has been struggling to have for some time. And it certainly gave a new zest to the devolution debate that was going tedious and fruitless.
The first alleged announcement from the UNP was that the Party was ditching the ‘Federal’ label from its proposals for solving the national problem. Depending on who was writing, the UNP move was either credited as Machiavellian or dumped as Kotelawallian-after former Prime Minister Sir John Kotelawalla’s 1955 flip-flop on the language question. Anandasangaree, who normally needs a pickaxe to open his mouth to say a word against the Rajapakse government, was quick on the oral draw against Ranil Wickremasinghe. Even Mangala Smaraweera was reported to have been on the telephone trying to persuade the UNP leader not to give up on devolution.
On the other side, UNP-friendly editorialists were pleased with the levelling of the ethnic playing field in the South and were starting to advise the Tamil leadership (such as who?) to get used to making moderate claims now that the UNP and the Rajapakse-SLFP have found common ground on devolution. While N. Sathiya Moorthy from Chennai also chimed in with the same advice, there was speculation in Colombo about a national government comprising the two main parties with Ranil Wickremasinghe as Prime Minister.
The reactions, it turned out, were too quick to be good. Before the week was over, the UNP delivered a “Special Statement” that appeared to be a sober second thought. The statement is a pithily written political circular that lays out what every Sri Lankan who is honest and intelligent at the same time about the burning ethnic question would like to hear from a political organization. Curiously, the mainstream media appears to have all but ignored it. May be they did not like what they saw in the Special Statement.
New UNP: Devolve power, ditch labels
Entitled, “UNP for a Credible Power Sharing Arrangement without Federal or Unitary Labels”, the Special Statement sets out what are unexceptionable premises for a Southern political party with national claims: opposition to separation, military response to terrorism, and a political solution to the causes of separation and terrorism. The political solution must be based on cessation of violence, observance of human rights, and acceptance of democracy. It must address the grievances of the Tamils, the Muslim fears in the North-East, and the concerns among “some sections of the Sinhalese” that a political solution based on devolution will lead to separation.
Significantly, while the media reports on the first U-turn indicated that the UNP had reverted back to the 13th Amendment position from the Oslo declaration to explore a federal solution, the Special Statement gives the lie to this interpretation. The statement indicates a position of flexibility about the units of devolution implying both Provincial and larger Regional Councils. The power sharing will involve the national government, Provincial/Regional Councils and Local Authorities. What is more, there is a specific reference to the need for a system to safeguard devolved powers. Except for their inclusion by way of rejection in the title, the unitary and federal labels find no place in the statement.
In the immediate term, the statement calls for a cessation of hostilities arranged by India and the Co-chairs under a revised Ceasefire Agreement, and for the inclusion of a Muslim delegation and other parties and groups in the peace talks with the LTTE. In the end, a negotiated political settlement ratified by the people of all communities in a referendum will be the basis for a constitutional amendment that will be passed by parliament and again submitted to the people for final approval.
Easier said than done, but better than saying and doing the same old, same old, that has taken us nowhere. The fact that the UNP has made the statement does not mean the UNP and its leader are capable of delivering on its promises. It may be that President Rajapakse is the only leader capable of leading a successful referendum campaign for a political solution and constitutional change at the present time. But the question is: what is the political solution that President Rajapakse will put to the test in a referendum?
A few weeks ago, President Rajapakse was hailed as the lone defender of the unitary state in Sri Lanka and, in the good old English imperial way, was compared to Horatius Cocles, the legendary defender of ancient Rome’s gateway at the Tiber bridge. If the UNP had stuck with its first U-turn, there would have been two defenders of the unitary state-Rajapakse and Wickremasinghe-and ‘two captains of the gate!’ instead of one, to modify Lord Macaulay’s English imperial rendering of the Roman Legend. But the UNP’s second U-turn has left Mahinda Rajapakse alone at the bridge.
New SLFP: United Lanka
But Mahinda Rajapakse has the option of leaving the broken bridge at the chauvinistic extreme and building a new bridge between Lanka’s different communities by moving to the political centre and a position of moderation. He will not be accused of plagiarizing if he takes over the contents of the UNP’s Special Statement and makes them his own. In fact, there is not too much distance between the UNP’s Special Statement and his own statements. At the UN, for example, he acknowledged the reality of Tamil grievances and aspirations, giving the lie to some of his cheerleaders back home who with adversarial intoxication speak about ‘perceived Tamil grievances, and undefined aspirations’. President Rajapakse is no doubt aware that the substance of the UNP’s Special Statement is already well entrenched among many Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims, even among the members of his own Party.
In a revealing but so far unappreciated media interview, Dilan Perera, one of the new generation of SLFP leaders, rejected the view that all SLFPers are in the communal cauldron with the JVP and the JHU, swearing by the unitary mantra. Describing his personal position in the SLFP, he said that he belongs “to the camp that supports the ‘united’ character. The word unitary is creating dissension. But it should not be so because until 1972, we never had the word unitary in our constitution. Despite the word unitary lacking constitutional recognition prior to 1972, Sri Lanka never got divided. History bears testimony to the sharing of power in an undivided Sri Lanka centuries ago. We were one country and the absence of one word did not divide us. I stand for a united Lank. I think that’s the camp the majority of the SLFPers belong to.” Mr. Perera had the courage of his conviction to admit that he is “a firm supporter of a federal form of government and not scared to use the word ‘federal’ but saw the need to “move beyond words”.
There have been other new sources of encouragement for devolution, notably Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva, who almost on the eve of the UNP’s first U-turn, weighed in with the call for the implementation of a meaningful devolution package to facilitate a negotiated settlement to the national problem. “End bloodshed, empower provinces-CJ”, was how an English daily entitled its news story. According to the story, the CJ “urged the government not to hold on to power but devolve powers without hesitation, without obstructing the State or the people of Sri Lanka.”
The UNP’s Special Statement and President Rajapakse’s promises at the UN throw a new spotlight on the deliberations and the potential outcome of the APRC. If both Mahinda Rajapakse and Ranil Wickremasinghe mean what they say and say what they mean, they are in honour bound to jointly encourage the APRC to conclude its work and produce its recommendations. The two men should then jointly ensure that the recommendations are implemented within a specified timeframe.
October 6th, 2007
By: Dr.Rajasingham Narendran
Ramayana is an epic that pre-dates the Mahabharatha. The Ramayana, though originally composed by Valmiki Rishi in Sanskrit, has been reproduced in many languages through the centuries. The Tamil version composed by Kamban, reflects the best in Tamil poetry, values and culture, although following the line of the story in Valmiki’s original. The Ramayana has also influenced the cultures as far flung as Thailand, Indonesia, Timor, Philippines and Cambodia. Lanka plays an important role in the Ramayana, as the plot unfolds in its manifold facets representing all aspects of human life, behaviour, thought and values, set against the background of what are eternal truths, un-impeachable ethics and divine values. The lessons to be gleaned from the Ramayana, will remain valid and valuable to humankind, as long as we aspire towards higher humanistic goals and cease our head long descent into soulless consumerism and the accompanying barbarism. It is an epic made for eternity. It is a story holding a meaning to males and females of all ages, pursuits and stations in life. It is a priceless jewel in humankind’s crown!
[King Ravana, at Thirukoneswaram Temple, Trincomalee - Pic:HA]
Ramayana is a complex story, involving the life and times of King Dasaratha of Ayodhya, his wives-Kausalya, Kaikeyi and Sumithra, his four sons-Rama, Laxshmana, Bharatha and Sathrukna, Rama’s consort- Sitha; King Ravana of Lanka and his brothers-Kumbakarna and Vibhishana, his sister-Soorpanaka, his wife-Mandothari, his uncle-Maarisan, his children-principally Indrajit; the Vanaras led by Vaali, Sukreevan, Hanuman, Angathan and Jambavaan; and the big bird-Jadaayu. Rama is a Vishnu Avatar- a re-incarnation of Lord Vishnu (The ‘Protector’ in the Hindu Trinity) and Ravana, a Rakshasha /Asura, who is a great devotee of Lord Siva (the ‘Destroyer’ in the Hindu Trinity) and a great exponent of carnatic (South Indian Classical) music. Hanuman is ‘Vaayu Puthalvan’ (son of the ‘God of winds’). Many perceive Rama as the hero (representing ‘Good’) and Ravana as the villain (representing ‘Evil’) in this epic. However, as the story unfolds in all its complexity, this simple classification does not hold water on many occasions. Both Rama and Ravana come out as great men, who are fallible at times. They are better than most of us at their best-characters to be emulated, and fallible as all of us are at their worst- providing lessons on what to avoid. The essence of Ramayana transcends its principal characters and reaches out to humankind with eternal values worthy of emulation.
The epic Ramayana re-tells a prevailing legend involving the lives and times of Rama and Ravana, thousand of years after the real events, in a poetical format and in a religious context. The characters represent personalities that are super-human in many dimensions and hence it should not surprise us that they are considered divine or blessed by the divine in this epic. There are temples dedicated to Mahatma Gandhi springing up in India today- a day and age in which we consider ourselves to have become ‘rational’ men and women! Astronomical calculations indicate that the Rama-Ravana war took place 880,148 years ago as of April 2006. Valmiki’s Ramayana (Travels of Rama) was probably written between 4th to 2nd centuries BC. The Kamba Ramayana popular among the Tamils was written in the 13th century A.D. Whether Valmiki poetized and recorded an oral history transmitted down the centuries, or based his work on written records lost to us now will be never known. However, the inherent complexity of the story, and its imaginative and instructive presentation in this epic, point to a golden period of human history we have lost, probably forever.
In Sri Lanka, the Sinhala nationalists, who had hitherto clung to the history as told in the Mahawamsa (6th century AD) as the rationale for their claims to exclusive ownership of the island, have increasingly in recent years delved much further back into the past, to claim exclusive lineage from Ravana and his people. In a publication titled ‘Sinhela (Hela) History’ (http:// www. Sinhalacentre.demon.co.uk/helahistory.htm), Sinhela (Hela) history is defined as the story of the indigenous inhabitants of Heladiva (’Sri Lanka’). It claims that the ‘Sinhela (Hela) Nation’ possesses an unwritten history of 30,000 years and written history of 2500 years. This publication also states that the ‘Unitary Heladiva’ – Hela meaning ‘Pristine’ and Diva meaning ‘Island’- (emphasis mine) is the land of the indigenous Sinhela (Hela) people whose culture and traditions are based on Theravada Buddhist teachings and practices. A ‘Hela’ is defined as anyone who identifies with the Hela culture; practices Hela traditions; and recognizes Heladiva as the motherland of the Hela nation.
It claims that the once united Hela nation (the indigenous people of Heladiva) at the time of Vijaya’s arrival, was divided into four tribes, which still spoke the one language – ‘Hela Basa’ and because there were four Hela tribes the island was known at that time as ‘Sivuhela’ (’Sivu’ meaning four) or by the shorter version of ‘Sihela’. The four Hela tribes were – Yakka, Nagha, Asura and Raksha. Significantly, this article also states that, “Today, the Sinhela’s (Hela) are a bewildered race facing a situation they have been unable to comprehend. Given the gross distortions peddled by the immigrant ethnic Tamils, as well as by the immigrant ethnic-Tamil-controlled-Government (emphasis mine) with its control of the news media, the real situation of the country has been concealed from the Sinhela (Hela) nation”.
It is also further stated that one of Heladiva’s celebrated Kings was Ravana who, according to Indian history, first invented the airplane, 5000years ago. It is claimed that the Indian festival of Divali commemorates the ultimate defeat of King Ravana by the overwhelming numbers of Indian troops of Rama and Hanuman. The ten heads attributed to Ravana is explained as a tribute to Ravana’s intellectual might, which gave birth to his (at least two-seater) aeroplane. Ravana’s ten- headedness is further explained as the colloquial way of saying that he had the brains, or intelligence, of ten men.
P.K.Balachandran in an article titled ‘ Ravana is hero for Sinhala nationalists’ (Hindustan Times of 4th Nov.2007) states, ” The Ramayana is not part of mainstream Sinhala religious tradition in Sri Lanka, because Buddhism has been the religion of the majority of Sinhalas for long. But ancient Sinhala works like Rajavaliya and Ravanavaliya identify Ravana as a Sinhala king and extol him as a great one. In modern Sri Lanka, there has been a movement to revive Ravana as a cult figure, who represents Sinhala or Sri Lankan nationalism because he was among the first in the island’s history to have resisted an alien/ Indian invader. Ravana’s ten heads represent the ten crowns he wore as a symbol of his being the sovereign of ten countries “. Balachandran also states that the book ‘Sakvithi Ravana’ published in 1988 by Ahubuddu claims that Ravana reigned over Sri Lanka from 2554 to 2517 BC. While Ravana’s ancestors ruled over what is now the Pollonaruwa district, Ravana himself is claimed to have ruled over the whole of Sri Lanka.
According the astronomical calculations cited earlier, Ravana’s people could have been in the island (Lanka) longer than a million years back. Would this in anyway prove that these people were the exclusive ancestors of the present Sinhala – speaking people in Sri Lanka? What proof is there that Ravana did not speak Tamil or a proto-Tamil language, as Ramayana confirms that he was a Lord Siva worshipper (Saivite) and an un-surpassed exponent of classical (carnatic) music, who swayed Lord Siva himself with his rendering in the ‘Naattai’ ragam. Saivaism constitutes the major religion of the Tamils to this day and four of the five major Siva temples (Pancha-Easwarams) are located in Sri Lanka. Rameswaram- the Siva temple in which Rama himself worshipped according to legend is the only one among the Pancha-Easwarams located in India. The Tamil language has a literary tradition of over 2100 years, while Sinhala as a language developed only after the introduction of Buddhism to Sri Lanka, with its beginning as proto-Sinhala between the 3rd and 7th centuries AD. The indigenous people of ancient Lanka could very well have been Proto-Tamil-Saivites, a substantial number of whom subsequently adopted Buddhism and the Sinhala language. What evidence is there to prove the contrary? What makes ‘Helamites’ think that the Yakkhas, Nagas, Asuras and Rakshas were not the progenitors of the Tamils? To the Tamils of India, Lanka was known as Ealam/ Illankai throughout history. In the Kamba Ramayana, Ravana is referred to as the Illankai Venthan- King of Illankai. Lanka is the Sanskritized name for Illankai. Poets from Ealam are recorded to have participated in the ‘Thamil Sangams’ held in Madurai early in the Sangam period (100 BC to300 AD).
Tamil and Malayalam were dialects of one language called ‘Tamil’ by speakers of both until the 9th century AD. The manner in which Tamils is spoken and several words used by Jaffna Tamils point to this old affinity between Tamil and Malayalam. Further, there is much in common between the food habits and art forms of the Tamils and Sinhalese of Sri Lanka and the people of Kerala-Iddiappam/Iddiarppa, Pittu, Appam/Arppa and Kandyan dancing. The separation between Tamil and Malayalam as distinct languages was not completed until some time in the 13th or 14th centuries. Why could a similar phenomenon not have unfolded in Sri Lanka? It is not possible for Sri Lanka to have had a history uninfluenced by South India from times immemorial. To assume that the thirty miles that separated our island from mainland India would have been a barrier for the Tamils in India is the height of stupidity. Jawaharlal Nehru in his ‘Glimpses of World History’, states,
“A considerable trade flourished between South India and Europe. Pearls, ivory, gold, rice, pepper, peacocks and even monkeys were sent to Babylon and Egypt and Greece and later to Rome. Teakwood from the Malabar Coast went even earlier to Chaldea and Babylonia. And all this trade, or most of it, was carried in Indian ships, manned by Dravidians. This will enable one to realize what an advanced position South India occupied in the ancient world”.
Would such a people have ignored verdant Sri Lanka within their easy reach? It will be also futile to ignore the likelihood that Sri Lanka was linked to the Indian subcontinent at one time. The legend of vast extents of land in the Australasian region being lost to a massive deluge (an ancient tsunami) cannot be ignored. Sinhala legend alludes to vast areas of the ancient Kingdom of Kalyani being deluged. Kaviripoompattinam- a centre of Tamil-Buddhism was also similarly deluged. The recent tsunami and the associated retreat of the seas along the South Indian coast revealed several structures that had been under water for centuries.
Let us learn to face facts as they are now and find solutions to our problems, instead of clutching selected strands of history to prove the un-provable. Sri Lanka today consists of people who have descended from the original inhabitants- living before even Ravana, people who have migrated and settled over several centuries since and those who are the result of the intermingling of these two strands. There is nothing called a pure Sri Lankan or ‘Hela Divan’ as some irrational elements would like to proclaim. Modern day DNA studies also confirm that we have very much in common genetically. To call all Tamils, ‘Immigrants’, is an unpardonable travesty of truth and to consider the Sinhala-speakers residing in Sri Lanka as the only legitimate heirs to the island is a despicable lie. Large segments of the Sinhala-speakers of today have proven Tamil ancestry. To twist history or legends to suit a criminal end game, is a blot on all Sinhala people.
Deepavali (Festival of Lights) celebrates the victory of Lord Krishna over Nagasura (the evil ruler of Pradyoshapuram in India) and is not a celebration of the victory of Rama over Ravana as claimed by those who have chosen Ravana as their true ancestor, over the interloper Vijaya. It is a celebration of the victory of good over evil and light over darkness. The Krishna Avataram happened long after the Rama Avataram. Ravana is not demonized in the Ramayana, especially in the Kamba Ramayana, read with devotion by Tamils. There are regular debates in literary circles in Tamil Nadu, whether Rama or Ravana was the better character in the Ramayana. Such debates were also widely held in Tamil literary circles in Sri Lanka regularly until darkness descended on the Tamils here. The Saivite-Tamils of South India, revered all the people of Lanka, as the people from the great land of Ravana! Ravana is a revered figure among the Tamil-Saivites. Further, Buddhism historically was not the exclusive preserve of the Sinhalese in South Asia. Tamils, both in India and Lanka had adopted Buddhism in large numbers at one time, as it was a breeze of fresh air that swept away the cobwebs and dust in the form of rituals, foolishness and casteism that had buried the essence of Hinduism. Great Tamil epics such as Silapadikaram, Manimehalai and Kundalakesi germinated and blossomed in the hey day of Buddhism among the Tamils.
The Sinhala-Buddhist nationalists should remember that their nationalism based on their historical achievements as a people, their language and their religion-Buddhism, is not something any one, least of all the Tamils, object. What is objectionable and obnoxious is the attempt to denigrate and destroy the essence and foundations of other parallel nationalisms, that are the birth right of the other peoples living in Sri Lanka / Hela Diva. Ananada K. Kumaraswamy ( born to a Jaffna Tamil father and an English mother), the greatest intellectual Sri Lanka produced and who spent a major part of his life researching medieval Sinhala art has said,
” A nationalism which does not recognize the rights and duties of others but attempts to aggrandize itself at their expense, becomes no longer nationalism but a disease generally called Imperialism”.
While Ravana is emerging as the hero for the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Rama is under siege in Tamil Nadu, India. The Dravidian movement that found its feet in the prevalent anti-Brahmin sentiment, is largely agnostic and had cast the events in the Ramayana as a contest between Aryan forces represented by Rama and Dravidian forces led by Ravana.
This latter sentiment is not that of the vast majority of Tamil Hindus. Sri Raman / Sitha Raman/ Ramachandran/ Janaki Manaalan/ Ayodhya Raman/ Dasaratha Kumaran / Pattaabi Raman- are some among the many names by which Rama is adoringly called by his Tamil devotees. Rama worship is entrenched in Tamil culture and the Ramayana is entwined in their daily lives in many ways, including to being alluded in several popular proverbs. The Sethu Samudram dredging project, which would have led to the destruction of sections of the Ramar Bridge/ Monkey bridge/ Adam’s bridge is mired in much controversy. This sand dune cum coral formation that connects the southern tip of India with northern Sri Lanka, is identified in the Ramayana as a bridge Rama built with the Vanara forces led by Hanuman, to invade Lanka, where Ravana was holding Ram’s wife Sitha captive. This bridge is clearly visible in contemporary satellite photographs. This bridge is undoubtedly of religious significance to Hindus. What is important to note is not whether the bridge was built by Rama or not, but the fact of its existence was known toValmiki approximately 2500 years back! The existence of this bridge would have been known to the people of India much longer, as the story of Ramayana was known to them thousands and thousands of years before Valmiki. When we do not know details regarding our grand parents lives and do not know even the names of our great-grand parents, that the existence of this bridge was known, remembered and recorded over several millennia, is an astounding event.
To question the collective memory of a people as recorded in the Ramayana is foolishness indeed. The DMK under Muthuvel Karunanithi has barged into an area, where even angels will fear to tread, by questioning whether Rama had a degree in engineering to design and build this bridge. Did the builders of the Madurai Meenachiamman temple and the Tanjai Sivan temple-standing monuments to the building skills of our ancestors- have higher degrees in civil engineering? Karunanithi has also gone on to call Rama a drunkard. Karunanithi was insulting the very foundations of his people’s faith with an insensitivity born in arrogance, if not ignorence. It is this very same Dravidian movement that at one time disparagingly questioned where Saraswathy- the Hindu Goddess of learning- called ‘Naa Mahal’ ( resident Goddess of the tongue or human sound) would be performing her excretory functions!
The attempt to un-deify Rama by the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu, is the continuation of the tendency of politicians- a breed of present day men who think they are wise, because they have unbridled power, the gift of the gab and a servile media that propagates their foolish words- to undermine transcendent legends unmindful of repercussions on human values. They forget facts such as the values Rama represents to a people and his positive impact on their thoughts and actions. Legends such as that of Rama are part of the cultural ethos of a people and their collective inheritance. Such legends should be protected from the depredations of foolish and power hungry politicians. It does not matter whether Rama ever existed or not, but the story of his life- whether factual or mythical- serves an important function in humanizing humankind.
October 6th, 2007
The long-running civil war in Sri Lanka is causing more mental health problems and social breakdown than the catastrophic 2004 tsunami, according to a University of Adelaide researcher.
Clinical Associate Professor in Psychiatry Daya Somasundaram himself fled Sri Lanka fearing for his and his family’s safety, and is Australia’s first ‘refugee scholar’ at the University under the Scholar Rescue Fund.
Associate Professor Somasundaram has completed a study on collective trauma in northern Sri Lanka, comparing effects on the community of the chronic war with those of the 2004 tsunami which killed 31,000 Sri Lankans. The research is published this Thursday 4 October in the online open access, peer reviewed publication International Journal of Mental Health Systems on www.ijmhs.com
“The natural disaster was a one-off catastrophic event that left a trail of destruction and loss,” says Assoc. Professor Somasundaram. “But it did not continue to exert a prolonged effect. As a result the severity of the collective trauma was much less. In fact, having lived through a prolonged war situation has meant that Tamil communities have learned skills and strategies that make them better able to cope with disasters.”
Assoc. Professor Somasundaram found the effects of chronic disasters, such as war, went beyond the individual to family, community and the wider society. Relief, rehabilitation and development programs to be effective need to address the problems of collective trauma, he says.
His study suggests that grass roots work within communities may work best. “In the aftermath of war communities suffer from mistrust, suspicion, silence, brutalisation, deterioration in morals and values, poor leadership, dependency, passivity and despair,” Assoc. Professor Somasundaram says.
“Apart from attending to the immediate basic needs and other acute problems in the rescue and relief phases after a major disaster, rehabilitation, reconstruction and development strategies need to include collective-level interventions. In fact, our experiences show that many individually oriented mental health interventions appear to fair much better when undertaken within an overall framework of a community strategy.”
The study, ‘Collective trauma in northern Sri Lanka: a qualitative psychosocial-ecological study’, is based on published data and qualitative research methods including participatory observation, key informant and focus group interviews.
Assoc. Professor Somasundaram came to the University of Adelaide’s Discipline of Psychiatry under the US-based Scholar Rescue Fund at the end of 2005 with his wife and children. He was at risk because of his writing and documentation about the ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka.
October 4th, 2007
Martin Ennals Award, Acceptance Speech by Dr. Rajan Hoole, October 2nd, 2007:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is my privilege to thank the Martin Ennals Award Foundation for choosing the University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) among the laureates for 2007. I do so also on behalf of my colleague K. Sritharan. We remember our inspiration Dr. Rajani Thiranagama, whose life of promise, with those of two students Manoharan and Chelvi, was cut short by the LTTE. Many staff and students of the University of Jaffna enthusiastically supported the UTHR(J) in the early years and were then driven to silence by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). There were many who supported us from all walks of life, and often at great risk, whose names we cannot mention.
[Dr. Rajan Hoole , K. Sritharan]
We dedicate this award to the hundreds of democratically minded youth, women and men, who took part in various forms of struggle whether non-violent or violent, to fight for dignity and justice for the Tamil community. They paid the ultimate price for questioning not only the politics of Sinhalese chauvinism and narrow Tamil nationalism but also the militarism and totalitarianism inherent in the workings of the various actors.
When we commenced our work at the University of Jaffna in 1987, we had no illusions about the Sri Lankan State and its capacity for ideologically directed violence against the minorities, especially the Tamils. The two bouts of communal violence targeting the Tamils in 1977 and 1983 were major catalysts in giving birth to the Tamil militant movements. The LTTE which had a totalitarian agenda virtually eliminated the other militant groups in 1986 through heart-rending scenes of fratricide. It brought about paralysing disillusionment within the Tamil community, which was beginning to have hopes in a negotiated settlement.
Thus from the start while giving violations by the State and its Sinhalese ideological compulsions their due, we suppressed nothing. We found it no less important to address internal violence within the Tamil community arising from the LTTE’s ideological character. This LTTE’s fascist ideology also made it virtually impossible for it to live with any political settlement outside a separate state of Eelam, in the name of which it had killed as traitors those who stood for a federated Lanka. The LTTE perfected the suicidal cult in a way that mainstream political and social analysis finds difficult to explain. Rather than see it as a crime forced on the people and a tragedy for the community, it becomes easy to dismiss it as some oriental religious trait. Faced with the State’s ruthlessness, the LTTE mobilised the hysteria of nationalism, and blinded people from seeing others’ points of view and paralysed their capacity for independent action.
We began our work in 1987 when the Indian Army took control of Jaffna. Apart from the callousness of an army, we saw that many instances of civilian tragedy were deliberately engineered by the LTTE for propaganda. We gave a frank account of how both sides had acted in our book, The Broken Palmyra and the first two reports of the UTHR(J). Our early work discussed the thwarting the Indo Sri Lanka Agreement, by both the LTTE and the Government and how the Indian Peace keeping Force were pushed to strong military action by the LTTE’s calculated provocations resulting in many violations by the IPKF. In addition to challenging the LTTE’s terror against civilians, we also took on its use of children in lethal tasks such as assassination and throwing grenades at army patrols. By our activity in the University we tried to give life to an institution which was once a hub of political debate and student activism in the early 1980s and had become paralysed by the terror unleashed by the LTTE. The silence and helplessness of the University is an even greater tragedy given the spate of disappearances and targeted killings of youth in Jaffna today.
In 1988, students, staff, both academic and non academic, began coming together to face the antagonism of the IPKF, associated groups and the LTTE, to create space within the University to represent the larger interests of the people when all other structures, political and social, were paralysed. While it was dangerous to document abuses by the LTTE, the LTTE found it of some advantage to tolerate our work during that time due to our exposure of IPKF violations. In particular instances we commended IPKF officers, as Sri Lankan officers in later years, for their display of humanity and moderation. The LTTE signalled total repression of the Tamil community when IPKF’s withdrawal was announced. The LTTE was in consequence being handed over the Tamil areas in prearrangement with the Government.
In the LTTE`s absolutism, internal criticism is viewed as treachery, and on September 21st ,1989, the day after IPKF announced its withdrawal, it assassinated its most vibrant critic Dr. Rajani Thiranagama as a warning to rest of us. Even after her assassination, we tried to continue our work in Jaffna and invited many national and international human rights and civil society leaders to Jaffna for the 60th day memorial of Dr. Rajani Thiranagama’s assassination. It is our privilege to mention here that Mr. Martin Ennals was one of the prominent persons who visited Jaffna with many international and national figures to show solidarity with our work on November 21st 1989.
Then, in June 1990 the next bout of war began. This was when the LTTE ended the Government’s first attempt at appeasement, which allowed the LTTE to imprison thousands of Tamil dissidents in several underground prisons in the North. Many were tortured and killed. The honeymoon with the government had also served the purpose of getting the IPKF out. Given the bitterness of the new round of war, it fell to us to record the LTTE`s cynicism in deliberately inviting reprisals against civilians, the terrible reprisals by the government forces and the LTTE`s ideologically directed violence against the Muslims including the ethnic cleansing of the entire Northern Muslim population and the mosque massacres in the East. In order to carry on with our work, we were forced escape from Jaffna after the war started in 1990 and to lead a semi-underground life in the South.
With a change of government in 1994, there was another opportunity for a negotiated settlement. Instead the LTTE chose war. Another change of government resulted in another round of talks brokered by Norway in 2002. Although the Government and the LTTE committed themselves to a federal settlement, the LTTE proceeded with the conscription of children. Simmering conflict, largely engineered by LTTE provocations, made it clear to many people on the ground that it was using peace talks as a respite to prepare for a more severe round of war. The Government too responded, not by outflanking the LTTE politically by reforming the State to be more democratic and accountable and seeking a political settlement which would satisfy Tamil democratic aspirations, but simply bought time by covering up the LTTE’s violations and conscription of children. These became the major focus of our reports at this time.
The LTTE`s simple programme is to undermine any healthy development in the Sinhalese south for a political settlement, and by some foul act of violence to provoke the State’s inherent harshness towards the Tamils. It was in character for the LTTE to abet the election of a president with nationalist leanings and then deliberately provoke war. It saw this as the most promising way to a separate state.
We thus have the picture that while the LTTE continued immovable at its habitual worst, the State too showed no serious intention of moving away from the debilitating status quo that had kept this nation of promise a stunted object of derision for five decades. Whenever we saw a humane and enlightened approach by some military officers, we documented these so that these exemplars would shine a few lights in unmitigated darkness and a catalyst for reform and re-evaluation. Although we are aware of the institutional nature of the State, during the two decades of war, when people were many times left at the mercy of military officers by deliberate actions by the LTTE inviting the Army to massacre for the benefit of its propaganda, we saw these exceptions in the worst of times as important.
After more than three decades of conflict, the country still continues to bleed. Democratic institutions are fracturing beyond a point of repair, while the leaders are blinded by the arrogance of power. Their short term political interest helps the LTTE to thrust and hold the Tamil civilians in a regime of war claiming with some logic that there is no alternative.
Ours is another tragic instance where identity politics has taken a devastating toll on communities in a multi ethnic and multi religious country through a combination of lack of visionary leadership and political opportunism tied to an exclusivist majoritarian agenda. We have also seen that in the name of liberation and right to self determination, groups with a narrow nationalist agenda have opportunity to impose on them a regime of unlimited destruction where the people stand to lose everything.
Monitoring human rights and making oppressors accountable are in reality very difficult and Humanitarian Law has limited impact in arresting the situation once the war dynamic is in place. Now we are seeing how in the name of “war on terror”, the human rights paradigm developed after the pervasive devastation of the Second World War is called into question. The limitations of human rights mechanisms, including those within the UN, are evident today and are subject to manipulation and appropriation by the larger powers. In several instances, those struggling for democracy and justice in the Third World, are caught between the machinations of global powers and the reactionary politics of fundamentalism and narrow nationalism. The local practitioners of the latter find a novel pretext for their behaviour towards their own citizens in what big powers do half way round the globe.
Once emotions are heightened, individuals lucky enough to flee their war-torn homes often lost all feeling for those they left behind, romanticised their plight, glorified the LTTE and covered up its crimes even against their own fellows. Other foreigners even found career opportunities writing anthropological articles and one-sided human rights narratives in the name of academic research and human rights campaigns. Their critiques of the State are valid but they besmirched rather than enhanced the potential for peace in our country and co-existence among communities. They completely threw a veil over the suffering of the people from internal terror. In this environment, our work, although called suicidal, was essential to keeping alive the voices of sanity and preserving dissent against heavy odds.
In this context our work of documenting human rights abuses by state and non state actors in a situation of armed conflict, with the aim of arresting dehumanising trends and advancing accountability by giving a place to the people’s narratives, we hope, would also make a small contribution towards the major re-evaluation needed to address the limitations of international human rights mechanisms.
The retreat of Third World States and their elites into sovereignty or cultural relativism cannot address the concerns of ordinary people. Tolerance and openness are becoming increasingly important as we face these challenges. If the political changes and processes cannot accommodate and manage these contradictions, these states will generate political and institutional crises such as we have in Sri Lanka.
The minorities in Sri Lanka need a political settlement to emerge out the two decades war and violence. Our reports have continued to bring out political analyses, documented institutional degradation, and even challenged our colleagues in civil society. In documenting human rights abuses, we challenged both Sinhalese chauvinism and narrow Tamil nationalism as they blinded people from seeing crimes committed in their name, whether purportedly “in defence of a state’s sovereignty” or “liberation from majority oppression”. We continue to challenge the myth propagated by the LTTE that they are the sole representatives of the Tamil people and the claim by the Sinhalese extremists that all Tamils are LTTE supporters bent on division of the country. We appealed to the humanity in all communities. While our work may have had little impact on the overall process, we are confident that it has set a qualitatively different reference point for those who want to see a united Sri Lanka which respects the rights of every community and veers decisively from its past.
Our political foundations, owe in part to solidarity with struggles of peoples against oppressive regimes. Rajani was active in working with several groups around the world during her doctoral studies in Britain in the early 1980s. Palestine, South Africa, Eritrea and Nicaragua drew much of our attention at that time. An important lesson to be drawn is that while the struggles of people for dignity are always legitimate, the failure of the rest of the world to act in time, frequently result in undesirable leaders with narrow-nationalistic, anti-democratic ideologies hijacking the legitimate struggles of peoples with tragic results. Today, we express our solidarity with the struggle for democracy in Burma.
In Sri Lanka now, there is only a foundering political process to reform the state, so as to ensure the democratic rights of its peoples and particularly its minorities. The unitary state in Sri Lanka over the last three and a half decades has symbolised repression of minorities including state inspired violence. Equally important today is the right for people in parts of the North-East under government control to return to their homes and live without fear of being picked out by state affiliated killer squads. These squads are part of government policy. Law enforcement is completely disingenuous. Police investigation is directed more towards the disappearance or intimidation of witnesses rather than the prosecution of killers. The state forces pummel areas of intended advance with MBRL fire and aerially dropped bombs, destroy whole villages and find that they cannot advance.
Even as we meet today, the LTTE is conscripting unwilling persons hidden by their families in covered trenches and jungles and forcing them to the frontlines in the Vanni where the Government is bent on advancing. They form the bulk of current casualties, leaving their wives suddenly widowed and their families in shoddy, ill-equipped refugee camps. The people have lost everything.
This is a war against so-called terror, with merely a token acknowledgement of the need for a political settlement to buy time and satisfy the world. It is a war using excessive munitions against a weakened LTTE, where the LTTE has become a pretext for crushing the Tamil people in the interests of a Sinhalese hegemonic state.
When a state has devoted increasing portions of its income to fight a minority based insurgency for over 20 years, it must ask itself some salient questions, whether, for one, democracy simply means the unconditional will of an ethnic majority? Whether the LTTE transforms or vanishes, the political grievances of minorities need to be addressed so that human rights would be sustainable. In Sri Lanka, democracy and human rights are closely intertwined and could rest on a good foundation only if there is progress towards a political settlement and reform of the state.
On the Web: [Martin Ennals Award]
October 2nd, 2007
Next Posts