TNA willing to work with government on resolving key issues: An Interview with TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran
By Arthur Wamanan
Q. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has not been vocal in recent times. Has the party changed its stance on the solution for the ethnic issue after the end of the war?
Well, the TNA has a manifesto on which we contested the election. In that, we have specifically stated that we are looking for meaningful devolution of powers in terms of constitutional reforms. There must be sharing of power. And as far as the TNA is concerned, that sharing of power must be meaningfully implemented in the North and East. We have very specifically said that these reforms must be within a united country and must take the form of a federal structure.
Q. Can you explain as to what the TNA is looking for with regard to the settlement? Are you looking for the full implementation of the 13th amendment or an improved one?
Well, the 13th amendment is a reform made in 1987, which the TNA’s predecessor, the TULF had rejected. After negotiations with India, it was considered insufficient. The President at that time, J R Jayewardene, gave a letter to India, undertaking to improve on the provisions of the 13th amendment. Thereafter, several attempts have been made to improve on that. Notably, the Mangala Moonasinghe select committee proposals and thereafter Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge’s constitutional reforms from 1995 to 2000. There were three of those. And when President Rajapaksa took office, he appointed an All Party Representative Committee (APRC). At the inaugural session, he made a speech. He specifically asked them to study power-sharing arrangements in other countries in the world and particularly that of our neighbour India. There was an expert committee that the President himself appointed and the majority of those experts gave a report giving various options as to how meaningful power sharing can be achieved. And we believe that even the final report APRC Chairman Prof Tissa Vitharana submitted to the President is in that direction although it has not been made public by either the President or Prof. Vitharana. The report is in the public realm now as it was recently released by Mr R Yogarajan and Mr Nizam Kariyappar, who were members of the APRC.
Now the recent joint communiqué that the President issued following his visit to New Delhi, along with Indian Prime Minister, also refers to meaningful sharing of power. So that’s the direction in which everyone has been looking at to resolve the issue and that’s the direction in which we are also specifically looking at.
Q. Some of the members of the TNA visited India a few months ago and met Indian Premier Manmohan Singh. What was the outcome of the discussions and what role do you think India should play in going towards a political solution?
The 13th amendment was as a result of the Indo-Lanka accord. It was with the intervention of India that it was brought about. And as I said earlier, there was to be meaningful improvements made to that. And now again, India has extended its good offices and invited President Rajapaksa after the Presidential election and the general election. He went to India on June 8. He had several rounds of discussions with the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, Foreign Minister, Finance Minister and senior government officials. Soon after his visit, the Indian government invited us. And a six-member delegation of the TNA went there. We also held talks with everyone of those Ministers that the President met.
Now, India at this stage is trying to bring the two parties together. Our claim is that President Rajapaksa has received a mandate to govern the country and we respect and recognise that mandate. But similarly, we have been given a mandate in the North and East. The government and everyone else must recognise and respect the mandate of our people given to us. If this issue is to resolve, these two parties must sit together and come to a consensus. So India is helping us to come together. And we are also looking to India for a meaningful participation, meaningful facilitation, so that what commenced in 1987 with India’s direct participation in the form of the 13th amendment to the constitution can come to a meaningful end. The 13th amendment obviously is not the answer. If it was, we wouldn’t have had a conflict that would have raged on until now. So, India has a moral duty to bring what it started, to a successful completion. With that end in mind, we are also participating in discussions with India and also with the government.
Q. The TNA had met the President as well. Can you explain the outcome of the meeting? Does the TNA have any intentions of working with the government in the future?
We have had only one meeting at the invitation of the President. That was on the eve of his departure to India. That was also soon after a fact-finding mission that we undertook to the resettled areas in the Wanni. We presented a report to the President on the situation in the Wanni. Thereafter, we tabled it in Parliament.
Our discussion with the President was twofold. One was with regard to the immediate concerns of our people. Namely, the resettlement issues, the displacement of people due to high security zones in Valikamam in the North and several parts of the East. The other is related to the settlement of the political issue. We reached an agreement with the President on both matters. That is the TNA and the government will work together, have some kind of mechanism to address both the issues.
With regard to the resettlement issue, we have been asked to nominate some names for the President to constitute some kind of institutional mechanism. And hopefully, he will appoint a committee with the participation of the TNA. We have communicated that to the President today (27). That’s as a result of a meeting we had with Minister Basil Rajapaksa on Monday (23). He met us just prior to his departure to India. We were told to forward our names to the President and we have done that.
We will participate with the government to address those concerns.
Similarly, at our meeting with the President, it was agreed that he will appoint a committee and we will appoint ours to meet in order to find a solution to the political issue. That has not taken off as yet. I think the President has already made an appointment as Prof. G L Peiris as the head of the delegation. Prof Peiris has been in touch with us and we have agreed to start negotiations very soon, perhaps early next month.
Q. What is your stance on the merger of the North and East, especially, since the provincial council has started to function in the east?
The merger is part of the 13th amendment. If the President says that he will implement the 13th amendment in full, then the merger is a part of that. If the President says he will go beyond the 13th amendment or as sometimes stated, 13++, then certainly merger must be a part of that and should be more than that. Therefore, we take it that any solution that goes beyond the 13th amendment naturally must include the merger of the North and East. The 13th amendment envisaged the merger of the North and East. Provided a mechanism to merge the two provinces and that was done. Unfortunately, after 19 years, the Supreme Court ruled that the modality by which the merger was brought about was flawed. That is not to say that there should not be a merger of the North and East. All it said was the way it was done was wrong. When the judgment was given, the UNP, the opposition, publicly stated that they would support the government to bring proper legislation to merge the two provinces. In fact, even the position of the government in court was that the merger must not be disturbed and that the court should not intervene as it was a political issue. There was consensus on the part of the government, on the part of the main opposition that the merger must be properly effected. We are looking forward to a time that will be done.
Q. Don’t you think that there would be practical issues in merging the two provinces, since there is a provincial council that has already been set up in the East?
Provincial administration ran as a merged province for 19 years, although there was no provincial council. It ran without a problem for 19 years. Therefore, I don’t see any issue if the North and East are to become a merged province again.
Q. But wouldn’t the parties in the East oppose to such a move?
They have to state their position with regard to the merger of the North and the East. I have not come across even one political party that is opposed to the merger. In fact, the declared stance of every Tamil political party is that the North and East should be merged. The Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) also did not support the de-merger. Their position is that they would stand by the merger, provided that certain measure of autonomy should be considered for them as well. We have very clearly stated in our manifesto that the merger of the North and East must be achieved with the consent of the Muslim population in the Eastern Province. And we are not seeking a merger that the Muslims oppose.
Q. The TNA has also been invited to be a part of the Tamil Political Parties Forum (TPPF) set up by several Tamil parties. What is your view of this process and what is your stand?
We have got an invitation from the Tamil Political Parties Forum only last week. A letter that was addressed to the TNA parliamentary group leader, Mr Sampanthan, was received in Jaffna. It was sent to us here in Colombo. I have sent a copy of the letter to Mr Sampanthan, who is in India at the moment. We will look into it and consider our response. Until now, it was said that we were not responding positively to this forum’s invitation. But the invitation has come only now. We have not rejected it. But that does not mean that we will readily participate in it. We have had some reservations about joining a forum that has been set up, whose objectives we were unaware of. We are always for a broader unity among Tamil parties and as a primary Tamil party that has representation in parliament, we will work towards that. We will take initiatives of our own to achieve that kind of broader unity. But we are also conscious, that one cannot compromise on fundamental principles in the name of unity. We have been elected by the people with a mandate, and people have voted for us at an election which was conducted under extremely difficult circumstances. They have reposed some kind of confidence in us. They have rejected most of those parties that are part of this forum. We must not dilute or betray the confidence the people have placed in us by readily joining hands with forces who have been rejected by the people. But that is not to say that we should not talk to them or work with them for a common good. But, we will do that at the right time and in the right manner.
Q. What role should the diaspora play in assisting the people who have been affected by the war?
The diaspora has a great opportunity now to participate in the rehabilitation and reconstruction work in the North and East. But as to how they will participate in that is a big question. Because the institutional mechanism for that is not in place. Many of them are apprehensive about sending their funds or investing as they are not very sure of the stability of such endeavours. But that is something for the future. We are also looking at mechanisms that can be brought about through which the diaspora can meaningfully participate.
Q. You had said earlier that the people who were being resettled had not been provided with basic needs. What is the situation now? Did you visit any of these areas recently?
Yes. We visited 28 villages during the end of May and the beginning of June. We went to several places in July where resettlement had not taken place. We are aware that the situation has not significantly changed. They have been allowed to go to their villages with certain roofing materials, tin sheets, certain poles, tarpaulin sheets and some cement bags. And they are expected to live with those. Livelihood programmes have not started, farming has not commenced, fishing industry has not taken off. The people have just been dumped in those places. Several others have not been allowed to go. They are still in the camps. Resettlement has really not happened at all. That remains an issue to date. But, we are not seeking to criticise the government on that score. Our position is that we are willing to work with the government to ensure that our people return to their original places. - courtesy: The Nation -
10 Comments
In general, the Sinhalese do not believe 13th amendment in full or 13 plus, or federal, or con-federal will satisfy Tamil aspiration. Because, we have learned the hard way that Tamil aspiration is nothing but Eelam.
It must be said that what Sumanthiran is demanding today from Sri Lanka had been demanded by Tamils of India and was given to them at the time of Indian independence. But, it has been proved time and again that Tamils were not satisfied with just devolution of power. They wanted separation all alone. So, we should not be complacent to believe that Velupilai Piripaharan had terrorized us and demanded Eelam because we had not devolved power. The fact is; the demand for Eelam has a much longer and wider history than that.
Sri Lankan Tamil named Visvalingam had first mooted the demand for a separate state or Eelam in the 1930s. Everyone knows, British Raj ruled Sri Lanka at the time and Tamils were the privileged lot. So, the demand for Eelam in the 1930s couldn't have anything to do with the alleged claim of discrimination by Sinhalese. Since the official language before 1956 was English, Sinhalese language couldn't have being the reason to demand Ealam either.
About the same time but in India, a man named EVR Periyar had came up with a slogan; ‘Dravida Nadu for Dravidian'. When Periyar made the race based demand for division of India, Jinnah even hadn't thought of demanding separation on the basis of religion.
Present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, M. Karunanidi had been one of Periyar’s staunchest followers. In fact, Karunanidi’s DMK and Jayalalitha’s AIADMK are both off shoots of Periyar’s party DK. Somehow, Periyar realized; other than Tamils, no other Dravidian had much interest for a ‘Dravida Nadu.’ So, he changed his slogan to ‘Tamil Nadu for Tamils.’ It was a more refined, racist and an apt demand for Tamil mindset. Perhaps that was the first clear demand for a separate country for Tamils.
Now let me remind Sumitheran that what he is demanding from us today had been given to Tamils of India at the time of Indian independence. Just like Tamil Nadu today, then Madras state had land powers and police powers and more. Were the Tamils satisfied? No. Many Tamil groups and individuals demanded more powers.
In 1957, the DMK had 15 seats in the then Madras state legislature. The next state election that held between February 17 and 24, 1962 stood out for a single reason: DMK demand, “Tamil Nadu for Tamils”. It surpassed the demands by all others because it is nothing but a demand for separation in different words. Accordingly, the DMK increased its share of seats from 15 to 50. Thrilled with the electoral success, 200,000 DMK supporters said to have marched through the streets of Chennai on September 22, 1962 to a DMK rally that demanded a separate country for Tamils.
Nehru, the Prime Minister of India did the need of the hour to protect India from disintegration. The Congress had passed an amendment to the Indian constitution to ban individuals and political parties that promote separation from contesting elections.
The Central Committee of the DMK met at Royapuram on November 3, 1963, and unanimously voted to drop its demand for independent Dravida Nadu, otherwise they could not have contested the elections. Though DMK choose to contest elections, many others such as poet, Durai Manickam choose not to contest elections.
When secession was banned in India, Tamils have pooled all their energies and resources to uplift a separatist campaign in Sri Lanka. In May, 1976, Sumitheran's TNA precrusers Tamil United Front or TUF of the Sri Lankan Tamils put the cat out of the bag just the same way as the DMK of Indian Tamils did fourteen years earlier in 1962. The TUF held a Convention in Vaddukkoddai, changed its name to Tamil United Liberation Front or TULF and passed a resolution to demand Eelam. And when it looked as if master terrorist is winning, Tamils of different description from all over the world gave the murderers their unequivocal support.
TNA leader Sambandan who now demands 'con-Federal' and the present TULF leader, Mr. Ananda Sangaree who now verbalizes a ‘one’ Sri Lanka plan may well have raised their right hands high at that Vaddukkoddai convention to approve the demand for Eelam. We do not know whether Mr. Sangaree had changed his standing after LTTE had killed many Tamil leaders or he had been threatened. Whatever it is, his current standing must be applauded.
As for Mr. Sumitheran and his TNA collages, I would not trust them even as much as Mr. Sangaree in their stand for one Sri Lanka. I am sure they are following Dr. Balasingham's theory: Little now and , more later. I say, the sinhalese will have to be absolutely cautious of these rattle snakes.
Leela is not what she/he portrays to be. There is a strong Sinhala supremacist element behind the name. But that is not a problem. Those who matter in the Sinhala side should air their views in this continuing debate to realize the peace all of us yearn for.
Even before Prof. C. Suntharalingam was talking of Eelam, Tamils had not forgotten their ancient origins in the island. But they accepted the new political reality the British were trying to usher in to accommodate all here. It may be recalled they (British) also brought the vastly diverse Indian sub-continent under one single roof. No doubt for the benefit of the Empire but events were later to prove India that was a thousand fiefdoms, kinglets etc became a single power as a result. Tamils agreed to the proposed structure with the Sinhalese and other smaller minorities in the post-1948 period. But Jennings and party feared the Sinhala majority may develop different thoughts after really tasting absolute political power. This sadly came to pass. Even the Entrenched 29C Clause, which Jennings assured cannot be done away with, was thrown to the winds in the altar of majoritarian expediency by a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist and reformist Lawyer-Minister at that.
The affable Sumanthiran spells out the Tamil case – in the calm, decorum and dignity expected of a lawyer of substance. Leela’s ghost-writers might as well take note of the Tamil stand re. the 13th amendment. Curiously, the very judicial maverick who created the havoc now is on the other side of the argument. The merger was not wrong, said he in his then suspected quest for a post-retirement political plum – and insisted only the way it was done was wrong. And so he dismantled what was working well for nearly two decades opening the way later for Mahinda Rapakse to win all his elections since then by an electorate inebriated, inter alia, with pseudo-nationalism.
Even after an year if the IDPs are insensitively allowed to remain as cattle in the open where is the seriousness of a peace-unity thrust? Much more than luke-warm steps of the State are necessary to bring back the Tamil people of the NEP to the national fold is probably what Smt. Nirupama Rao is reminding our own royalty right at this very moment. The “heming-heming” mantra has to give way to the attitude what propelled Barak Obama to power – “The urgency of NOW” - the probable key to overcome our 3-decades of unabating woe.
ISS
Leela portrays the fears of a large section of Sinhalese. It is based on the actual experiences to date.
Sinhalese have survived in all provinces except in the North during the last 3 decades due to their numerical strength. They did not survive in the North where Tamils showed their true nature by cleansing the North of all non Tamils. Therefore logic suggest that mixed populations in all provinces provides the best opportunity for national integration of all communities.
13th amendment was an imposition on Sri Lanka which the country needs to review again to ensure whether it matches with country's requirements and aspirations of all the people (not one community or another). The merger was also conditional as stipulated. The current Eastern administration consist of elected Tamil leadership of the East is against a re-merger.
Now his previous boss is no more, Sumanthiran (& his group in TNA) appears to be trying to be the new 'sole representative' of Tamils. They must be reminded, that only in facist dictatorial environments sole representatives can exist. Fortunately for Sri Lankans, that threat has come to pass.
We must never allow it to re-emerge in any guise.
Any attempt to merger again will agrevate the problem.This is the simple truth.Why? cos Sinhalease are against it.It will only be a dream of thease ealamist like TNA and Ilaya seran to have a tamil only region in a mearged province.
They think they can get the muslim support and get the merger done.Nonsence.Sinhalease have a greater claim for these two provinces than tamils and muslims.
Ealamist may fight many years for the mearger,but to end up with no mearger cos any sinhala leader will never do that despte what amt of pressure from India.
(Ms/Mr) Leela’s comments are nothing but comments of a rattlesnake. She/he ends her/his comment by naming Tamil demanders for devolution for power as ‘rattlesnakes’. This title suits her/him well.
There are such elements in any country in any society. I know there are Sinhalese who want Sri Lanka to be a state of India. Some wanted the continuation of the British Raj. Those who talk about and generalize these isolated incidents and historical facts conveniently forget valid facts. It is rather deliberate ignorance to suit their design. In the 1940s when SWRD Banda proposed his concept of Federalism (Kandy/low country and north east) in Jaffna, he was not supported by the Tamil leadership in Jaffna.
Imagine a Sinhalese political leader goes to Jaffna and proposes federalism but Jaffna rejects it! Jaffna if wanted separation could have grabbed it and then slowly walked towards separation later. It would been the ideal ‘little now more later’ policy. But it did not happen that way. Tamils stood for the unity and freedom from the British at the time of independence. This is the most valid political point then the mostly unknown Visvalingam’s isolated notion.
And also this commenter is twisting the political reality in Tamilnadu very cunningly. (Or is it due to some under- education?). The separatist tendency gave way for Indian union long before in Tamilnadu. The people of Tamilnadu are satisfied with the Indian union arrangement. This welcome development became a political reality due to the visionary leadership qualities of Primer Nehru and DMK chief Annadorai. DMK dropped separation and Nehru gave Tamils their ‘Tamilnadu’ within Indian union. It was a win-win decision they arrived at.
Still, there are small isolated separatist elements here and there without popular support in Tamilnadu. They do not carry any weight. There are such separatists functioning not only in Tamilnadu but also in northeastern Indian states, J & K, Punjab etc. You cannot exaggerate and generalize such small groups.
The Vaddukottai resolution was formulated solely due to the local conditions prevailed in Sri Lanka. It is not ‘made in India’ as this commentator wants us to believe. (I wonder why she/he did not say/claim that there is a secret undersea tunnel built between Chennai and Vaddukottai!)
The end lesson is this. The conditions prevailed in Indian Tamilnadu were addressed by Indian leaders politically. Therefore the separatist notion is lost in Tamilnadu. But here in Sri Lanka such conditions still prevail. Even after the defeat of LTTE, those conditions mothered LTTE and all those separatist armed Tamil groups still prevail. They are not politically addressed. We do not see any fair attempt from the Sinhala side. On the contrary the government is treating the military defeat of LTTE as the political defeat of the Tamils and Muslims who traditionally live in the north and east. This Sinhala supremacist racist notion demands whole of Srilankan territory only for the Sinhala Buddhists. This commenter ‘Leela’ is one who share this racist notion.
HARAN
Couple of ponits to note what the MP Said and is in alignment with the majority Tamil thinking. All the govt drama (Doggy Deva / Pillaiyan / Karuna / KP) will not convince the majority Tamils (Diaspora or not) to rally behind phony Tamil leaders).
1. "They have rejected most of those parties that are part of this forum. We must not dilute or betray the confidence the people have placed in us by readily joining hands with forces who have been rejected by the people. But that is not to say that we should not talk to them or work with them for a common good. But, we will do that at the right time and in the right manner"
2. Regarding Diaspora Tamil helping the IDPs in a group. "Because the institutional mechanism for that is not in place" Even the UNP MP Swamynathan mentioned the same. The Diaspora is waiting for an administrative structure where the Tamils can manage their own affairs without much intervention from the center (call it whatever you want to call it, even "Gemunu Gift", but Tamils need to manage their own affairs). At the same time, the individual Diaspora Tamils will and should continue to help their relatives in SL privately like before the war, without any changes.
To Leela,
Last week I was at a multi racial crowd enjoying dinner at a house in cinnamon gardens. As usual politics sprung us. A Sinhalese gentlemen with your mind set popped up questions a to why did the Tamils wanted separatism, why did they assassinate people and why did they cause all this violence.
A wise elderly Tamil man in the corner replied
a. The first to ask for separatism in the country was not the Tamils but your own people. The Kandy Govigamas in 1921 submitted proposals to the Donoughmore Commission asking for a separate Kandyan Kingdom.
b. The first political assassination was committed by a Buddhist monk killing SWRD.
c. Violence up uptil 1970 was in form of many riots aimed at the Tamils and at various points aided and abetted by the state.
The ladies and gentlemen above are all discussing a period when the world was larger. Today it is much smaller. With developments in communications technology interactions are instant. With free flow of information and faster travel the humanity could morph into one bee hive. Mobile communication providers are fast expanding their coverage to north and east and the government is widening the roads. Concepts of nationality could well be the past time of politicians of yester year. The requirements of the next generation could be very different. There was no 'diaspora' during the times under discussion and India, Pakistan and China did not have nuclear bombs.
As far as I am concerned the 'solution' to the problem is one in which the smallest number of innocent people are affected.
Anonymous | August 30, 2010 05:32 AM
The 'wise old Tamil man" won the argument. Cheers. Take him round a tour of north and east.
Leela hands over the baton to Hela – and he/she/they continue. Pray, tell us what you have in mind when you talk of “Sinhalese surviving” “cleansing” and the lot. Sir, until the British introduced the railway the Tamils stayed in what they now rightfully claim as Tamil Land and the Sinhalese their. For the benefit of those with short or no memories at all, re-confirmed in the wider semi-pogroms of 1958, 1977 and then the full pogrom of 1983. For those Tamils living in dreamland of the South they will not be slaughtered again, Kotakadeniya and conspirators proved in that sub-human bus-rides that shocked the conscience of a decent world during mid-night a few years ago that their fond dreams are simply delusionary.
The Sinhalese stayed where they have been until the Portugese, Dutch and British decided to drop in. So this “survival” “cleansing” conspiracies you now discover are all part of your fanciful thinking – very likely a continuum of what the cabal has in mind to validate that Mahavama plan “to cleanse the Island of defilement” Now, friends, I suggest we come out of the rot and plan to live together hand in hand rather than with hand in each others throats.
If the 13th Amendment was an imposition or a formulae will be an argument we can continue to engage in till the cows come home. When GP came with the document – after yearss of study by Indian experts, HWJ,GLP, Neelan, Gamini Irriyagolle, SLG (?) and many others – no one came out with the accusation of this "imposition". The Cabinet consisted of brilliant lawyers like Lalith, Gamini, Bill Devanayagam, JRJ and ministers of the caliber of Ronnie de Mel, Hameed, Thondaman who were much sharper than lawyers. Gamini Jayasuriya's stand was more in line with the memory of his ancestorial link to Anagarika Dharmapala. The “imposition” element is the raison d’etre of Rohan Wijeweera’s JVP that had no plank to cling on until then. This was a god-sent gift to a party whom the country viewed with disdain after their mis-adventure of 1971 that lost 20,000 young Sinhala lives. Came the 13th and the JVP together with support from all anti-UNP elements set the country aflame. We are still paying the bill and generations to come will continue to pay for the heinous crime. The 13th remained active for nearly 2 decades and ruffled the fathers of none. The widely believed bifurcation of the country did not take place.The North-East was taken away and linked to South India. In fact there was greater harmony between the people in the East than before – bar the continuing State-induced Colonisation and the bitterness that ensued. Why even our hero Sarath Silva now says the merger is OK – what more? The fear sorrounding the 13th is nothing more than the demonic fear in the Sinhala psyche like the erlier one of Language Parity. How long, dear friends, are we going to continue to stew in our own juice? Or to use Bob Dylan's query in song “when will we ever learn?”
ISS