Monitoring the myths on Kadirgamar’s assassination
By Sumanasiri Liyanage
A popular columnist D.B. S. Jeyaraj last Sunday exposed the contradictions in the
statements issued by the world leaders including the Secretary General of the
United Nations immediately after the assassination of Lakshman Kadirgamar
allegedly by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Many of these
statements have emphasized that the perpetrators of this assassination should be
exposed and brought before the law.
Secondly, the statements have also stressed the need for the maintenance of the
ceasefire agreement (CFA) between the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) and the
LTTE and the revival of the peace process. According to this writer, these two
propositions when taken separately make sense; but when placed together lead to
irresolvable contradiction if the perpetrators are one of the two parties involved in
the ceasefire agreement.
He referred to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi by the LTTE with direct orders
from the LTTE leader, V Pirabaharan and Pottu Amman, its intelligence wing head,
to show that this contradiction stems from the nature of the internal structure of the
LTTE. I do not here intend to repeat the argument presented by the writer in his
article; however, as the statements made by the Sri Lankan civil society vis-a-vis
Kadirgamar’s assassination reflect the manner in which the current peace process
is carried through, I will look at what these contradictions may expose. This is the
intention of this article.
Why are these statements contradictory?
The statements are trying to resolve these contradictions by assuming two things:
First, the dignitaries who issued those statements seem to honestly believe that
the assassination of Lakshman Kadirgamar was not the work of the LTTE. They
seem to accept the statements of the LTTE that the LTTE has nothing to do with
the Kadirgamar killing.
However, this seems to be a very weak assumption. The LTTE has never accepted
the responsibility for the killings of Rajni Thiranagama, Rajiv Gandhi, R
Premadasa, Gamini Disanayake and Neelan Thiruchelvam, and one cannot expect
the LTTE to suddenly now claim responsibility.
In the last 36 months, many killings that have occurred in the East as well as
Colombo have been attributed to some unidentified third party. For example,
violence against Muslims in Muttur, Valachchanai and many other places in the
Eastern Province have also been described as a result of the involvement of an
unknown third party that wanted to spoil the peace process.
Secondly, various dignitaries tend to think that the real blame for the assassination
of Kadirgamar is with the GoSL because the GoSL has failed to carry forth the
peace process and to address the real grievances of Tamils. This argument taken
to its logical conclusion seems to suggest that there was a legitimized reason for
perpetrators to kill Kadirgamar. By arguing in this manner, they are trying to
legitimize their double standard on the use of violence and terror making a
distinction between the groups operating in the western countries and in the
developing countries. In the developed countries it is totally illegitimate to use
terror and violence by oppositionist groups; but in the developing countries it can
be justified as developing countries have failed to address the real grievances of
the dissident peoples. Thus, as in BBC lexicon, a terrorist in the West would
naturally turn into a rebel in the East (except in Iraq).
Events such as this reinforce the necessity of a strong and sustainable peace
process. However, I suggest that a set of critical questions need to be posed if
peace is to be in any way meaningful. Some of these are,
1) does Kadirgamar’s and other recent assassinations mean that the process
should be continued without any change? Or does it imply that a different kind of
process should be re-negotiated? 2) Is the international community prepared to
take strong actions against CFA violations by the parties involved, such as the
killings of political opponents, harassment of civilians, bullying of Muslims and
recruitment of children? Or will the violations continue making the cease-fire
agreement itself a mockery?
3) Will grass-root concerns be taken into account as guiding factors of the
negotiations?
Role of Sri Lankan Civil Society
Discursive practices of the international community in western countries have
direct influence over Sri Lankan civil society and its discourses. Discursive
practices of local civil society activists in the aftermath of the Kadirgamar
assassination signify that peace discourse has changed considerably in the last
ten years.
At the initial phase leading up to perhaps the mid-1990s, as I vividly remember,
peace activists in Sri Lanka led by late Charlie Abeysekera tried to connect peace
and justice. Their symbols were Rajni Thiranagama and Richard Zoysa. Today,
these symbols are no longer significant.
Wittingly or unwittingly, civil society strategies are guided by a thinking that places
conflict resolution as more important than lasting peace, dignity and the protection
of human rights. This has been amply illustrated in their writings and statements in
the last ten days. Sri Lankan civil society is engaged in propagating many a myth
about the assassination of Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar even though they are
well aware that it is extremely difficult to back the LTTE denial of his killing and its
attempt to attribute it to the section of the military.
One such myth is that Kadirgamar’s assassination is an outcome of the
breakdown/ weakening of the peace process. Kalinga in his political commentary
noted that the assassination of Kadirgamar was the first political killing after the
signing of the CFA. He said all others killed in the last 45 months had military
connections with the security forces of the GoSL. This is ridiculous and a great
insult for people like Robert of the EPRLF. He continues to say that to avoid the
occurrence of events of this nature, the peace process should be restarted.
Revitalization of the peace process in their lexicon is tantamount to the revival of
head table talks between the LTTE and GoSL. This proposition does not support
evidence for the LTTE did not hesitate to kill many a political opponent when the
peace process was fresh and ‘working’. There is no direct association/ correlation
between the peace process and the LTTE killings of political opponents. In other
words, the peace process that was unleashed in December 2001 has failed to stop
LTTE killing of political opponents, whatever status the process may have been at
a given point. Recommencement of talks can be justified on different grounds; but
it cannot be assumed that this will stop political killings.
Myth two is that Kadirgamar was killed because he in his last days became a pawn
of Sinhala nationalism. Dr. Jayantha Seneviratne has put forward this argument
without providing any substantive evidence. Of course, peace activists do not say
that the Sinhala nationalists and/ or their pawns should be eliminated. But, it
seems to have provided some basis for legitimating political killings. As far as I
know Kadirgamar never deviated from his extremely modernist position, namely,
that race, religion and other ethnic factors should be treated as something that
should exist in the private sphere. He never vacillated as Dr. Seneviratne
suggested on the issue that the Sri Lankan state should be restructured in order
to make it more accommodative. This was clearly revealed in the speech he made
in Parliament when the Constitution Bill 2000 was presented.
Of course one can question his modernist liberal position theoretically; but painting
him as someone who refused to accept the Tamil nationality question would be an
insult to the efforts he has made to insist on the need for Tamils to live with dignity.
Myth three is that if the international community is trying to impose restrictions on
organizations like the LTTE, such restrictions would weaken the opportunities for
peace. As such, certain civil society members here think the UN Security Council
proposal to impose restrictions on foreign travel by the leaders of rebel
organizations is not a good idea. All these myths are generated as Sri Lankan civil
society is not ready to accept the character of the LTTE and its mono-party
authoritarian internal regime that cannot allow other viewpoints to exist. If Sri
Lankan civil society is not capable of developing a subaltern sensitivity giving
privileged position to grass-root level concerns and grass-root level human right
violations, it may not be worthy of its name. In the last 45 months, basic human
rights, such as the right of IDPs to return were continuously violated by the GoSL.
The LTTE has violated the rights of return of Muslim IDPs. As the Human Rights
Commission of Sri Lanka in its recent statement has shown, the LTTE has not
stopped its recruitment practices despite its numerous promises to do so
immediately. Many more can be added to this list. Renegotiation of the CFA should
put these subjects in its agenda; Since the main parties will not talk about these
marginalized people, civil society should take these issues to the forefront.
(The writer teaches political economy at the University of
Peradeniya)
COURTESY:DAILY MIRROR