Lakshman Kadirgamar:
Beyond Labels of Race and Religion - II
By D.B.S. Jeyaraj
Continued from last issue:
Let me begin the concluding part of this article about Lakshman Kadirgamar on a
personal note. My late father was about ten years older than Lakshman Kadirgamar
but they were contemporaries at Law College in 1954 . This was because my father
resumed law studies after a stint in teaching. I was born in 1954 and apparently
Lakshman Kadirgamar was at the hospital to see the new babe. He also came for my
baptism and there was a yellowing group photo with him included in the family
album.. My father lost touch with him in the sixties but always spoke highly of his
brilliance. He also said that Lakshman though inarticulate in Tamil was deeply
concerned about Sinhala being made the sole official language, the 1956 and 58
violence and the suppression of the Satyagraha campaign in 1961. My father never
accepted the tiger accusation that Kadirgamar was oblivious to the Tamil plight.
This was my experience too in later years. I made contact with him in 1994 due to
the efforts of Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam. I was then editing my own Tamil weekly in
Toronto. Kadirgamar had become a cabinet minister and was taking a keen interest
in helping resolve the national problem. Neelan asked me to speak to Kadirgamar as
the new minister was very keen on gaining an insight into the issue. I think we spoke
for about four or five times on the telephone. One call in particular was extremely
long extending for about 90 minutes.
I found him very much interested and concerned about the Tamil issue. He was a
keen listener and extremely polite even when disagreeing with something. I was then
an ardent Tamil nationalist believing fervently in the bona fides of the LTTE. I was
one of those Tamils who thought naively then that the LTTE was fighting for the
welfare of the Tamil people and not in the interests of its leadership. Like many
Tamils of a similar mindset I thought that the LTTE was prepared for a just , equitable
and honourable settlement in a united but not necessarily unitary Sri Lanka.
Kadirgamar was extremely receptive and agreed that Federalism would be the ideal
solution. But he had reservations on two counts. One was that he felt any realistic
solution had to be acceptable to the majority of the Sinhala people as otherwise it
would not be implementable. Therefore he opined that the concept federalism should
be avoided and maximum devolution substituted instead. Secondly he said that any
settlement had to be on lines acceptable to India. Therefore powers to be devolved
to the periphery should not go too much beyond the Center - State relationship
parameters of India he felt.
Apart from this he too subscribed initially to the school of thought that a settlement
was necesary with only the LTTE from the Tamil side. Though the LTTE would have
us believe otherwise the Kadirgamar of 1994 firmly believed in political reconciliation
with the LTTE. Kadirgamar spoke with a lot of Tamils to assess the situation. One
person with whom he discussed the issue frankly and deeply was the late CSI bishop
of Jaffna Rt. Rev DJ Ambalavanar. I suppose that most Tamils like myself would have
told him that the LTTE was keen on a settlement but had to tread the path of
transition warily and slowly. He accepted that and within the folds of Government
firmly pushed that line in 1994 and early 1995.
He was thoroughly shattered in 1995 when the LTTE broke faith and resumed
hostilities on April 18th. My last conversation with him was a few days after this.
Kadirgamar was agitated despite his customary aplomb. He was critical of me and all
those who spoke positively of the LTTE. I remonstrated and when there were signs of
a prolonged argument he wound up the conversation abruptly. I never spoke to him
afterwards.
Meanwhile the war went on. The LTTE suffered reversals during Operation Riviresa.
The local tigers in Toronto for reasons of their own launched a campaign against my
newspaper "Muncharie" because it was reporting battlefield news accurately and
impartially. They wanted me to publish glowing accounts ofimaginary LTTE
successes. When they found violence, threats and intimidation against me were not
working they began targeting my pre- dominantly Tamil advertisers and the Tamil
shops retailing the paper. I opted to "die on my feet" by shutting the paper down
rather than "live on my knees" toing the LTTE line.
I began writing for "The Island" In Sri Lanka where I cut my journalistic teeth in
English. When some of those articles criticised the LTTE their minions in Toronto
again began a campaign of intimidation. Death threats were issued systematically
over the phone and in some tiger media. I mentioned this to some friends in Colombo
who were upset by this. They wrote an appeal on my behalf. One friend holding a
high position in an international organization added the weight of that persons
position to that appeal.
When some journalists informed Kadirgamar about my plight he responded promptly.
He immediately wrote to his Canadian counterpart Lloyd Axworthy and asked him to
ensure my protection. This was acceded to and there was a crackdown on those
behind the campaign. It died down. I shall remember Kadirgamars role in this with
gratitude though I had to be critical of him as a journalist in spite of this.
In later years I wrote many articles about his political conduct. A few praised him but
most were harshly critical. My main concern was his lack of empathy with affected
Tamil victims of the conflict. I felt he could have spoken out on many issues affecting
Tamils instead of focussing only on the LTTE in International fora.The other bone of
contention was that I felt at one point of time that he was somewhat obstructive of a
peace settlement with the LTTE. Once again I foolishly believed that the LTTE was
genuinely coming into the political process and that Kadirgamar was not being
responsive. I particularly felt that seeking international bans on the LTTE when the
tigers needed de - proscription at home was totally counter - productive. Most of
those articles critical of Kadirgamar were reproduced in the LTTE journal "Tamil
Guardian".
I now realise that Kadirgamar was right about the true nature of the LTTE. Once his
initial faith was shattered he became increasingly doubtful about the LTTE. He also
felt that the LTTE had to be cut down to size if a truly lasting solution was to be
achieved. For this he felt international pressure was necessary and hence his
protracted campaign advocating tiger proscription. Kadirgamar also felt that stringent
safeguards had to be set up before the LTTE was encouraged further in the peace
process and concessions made available. Though he was instrumental in getting
Oslo in as facilitator he soon felt that Norway was not playing fair and said so publicly.
This does not mean that I endorse all what he said or did. I do feel that he was
playing more to the Sinhala "gallery" in many things. Being a citizen of the world and
real Sri Lankan etc are all very good. But no man claiming to be truly enlightened
can remain silent in the face of evil. In Sri Lanka it is not only tiger "terrorism" that is
evil but also Sinhala "chauvinism". He never spoke out against the latter. People say
that he was above caste, creed and community. This may be very well so. But this
does not excuse his silence on crucial matters. Also some say he was truly "Sri
Lankan" and not Tamil. Fine! But again being truly Sri Lankan does not mean
accepting and justifying Sinhala hegemonism indirectly or directly. Kadirgamar did
insist on Sri Lankas sovereignty and rightly so. But he did not dwell too much on the
necessity for equality between the various communities was a prerequisite for
maintaining unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Despite these shortcomings his heart was in the right place as far as the rights of
Tamils and other minorities were concerned. Kadirgamar was of the mindset that
these rights had to be applicable to all peoples inhabiting Sri Lanka. If justice and
equal rights were ensured for all Sri Lankans then the Tamils too as an integral
component of Sri Lanka were entitled to protection under those. Without fanfare and
publicity Kadirgamar has played a quiet role in enshrining those rights. A recent
article in "Frontline" by Lionel Fernando is illuminating in this respect. Some Excerpts
are -
" In the present Constitution there are only eight clauses on "Fundamental Rights",
but in the October 2000 draft of the Constitution there were 23 clauses. Even the
"Fundamental Rights" that are in subsidiary pieces of legislation were embodied in
the 2000 draft Constitution. All this was made possible by the eminence of one man -
Lakshman Kadirgamar. His advice to the various committees and to the President
was that "Fundamental Rights" should be prioritised, and herein I must also mention
the role played by Prof. G.L. Peiris, the then Minister of Constitutional Affairs.
For the first time, in the Foreign Ministry, Kadirgamar set up a ministerial committee
meeting every month with all heads of departments such as the police and the armed
forces, and the Defence Secretary on the violation of human rights. They were
documented and taken up at the Human Rights Commission. There is a plethora of
human rights institutions in the world, so we are answerable to them. He took upon
himself the responsibility of monitoring human rights violations in Sri Lanka".
The LTTE and its lobby continue to condemn the man as being anti - Tamil. He is
condemned as a man who did not care about the Tamils. This tiger propaganda
conducted continuously in typical "Goebbelsese" has taken root among many if not
all. The truth however is that Kadirgamar though critical of the LTTE in many
respects was not anti - Tamil. His hostility towards the LTTE was principle based. Yet
the LTTE with its near total control over the Tamil media has propagated the
Kadirgamar as Tamil traitor for a long time and continues to do so.His true
sentiments and opinion however have been intentionally obscured or distorted.
The Lanka Academic website had a question and answer session with Kadirgamar
some time ago. Some of his observations reveal his mind on some crucial issues.
On power sharing with LTTE -
" I do not think a constitutional arrangement which is intended to be permanent can
be based on a "power sharing" arrangement with the LTTE alone. At the moment the
Government of the day has to negotiate with the LTTE because of the military
realities on the ground. But a durable peace based on a constitutional arrangement
acceptable to all the communities, reflected in a major amendment to the present
constitution, passed by a two thirds majority in Parliament, and endorsed by a
national referendum, can only be achieved if a number of important rights are
enshrined in the amended constitution - human rights, parliamentary democracy
including multi-party participation in democratic elections, the rule of law etc. None of
these concepts is consistent with a "power sharing arrangement with the LTTE." The
type of federalism suitable for Sri Lanka is a matter for national discussion, not a
matter for agreement only between the ruling party and the LTTE".
On Federalism -
"The PA is for a federal-type structure which could give minorities, and particularly
the Tamils, ample autonomy in their regional affairs without allowing the
disintegration or break up of the Sri Lankan State. Therefore, two principles are
important - (1) to allow autonomy as much as it is necessary; (2) to ensure
safeguards against any type of disintegration, break away or secession. We also
believe that given current international developments and the challenges that our
country is facing we need to have a rather strong system at the centre as well.
Therefore, we propose considerable power sharing at the centre in addition to
devolution of power to the regions or the periphery. There are several minorities in
the country and their geographical spread is such that we need to ensure a full
measure of human rights and safeguards and their participation at all levels of
government from periphery to the centre. There is another factor that we have to
take into account. There is a system of federalism in India which is not as broad as in
many Western countries. What was primarily in the minds of the Indian Constitution
makers when they devised a federal form of government for India was to preserve
the unity and integrity of that country without allowing for its disintegration. This
principle applies to South Asia in general considering the existence of several
secessionist movements in our midst. We also have to take into account our own
evolution towards a federal type of system since the 13th Amendment to the
Constitution in 1987. We already have in place some extensive measures of
devolution of power, of course, with major structural impediments. ........ But the
whole matter needs further and fuller discussion on a national scale in the light of
evolving events on the ground in the North and East which throw doubt on whether
the LTTE truly wishes to have a federal form of government, notwithstanding public
statements to that effect"
On discrimination against Tamils -
" There was a time when, for instance, the use of Tamil for official purposes was not
recognised and there was discrimination against the Tamil-speaking community in
respect of education and employment. The Tamils had grievances. That cannot be
denied. The situation is much better now. But since independence the ethnic policy
of successive governments has been characterised by a lack of foresight,
mismanagement and broken promises - the Bandaranike/Chelvanayakam pact and
the Dudley Senanayake/Chelvanayakan pact are examples".
On LTTE and armed struggle
" As for your question whether the Sri Lankan Tamils would have been better off if
the LTTE did not drag the country into a bloody civil war, my personal view is that
socio-economic and political questions can never be resolved by war. But one must
try to understand why a generation of young Tamils who had witnessed unsuccessful
satyagraha campaigns and other peaceful attempts to secure redress for their
grievances came to the conclusion that there was no alternative but to resort to
arms. However, as the armed conflict has progressed it has become increasingly
clear that war cannot resolve the problems that led to war in the first place. Many
Tamils, even those of a moderate persuasion, hold the view that if the LTTE had not
taken up arms the question of a negotiated settlement of the ethnic problem would
never have been considered by any government in the South. The same group of
moderate Tamils would, I am sure, now say "enough of war"; the armed conflict must
end; a solution must be found through negotiations. As for the homeland question I
do not think the vast majority of Tamils, whether they presently live in Sri Lanka or
abroad, would prefer to live under Mr. Prabhakarn's rule, rather than in a free,
democratic, united Sri Lanka where the rights of minorities are adequately
safeguarded".
Much of the tiger inspired criticism against Kadirgamar being written, aired or
beamed on worldwide tiger media is ridiculous and for the most part do not deserve
the dignity of a response. But at least some need to be pinpointed briefly to highlight
the heights of absurdity and depths of depravity
One is about his being born and bred outside the North - East and living outside Sri
Lanka for a long period. This is depicted as lacking in Tamilness.If this were so then
most Tamil expatriates supporting the LTTE will also be excluded. Then there is his
inability to speak Tamil. If that is a fault then most children of Tamil expatriates
supporting the LTTE too will fall under the same category. There is also criticism
about his marrying outside the community particularly a Sinhalese.. If that was a
crime then many Tamil supporters of the LTTE will also be culpable. Even the tiger
IGP Nadesan with his Sinhala wife and Anton Balasingham with his Australian wife
are not "Tamils" by that yardstick.In any case none of these are reasons to justify
killing a man.
More serious is the despicable attempt to justify his killing on the grounds that he did
not identify with the Tamil cause or do anything meaningful to bring about a political
settlement. One does not know of the positive role Kadirgamar may have been
playing in this sphere and so one should not rush to judge him hastily. But even if it
were so this does not give the LTTE the right to kill him. Also these so called reasons
too are false and frivolus. Neelan Tiruchelvan worked hard to bring about a
Constitutional settlement. He was killed by the LTTE for that very reason. Then there
is Appapillai Amirthalingam and very many others who devoted a lifetime for the
Tamil cause but were all killed by the tigers. So let us understand that Kadirgamar
was killed because the LTTE did not like him and not for his supposed lack of
concern for Tamils.
Even being labelled traitor is now a relative matter. Anyone falling out with the tiger
hierarchy for any reason is a traitor. When Alfred Duraiyappah was killed he was a
traitor and Amirthalingam a patriot. Then Amirthalingam was killed and Mahathaya
called him a traitor. Then Mahathaya himself was executed as a traitor. Karuna
Amman was called a hero only two years aho. Now he is the greatest traitor of them
all. On the other hand people like Suresh Premachandran of the EPRLF and Selvam
Adaikkalanathan of the TELO and Rajavarothayam Sambandan of the TULF were
portrayed as traitors in the tiger media a few years ago. After prostrating themselves
at Pirapakarans feet they have been pardoned and given a new life as patriots
espousing the cause of Tamil nationalism. So who knows there may come a time
when many of those condemning Kadirgamar will become traitors and others
supporting him may be turn into patriots.
Damage to Kadirgamars name, reputation and image is not being done by tiger
elements alone. The so called Sinhala patriots and nationalists are doing it too. They
are portraying him only as a man working for the Sinhala state against the tigers. To
them Sri Lanka is Sinhala. They do not want to acknowledge that Kadirgamar stood
for devolution and wanted in his own way to restructure the state. The Sinhala ultras
are also silent about Kadirgamar being denied Prime Minstership on account of his
ethnicity. By trying to depict Kadirgamar as a "Sinhala Veeraya" (which he was not)
these elements are only helping the tiger sections to portray Kadirgamar as a Tamil
traitor.
If all those Sinhala nationalists (pseudo or otherwise) are truly grateful to Kadirgamar
and wish to honour his memory then they should accept the concept of devolution to
the provnces. The JVP shedding tears for Kadirgamar can demonstrate that they are
not crocodilean by accepting the principle of devolution. The Ultra nationalist Sinhala
circles can continue with their opposition to the LTTE but they must accept that the
Tamils have particular problems and that one way of resolving them is through a
scheme of devolution. This would be the best way to honour the memory of a man
who tried in his limited way to transcend race and ethnicity in the service of his
motherland.