 |
 |
 |
 |
By Dr. S. Narapalasingam
Dr. Rajasingham Narendran elder brother of R. Jeyadevan, UK resident, chartered accountant and
the managing trustee of Eelap Patheeswarar Sivan Temple located in Wembley, London has written
some thoughtful articles concerning the future of the Tamils. His concerns have come in the wake of
his brother’s ordeals in Vanni when he was held captive incommunicado there by the Liberation
Tamil Tigers for 62 days under very trying conditions. He was released on 9 March 2005 after the
intervention of the UK authorities in London. Jeyadevan himself has written in detail about his
terrible experiences, both physical and mental, during his incarceration. During captivity, he had
thought he would not live to tell his horrific experience to his family and friends. The part played by
his former associates in London all of them LTTE campaigners in the episode in Vanni was revealed
by Jeyadevan in his radio talks and writings. This is another disturbing factor in the changing Tamil
culture. In this transformation, even temples have been left unscathed. They have been used for
secular purposes that cannot be described as humanitarian.
Brothers Concern
In his letter to the Editor, Sangam.org, USA written after returning to London, Jeyadevan has said:
“My experience in Vanni is an experience for the Tamil community and cannot be disregarded in
anyway as an isolated incident or unsubstantiated issue. Having worked tirelessly to espouse the
Tamil cause, despite hostilities from the very same organisation which I revered, it is best we Tamils
take stock of the situation we are in now. As expatriate Tamils, we have a major role to play to
correct the situation from deteriorating further. Failing which, we will be condemned historically for
our farcical conduct of using our own people in our motherland as fodder.” Not many Tamils,
especially those who have surrendered their mind and soul to the LTTE cause would consider
Jeyadevan’s experience as a threat to the future well-being of the community. This is inferred from
the continued silence of the community to the recruitment of child soldiers, abduction of civilians and
political killings, despite the concerns and frequent protests of foreign governments, UNICEF and
human rights organisations. Those who consider the LTTE cause to be the Tamil cause and
espouse it have been blind to these despicable acts for two main reasons. They consider these as
unavoidable in the struggle for liberation. In contrast, their children, brothers and sisters remain safe
because of their privileged status. Only when some tragic or traumatic incident as in Jeyadevan’s
case happens either to themselves or to their family members, they become conscious of the real
situation that endangers Tamil culture, civil liberties and individual’s basic rights.
The two brothers have been ardent supporters of the armed struggle waged by the LTTE for the
liberation of the North-East region from government control. The distinction between the liberation
of the land as against the people and the supreme importance given to this objective regardless of
the human and economic losses and deprivation of the basic rights of the people must be
considered to analyse realistically on their criticisms and their call for changes to the methods used
by the LTTE in the liberation struggle. It is also important to consider the ways the organization has
evolved since the beginning of the resistance. Dr. Narendran has aired the concerns of broad-
minded Tamils openly, though his suggestions for change ignore the practical difficulties that exist
as a result of the firm control the LTTE has over the Tamils in N-E Sri Lanka and the blind support of
many Tamil nationalists in the diaspora. They are not risking their future or that of their children by
continuing with their support to the current approach and the methods to liberate the land.
Reality
At present, the LTTE is not answerable to the people but it is the people who are accountable to the
LTTE for their actions. This too is not surprising as the LTTE is the sole organization responsible for
both political and military campaigns being conducted in pursuit of Tamil Eelam. The TNA formed on
the eve of last year’s parliamentary elections has no independent role in Tamil politics. As a stand-in
to the LTTE, the parliamentarians have to act according to the dictates of the LTTE leaders. It is the
LTTE’s voice that is echoed within and outside the Parliament by the TNA members.
The late Dharmeratnam Sivaram alias Taraki wrote in the 14th March 1990 issue of ‘The Island’:
“The LTTE is the only organization that still refuses to submit the dream of Tamileelam to the
dictates of political and geo-strategic realities. For the LTTE the moral obligation is more important
than political reality. It still feels that it should not betray those who laid down their lives for the
cause.” Taraki’s article was reproduced in the TamilNet on May 22, 2005, three weeks after he was
assassinated by unknown (not traced yet) persons in Colombo. There is little sign that the LTTE has
revised its earlier stand on Tamileelam. The LTTE supporters too seem to ignore the geo-political
realities because of their blind faith in the concept of separate Tamileelam.
In his open letter to the Sinhalese, Dr. Narendran (ref. 5) has asked: “Do you know that most Tamils,
including the LTTE are ready to accept a well structured and organized federal system of
governance as an alternative to an independent Tamil Eelam, within Sri Lanka?” This question begs
a definite answer since the LTTE leader has not declared his readiness to shun separation and
accept federalism. The Oslo Declaration was rejected by the LTTE after its leader reprimanded his
negotiating team for agreeing to explore a federal model for adoption in the final settlement.
Realistically, the Indian model has a better chance of wide acceptance both within and outside Sri
Lanka especially by India that has declared that she has an abiding interest in the unity, sovereignty
and territorial integrity of her southern neighbour.
One does not have to search for LTTE’s determination not to abandon its ideological stand,
regardless of its consequences to the people. It was in the LTTE’s political wing leader S. P.
Thamilselvan’s May 17 Sudar Oli interview. The English translation appeared later in many Sri
Lankan papers. He rebuffed President Kumaratunga’s statements at the Kandy Donor Conference
on the ‘Joint Mechanism’ or ‘Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure’ (P-TOMS) as
“irresponsible comments”. He said: "We are angered by the irresponsible comments of the President
that we accept the sovereignty of the Government. We refuse to work under any authority under the
Sri Lankan government but in an independent body consisting of foreign monitors and observers.
We will only work in tandem with an independent body comprising foreign monitors and observers."
Thamilselvan’s rejection of government’s direct or indirect authority in the structure is because such
influence contradicts with LTTE’s ideology. The contradiction between this stand of the LTTE and
the benefits it gets on request from the SL government has been pointed out by Dr. Narendran in
his article ‘Tamils, LTTE and The Future’ (ref. 6). The JVP used Thamilselvan’s response to justify
its objection to giving any direct role for the LTTE in the ‘joint mechanism’. In fact the opposition to
JM gained momentum after this comment, reinforced further by the assassination of Major
(promoted posthumously to Lt. Colonel) Tuwan Nizam Muthaliff, the Army Intelligence Chief on 31
May in Colombo allegedly by Tamil Tigers.
The Island’ editorial (8 June 2005) stated, “the root cause of resistance to the JM is the LTTE's
terrorism. Neither the JVP nor the JHU nor anyone else will oppose a partnership between the
government and a democratic Tamil political party to handle tsunami aid. The JVP, which is
opposing the JM tooth and nail, is amenable to an administrative arrangement between the
government and the TNA to disburse tsunami funds notwithstanding the latter's pro LTTE leanings,
as it has representation in Parliament.” It also blamed, “all those who are enamoured of the JM and
want it implemented, including the aid donors are doing precious little to wean the Tigers away from
their terror and separatist cause or at least to wrest a pledge to that effect. If that is done, then the
opposition to the JM will fizzle out. It must be prepared to make compromises, however hard it may
be for them. Peace making is, they should be told, a give and take process.” Whatever the grudge
against the chief army intelligence officer, the killing at the present time exhibits lack of foresight and
tact. Arrogance also prevents leaders to consider in advance from a wide perspective the
consequences of their intended actions.
The New York based Human Rights Watch (HRW) in its latest report posted on the group's website
www.hrw.org stated: “Sri Lanka donor conference (held May 16- 17 in Kandy) strongly endorsed a
joint mechanism to coordinate aid with the LTTE, but did not demand an end to the political killings
and adductions.” It pointed out that the international donors “squandered an opportunity to attach
conditions to tsunami aid, which will in part be spent on rebuilding areas controlled by the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka's north and east”. The group added: "Norway, the
facilitator of the peace agreement, and other key states such as Japan, the United States and the
United Kingdom, have also chosen not to use their leverage to demand an end to the killings." Some
Sri Lankan analysts have criticised foreign governments for not exerting the kind of pressure on the
LTTE that resulted in Jeyadevan’s release to stop the continuing political killings.
Sri Lankan authorities too have been faulted by HRW for failing to bring to justice the killers of 27
Tiger cadres, including former child soldiers on 25 October 2000 at a state-run rehabilitation camp
in Bindunuwewa. The Supreme Court on 27 May 2005 overturned the convictions in 2003 of four
men sentenced to death on charges they were involved in the massacre for lack of evidence.
"These acquittals show a shocking failure of the police and the legal system in Sri Lanka to find
justice for the dead and injured from this horrific incident," Brad Adams, the director for Asia, said in
a statement posted on the Web site www.hrw.org. The impulsive placement of Buddha statues in
moot spots in Trincomalee and Vavuniya at the present critical time shows the mischievous move to
bring in religion as another dividing factor in the ethnic conflict. Such actions are counter productive
to the aim of promoting ethnic harmony and unity vital for lasting peace and safeguarding the
territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. These question the motive of the instigators.
On the Trinco Buddha statue controversy, Asian Tribune reported on May 27 under the heading
“Trincomalee issue: Eelaventhan’s elegy and Sampanthan’s caution” that K. Eelaventhan MP told
the online daily, “Sampanthan had failed to take a collective decision and stressed that the TNA
should only take and implement orders from the LTTE”. R. Sampanthan MP (Trincomalee district)
taking a somewhat conciliatory approach to the resolution of the issue agreed to postpone the
planned hartal to June2 but this irked the Tamil separatists. If this is the uncompromising attitude of
the majority of Tamil leaders, there is no chance for peace making to be a ‘give and take process’.
Dr. Narendran’s comments (ref. 7) on this issue reflect his in-depth knowledge of Tamil literature
and history and importantly a liberal attitude to the Tamil problem. He has said: “To all Hindus, he
(Lord Buddha) was a reformer of historic significance and a philosopher par-excellence. Tamils had
embraced Buddhism during it’s hey day in India. Archeological evidence indicates Tamils practised
Buddhism in the Jaffna peninsula. Tamil Buddhists were in the forefront during the golden era of
Tamil literature. …. Let there be thousands of Buddha statues erected under every Bo-tree, across
the length and breadth of our island (to) remind us every day, morning, noon and night that Lord
Buddha stood for love, dharma, tolerance, non-violence, meditation and perpetual striving for
enlightenment.” If only the present leaders on either side of the ethnic divide, the vast majority are
Buddhists and Hindus give some attention to this noble view, Sri Lanka will be a real paradise in this
world.
Ethnic problem and LTTE
The so-called ethnic conflict or as some say the national problem has many dimensions. Ethnicity is
one main factor and its resolution requires consideration of the rights of the minority communities
within and outside the North-East. Several Indian government leaders have stressed time and again
that India supports a peace process that includes representatives of all communities and a final
settlement must be acceptable to all. This is the ideal method, if the LTTE is a political party that
accepts pluralism* and not a powerful militant movement that relies on its proven fighting strength
and authority already acquired to extend and consolidate its power. India cannot be unaware of
LTTE’s intent and the aggressive method to achieve its aim but prefers to ignore them. It is because
of the rejection of the pluralism concept and its infatuation for monolithic society that it has
embraced monocracy. Force has also become necessary to install it given the prevailing unhelpful
conditions in the North-East. These fundamental issues are being ignored by many Tamils, including
those with a broad outlook.
The Tamils also need to know, even if the N-E conflict is settled in the way the LTTE wants, there is
no guarantee that the ethnic problem will get resolved at the same time. The LTTE leader had at the
very outset made it very clear that the struggle for Tamileelam is not about the rights and concerns
of the Tamils living permanently outside the North-East. Incidentally the majority live outside the
North-East. It is important to bear in mind the above fundamentals to examine deeply the
observations and suggestions of Dr. Narendran.
The Tamil question has been used by the main parties as a tool in the power struggle to undercut
the party in power. The parties were reluctant or unable to fulfill the promises given to the Tamils
during their election campaigns (and party manifestos) because of this rivalry. Furthermore, the
grievances of the Tamils increased because of government policies and practices that were
perceived as discriminatory. These blunders together with attempts to suppress Tamil dissent by
violent methods led to the uprising which has now plunged the country into a terrible crisis. The
LTTE now finds both the unresolved ethnic issue and the ensuing unrest in the country useful for
acquiring controlling powers in the North-East. Without the ethnic conflict, the LTTE’s current plan to
gain power will be useless. To the LTTE, the conflict must remain unresolved until they have gained
substantial control in the North-East.
Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam paid the ultimate price for striving ardently to find a solution to the ethnic
problem through extensive devolution of powers. The attempt by the President Kumaratunga to
amend the present constitution to devolve some powers to the regions was foiled in August 2000 by
UNP, the then opposition party in the Parliament. This was a relief to the separatists anxious to keep
the status quo unchanged. If the peace negotiations are for settling this conflict, as many within and
outside Sri Lanka believe the process will either collapse or just drag on without much progress. The
Sinhala-Buddhist nationalists are now indirectly providing the support needed to ensure that the
mistrust and the fear of Sinhala dominance continue to be useful to the LTTE.
The Tamil people are aware that LTTE’s military strength is vital until meaningful political rights are
secured, leaving no room for Colombo to tamper later with the agreement through retraction or
deficient implementation. But as pointed out by Dr. Narendran, its use for achieving other aims of
the LTTE raises anxiety about the future of Tamils in the entire country. Here the distinction between
the political aims of Tamils and the LTTE becomes crucial. This is not to dismiss the concerns of the
LTTE as unimportant. These have to be in some way linked to the broader aims. If this imperative is
not considered in seeking a settlement to the conflict, negotiating with the LTTE will be meaningless.
The assumption that the political settlement sought is for meeting the aspirations and wishes of the
Tamils in Sri Lanka is misleading. In fact, if this is the case, there is no need to negotiate with the
LTTE and an expert group can come up with a federal structure that is reasonable to satisfy the
concerns and aspirations of all the three major communities. But this will not be acceptable to the
LTTE because of its discrete concerns linked to tragic happenings during the war and, of course,
the vowed nationalistic goal of its leader.
Many Tamil nationalists have embraced LTTE’s ideology and the methods used to seek
independence. They did not perceive them as perilous to the observance of fundamental rights and
traditional cultural values. The issues raised by Dr. Narendran in his articles are real and should be
of concern to Tamils yearning for peace and a better future in Sri Lanka. However, it is important to
see them in the context of the nature of the struggle for liberation explained above to recognize the
practical difficulty in effecting changes, as proposed by Dr. Narendran. Moreover, there is no visible
sign that the majority of Eelamists want the LTTE to change its methods as they believe strongly
these are necessary to sustain LTTE’s bargaining strength. Many privileged Tamils are still gloating
in the fighting strength of the LTTE and its feats in the two Eelam wars. Dr. Narendran, has
recognised the need to place limit on Tamil nationalism for the future well-being of Tamils in Sri
Lanka. There is the real possibility that the Tamils will continue to live in Sri Lanka in a state of
uncertainty deprived of the benefits of development and good education for the children, if the LTTE
leadership fails to recognize the limits beyond which aggression too will be counter productive. It is
imprudent to think that international support will eventually come to establish a separate Tamil state.
Careful study of Dr. Narendran’s articles listed in the appendix will reveal the dilemma that has
arisen as a result of LTTE’s approach to liberation based on the idealistic notion of monolithic
society and the methods used to shove the outfit’s dominance in the North-East. The terrible but
unspoken fact is the unresolved problem is being kicked around like a football by the power seekers
in the North and South. The LTTE is using it in the same way it was used by the two principal teams
in the south. Although Dr. Narendran has overlooked the underlying reasons for the LTTE to stick to
the aggressive methods, nevertheless this is the first time some one has raised openly issues from a
liberal perspective. It is important to know for certain whether the present methods are useful to
secure communal unity, let alone internal unity essential for permanent peace. Will the Tamils be
able to live and travel safely within Sri Lanka without being deprived of their basic rights?
In his very first paper (From Frying Pan Into The Fire – ref. 1) written soon after his brother’s
release, Dr Narendran conveyed his discomfort on the use of violent methods to gain all-inclusive
powers for controlling the life of the people. He observed: “Unlike in most struggles of a similar
nature, where the military wing is subordinate to the political leadership, the Tamil militant outfits in
Sri Lanka, the LTTE included, arose primarily as military movements that were inspired by political
grievances. There was no mature, experienced, statesman-like political leadership to provide an
overarching guiding philosophy. The LTTE, with its primary focus on military confrontation and
primacy of military leadership, had to evolve a political component, from within its own cadres. This
apparently is its Achilles heel. …. The brain washing, blind obedience, hero worshipping, rebellion
against established social norms and brutality that are drilled into cadres of guerilla outfits, which
are absolutely essential for their survival and success, become liabilities in the political life of a
nation, in times of peace. This is the dilemma of the LTTE and the Tamil people. Intelligence in the
absence of education becomes cunning. Political power exercised with the gun in one hand
becomes a dictatorship. Battle field tactics translated into civilian life lead to fascism.” (Ref. 1.)
Dr. Narendran feels the struggle has reached a dead-end and a different approach is needed to
convert the military successes into final political achievement. The LTTE leadership with its
entrenched militaristic mindset is not the appropriate one for accomplishing this task tactfully. He has
said in his recent article (ref. 6): “Unless there is an unexpected transformation in Prabhaharan,
which would be very welcome and a cause for celebration and as a consequence in the LTTE, their
mission has almost reached a dead-end. As much as a politically active Mahatma Gandhi was
irrelevant to independent India, Prabhaharan may be becoming so. While Mahatma Gandhi had the
wisdom to sense his irrelevance and give way to Nehru, Prabhaharan may not do so and even if
thus inclined, not permitted by his ardent followers, the hangers on and the sycophants. All
indications are that Prabhaharan and the LTTE are determined to rule the Tamils, hook or by crook,
come what may. ……. This is a dictatorship of the worse kind, which the Tamils did not bargain for.
There is a big difference between the two (military and political organisations) being led and being
forced to follow, although some elements among the Tamils prefer to turn a blind eye to this. This is
the unpalatable and bitter fact that is confronting the Tamils and the seed for future turmoil.”
To the LTTE leader the ‘war option’ still remains open. He is certainly not in the position Mahatma
Gandhi was at the end of the second world war. It is wishful thinking that the LTTE leader will
abandon his resolute plan and change course to ensure the Tamils gain their full sovereign rights in
a cordial environment that holds the prospect of peaceful coexistence of all ethnic groups. To make
this possible, he must first embrace the concept of a plural society. The LTTE has claimed that their
aspirations are those of the Tamil community. This depiction is challenged by Dr. Narendran and
some others. It remains to be seen when this will emerge as the majority view.
Dr. Narendran’s perception of what he saw travelling a few times on the A-9 highway is influenced by
his thoughts than reality. The LTTE is a highly disciplined organisation and even those working for it
in foreign countries are closely supervised. The miscreants there have been punished by the
leader. To expect the leader to change either the political aim or the methods used to achieved it
because of the current state of mind of the people, whatever that may be, is nothing but figment of
the imagination. Dr. Narendran as a thinker has quoted the wise dictum, “the end does not justify the
means” and has said, “this has proved true in the case of Tamils in Sri Lanka”. Sadly, it is not the
means but the end that is considered important in the struggle for liberation.
But this is now not inconsistent with the new culture that has evolved with the struggle! The cultural
downturn is alarming but yet ignored by the nationalists, who consider liberating the land at any cost
to be the main aim of the struggle.
Conclusion
The many issues raised in the backdrop of the ground realities reflect the conflict between the minds
of some devotees and sense of visionaries. What is considered by some as ideal is not practical and
what is practical is not ideal for others. Incidentally, education does not seem to have an influence in
bringing the mind and sense closer. This is partly due to the conditioning of the mind by propaganda
tailored to promote nationalism and also partly to the unpleasant experiences before and during the
war. The dominance of mind over sense prevails in varying degrees in all humans. The problem
arises when this dominance is excessive. The decision to eliminate minds that are at odds with the
decision-maker is in itself the consequence of this dominance. Great leaders and even popular
monarchs had council of wise men to seek advice. The darkness that has fallen is also due to the
absence of exchange of ideas between those who share Dr. Narendran’s views and the others
emotionally attached to LTTE’s political ideology. Sadly, the Tamil media too is unwilling or rather
unable to facilitate this process.
Dr. Narendran who has experienced many tragic events has succeeded in bringing sense to
influence the mind after liberating it from emotion. In his papers, Dr. Narendran has assumed that
the conditions on the ground can be changed so as to achieve the objectives desired by him and
other likeminded Tamils. But his suggestion to reform the LTTE at this late stage is as baffling as the
proverbial question ‘who can bell the cat?’
Appendix
*According to Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary one meaning of ‘pluralism’ is: a state of
society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an
autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the
confines of a common civilization.
Dr. R. Narendran’s articles written after the ordeal of his brother Jeyadevan :
1. Tamils: From the Frying Pan into the Fire (19 March 2005 – AT)
2. A-9 Road To Nowhere (3 April 2005 - AT)
3. Whither Tamils? (17 April 2005 - TW)
4. Tamils and Kurukshetra (1 May 2005 – AT)
5. An Open Letter to the Sinhalese (15 May 2005 – TW)
6. Tamils, LTTE and The Future (29 May 2005 – TW)
7. Tamils and the Buddha Statue (5 June 2005 – TW)
AT= Asiantribune.com; TW = Tamilweek.com