 |
 |
 |
 |
solution
by Prof. S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole
"Gal Oya and Mahaweli schemes were the principal vehicles by which the
marginalization occurred."
There is a natural tension within the concept of multiculturalism that its
advocates do not realize and allow for. On the one hand, many of us say that
Sri Lanka is a multicultural country where every citizen ought to be able to live
anywhere and practice his culture. The view seemingly takes the moral high
ground in terms of equality, liberty and justice.
On the other hand, weaker cultures - whether weak in terms of institutions or
numbers - will not survive under this interpretation of multiculturalism. The
stronger cultures dominate paying mere lip-service to the minorities. In time the
minority-cultures will be marginalized and their very existence will be
threatened. The right to practice and live one's culture therefore must be
protected. One such means, in the Sri Lankan context where due to minorities
living under long years of discriminatory legislation and adverse practices that
have given the State the character of a Sinhalese state, is to provide a
devolved region, where the culture can be protected and allowed to thrive.
Thus, unlike the first paradigm, multiculturalism provides for a protected
territory. This dimension of multiculturalism runs counter to the first paradigm
where anyone is free to live anywhere. This is the tension within
multiculturalism.
The genius of federalism in this context is to provide areas where minorities
can be in control. While in control it is easier to be generous with and
accommodative of demographic changes that come about in the course of
economic migration without the fear of being swamped. Federalism in fact
accommodates the right of anyone to live anywhere and does so without any
fear of being swamped.
Failure of the Unitary Structure
A look at Sri Lanka makes it quite obvious that the first paradigm of letting
anyone live anywhere under a unitary structure has failed. This is seen clearly
in recruitment patterns in Sri Lanka. Again, Sri Lankan is widely interpreted as
Sinhalese-Buddhist and no one sees anything amiss. A recent research
project, for example, tries to gather indigenous knowledge and the one person
doing the job cannot speak Tamil. Clearly, it is as though Tamil indigenous
knowledge is not part of Sri Lankan indigenous knowledge! In the teaching of
history, "our kings" refers to Sinhalese kings, even playing down the fact that
most of these kings were begotten by Tamil princesses from across the Straits.
School histories hurt the dignity of the Tamils. Besides, there is so much
acrimony in historical research that Tamil historians have felt pressured to toe
the line or go abroad. I think it is better that we at least agree to disagree and
allow a federal structure where minorities can send their children to school
where their dignity is not negated through these distorted histories.
The inability to practice culture in a unitary structure is exemplified by the
Federal Party's request in 1968 to have Koneswaram Temple precincts
declared a sacred area. It was a time when the FP was in the coalition
government of Dudley Senanayake. Dr. C.E. Godakumbura, a retired
archaeological commissioner, argued in articles in The Sun (17.9 and 9.12
1968) that such a move would allow 'quislings' and 'fifth columnists' to entertain
foreign agents in the temple precincts and facilitate an invasion of this country
by India. True to the wisdom of his class, he argued that 'when Visakapatanam
is developed as a naval base, Trincomalee will be easily accessible from
there.' He saw agents of the invader coming in advance to the 'sacred city' as
tourists and pilgrims to be entertained by 'collaborationists' etc. Dudley
Senanayake refused the FP's request for reasons of 'national security'. The
Federal Party had little to show for its cooperation. To add insult to injury,
within Koneswaram Temple precincts in Fort Frederick, a brand new Buddhist
temple was constructed, purporting it to be the replanting of the ancient
Gokanna Vihare that had disappeared without a trace. It was the first time that
a lost shrine was located with so much certainty without a trace of
archaeological evidence to support it.
The Colonisation Example
The colonization of lands where Tamils are in majority, particularly as an
instrument of state policy, is something that any Tamil would feel threatened
by. A natural reaction is to ask for separation or adequate devolution that
includes control over land. It is only when Tamils are in control of their own
regions that they can be liberal and welcome Sinhalese in their midst in
confidence and security; not as colonizers. The percentage of the
Tamil-speaking population (including Muslims) in the Trincomalee District from
1921 to 1946 to 1953 to 1981 from the census exercises is 92.13, 75.09,
78.80, and 65.38. In the Batticaloa District for the years 1921, 1946 and 1953
the figures are 93.12 92.55 and 87.64. After Batticaloa District was broken up
into Amparai and Batticaloa Districts in 1961, the Tamil speaking figures for
Amparai are 70.22% in 1963, 69.47% in 1971, 62.03% in 1981 and 60.67 in
2001.
The colonization of the East by the state is a classic example where the unitary
structure has been used to eviscerate minorities there by settling mainly
landless peasants from the South, (except in the Weli-Oya scheme where
prisoners from Anuradhapura were brought in). Initially it was done to protect
large land holdings in the South. But it ignored protests by Tamil and Muslim
leaders about 1) their fear of marginalisation in representation, 2) land in the
East now being denied to them for their natural growth and economic
advancement, and importantly 3) security fears owing to the adoption of,
in-effect, a Sinhalese supremacist ideology by the State, which became a
reality with the 1956 Gal Oya riots and thereafter.
For those Sinhalese who cannot believe the militarism that went with
colonisation, M. Herman Gunaratne's book (For a Sovereign State) is a must
for the game it gives away. According to Gunaratne, Jayawardene "happened
to be present" at the Security Council meeting where a report apparently on
the security of settlements was discussed. The report had been prepared by
the lawyer S .L. Gunasekera and Davinda Senanayake and submitted to
Brigadier Dennis Hapugalle, Chief of Civil Defence. Here is the high point --
Gunaratne blames the authorities for settling Sinhalese there without weapons
training which his group had planned to do at Maduru Oya.
Gal Oya and Mahaweli
The Gal Oya and Mahaweli schemes were the principal vehicles by which this
marginalization occurred. The Gal Oya colony erupted in communal violence,
within a short time of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike's 'Sinhala Only' government
being voted into power. In this scheme in the interior of the Eastern Province,
Sinhalese elements largely drawn from the workforce attacked the Tamils who
were there in significant numbers as settlers, professionals, government
servants and traders. Tarzie Vittachi wrote: "Until Deputy Inspector-General of
Police Sydney de Zoysa went there and threatened to arrest even Cabinet
Ministers if they incited the mob to violence, the politicians made inflammatory
speeches against police action." Vittachi clearly confirms the complicity of the
highest levels of government.
Kantalai erupted during the 1977 violence claiming many Tamil lives. It had
reduced the Tamils to living under an ever-present threat of violence and in
total distrust of the State.
In the weeks preceding the July 83 violence, some officials in the Ministry of
Mahaveli and Lands were active trying speedily to implement Mahaveli System
M north of Trincomalee in the Yan Oya (River) basin. Like the subsequent
System L in Manal Aru (Weli Oya) in the Mullaitivu District started the following
year, it was to be another Mahaveli project without Mahaveli water!
The plan as these officials saw it was intended to sunder the contiguity of the
largely Tamil-speaking North-East by establishing large Sinhalese settlements
in the Yan Oya basin and then System B in the Maduru Oya basin. The story is
described by Gunaratne (ibid.). The plan according to him had the approval of
Gamini Disssanayake, who had promised to brief the President.
Also remarkable is the number of well educated people in high places who fell
in line to do their bit for the cause. Gunaratne names Dr. A.N.S. Kulasinghe
(Chairman), G.G. Jayawardene and H.B. Jayasekera of the Central
Engineering Consultancy Bureau as showing tremendous enthusiasm for the
project once he told them that the Minister had given his approval.
Significantly, this was about 23rd July 1983. These men were, no doubt,
excellent engineers. But motivated by Sinhalese elite ideology, they were
thoughtless about transplanting the Sinhalese poor into conditions that were
economically disastrous and politically explosive.
Patrick Peebles has written thus in his article titled Colonization and Ethnic
Conflict in the Dry Zone of Sri Lanka (Journal of Asian Studies, February
1990): "As late as May 1982 Mahaweli project officials claimed that Dry Zone
settlements would defuse ethnic tension by reducing unemployment. They
were unduly optimistic. Earlier colonization schemes had divided the Sinhalese
majority and the Tamil minority long before either Mahaveli River development
or ethnic violence accelerated...
The UNP consciously evoked the image of an idyllic Buddhist past in which the
Dry Zone irrigation provided the resources for a prosperous and cultured
civilization. Officials of the Accelerated Mahaveli Programme appealed directly
to this mythical past, in which Tamil Hindu invaders were hated enemies, to
mobilize Buddhist support."
In time, by the 1990s as my students from the East testify, they were lined up
by the hundreds from their hostels and survived only because of knowing a
few words of Sinhalese while the rest were shot by the STF. When this kind of
land settlement created the Gal Oya and subsequent massacres leading to a
more and more strident cry for separation, is such land settlement worth the
price we have paid for it?
The World Bank's Inspection Panel
If good Sinhalese are still not convinced that the Mahaweli Scheme was not
tied up to majoritarian militarism, they ought to read the Mossad Commission
Report (1991) which draws attention to the following from the book by Viktor
Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy (By Way of Deception, 1990, p. 69): "I was assigned
to escort Jayewardene's daughter-in-law - a woman named Penny - on a
secret visit to Israel. She knew me as 'Simon'... she insisted on telling me about
the [Mahaveli] project and how money for it was financing equipment for the
army. She was complaining that they weren't really getting on with it. Ironically,
the project had been 'invented' to get money from the World Bank to pay for
those weapons." While some may argue that the commission discredited the
book, as Mervyn de Silva pointed out Ostrovsky stood his ground in a
televised debate with a leading Israeli official and its contents have not been
challenged since.
It is now becoming increasingly known that the World Bank is presently going
through some soul-searching as to how its money declared to be for irrigation
was used for socio-political engineering. Officials have been cautioned about
examining this dimension prior to authorizing Sri Lankan grants. Today, the
World Bank, with its Inspection Panel requires social impact assessment prior
to funding and will investigate complaints on the ill-effects of projects under its
sponsorship. Poignantly, the project settling ethnic Chinese in Tibet was
aborted by the Bank's Inspection Panel after due investigation, despite
powerful China's protests.
Looking Forward - to Federalism
As Sri Lankans we had had more than our share of problems and given these,
there really is no point in insisting on the first paradigm of anyone being able
to live anywhere. That can happen only when all the peoples [sic.] of this land
feel secure, not only in terms of culture but even in terms of life.
Too many times have we come close to some accommodation from the times
of the BC Pact only to have our hopes dashed by communal extremists. Once
again there is talk of Federalism. The lack of democracy in the North is used
as an excuse to deny Tamils their rights. But it is good to remember that it is
when the settlement is negotiated that we can shape the kind of place the
North-East will be. If the North-East breaks off because of continued
intransigence over ceding the just rights of Tamils, we would then have no say
at all over what happens there and indeed, the land will become unprofitable to
everyone, whether Tamil, Muslim or Sinhalese.