By Dr. S. Narapalasingam
The debate on the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and its settlement has taken different turns since India’s intervention in 1987 to settle the conflict through devolution of powers. The LTTE rejected the provincial council system with the Northern and Eastern Provinces merged as one administrative province and continued fighting resolutely for a separate state – Tamil Eelam. Following the Supreme Court (SC) ruling that the merger is unconstitutional, illegal and invalid, the future status of North-East region has ignited another debate. LTTE’s response to the Supreme Court ruling, as expected, is in the statement of S. P. Thamilselvan, its political wing leader. After the meeting with the visiting Norwegian peace envoy Jon Hanssen Bauer he said on October 19: “As far as we are concerned Tamil land cannot be divided. The Sri Lankan government has no right to decide whether to de-merge or merge Tamil land because the Tamil people have not accepted the Constitution of the Sri Lankan government nor have we”.
Urgent action needed on the de-merger issue
Many including some government ministers consider the SC ruling ill-timed. The issue has far reaching implications for relationship and trust both within and outside Sri Lanka. R. Hariharan retired Military Intelligence Specialist on South Asia who served with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka (1987-90) as Head of Intelligence has commented on the implications in his article in the Asian Tribune October 20.
“The creation of a unified Northeast entity is a fundamental issue to the Tamil struggle for their democratic rights. This is one issue on which there is unanimous agreement among all Tamils. They include the rank and file of Tamil political parties of all shades in Sri Lanka and India, insurgent groups – both the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and their sworn opponents and other Tamil community leaders both at home and
abroad. The Thimpu principles endorsed by all Tamil political parties include this issue. The historical reasons for the merger of the Tamil speaking areas are well known and need not be repeated. It has been written so much that it now forms part of any analysis of the Sri Lanka Tamil issue. This was the reason why it formed part of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement signed in 1987.
In a normal situation, the creation of a province will be treated purely as an internal political issue. In such a case any foreign interference in the issue can be objected to. However, the creation of Northeast Province ceased to be a purely internal issue after it became a part of the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement 1987, which though dead in spirit is still alive”.
He has also pointed out not only India but also other countries recognized the importance of the merger for a political settlement.
“India had been quite consistent in its stand on the de-merger issue.
When he met President Rajapaksa at Havana during the recent Non-Aligned Movement Summit, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is reported to have conveyed that Northeast Province should not be de-merged without a referendum. And that such a referendum would only be possible when there was a “conducive atmosphere.”
“At present not only India, but the Co-chairs of Tokyo Donors Conference also would not like the status of Northeast disturbed. At their meeting in Brussels on September 12, 2006 the Four Co-chairs cautioned against any change in the present arrangement in Northeast”.
Its effect on the current move to settle the conflict is seen from his comment: “If the Government goes ahead with the de-merger in compliance with the Supreme Court judgement, as the JVP wants, the direct beneficiary of the action will be the LTTE. The LTTE has all along questioned the sincerity of successive governments in Sri Lanka in solving the Tamil issue. The Tamils would construe the act of de-merger as a vindication of LTTE’s stand. And neither Sri Lanka nor the President can afford to alienate the Tamils any further. They need the support of Tamils to solve the issue as much as they need the Southern consensus”.
The entire North-East observed hartal on October 25 against the de-merger. According to foreign media reports the shutdown was widespread with Muslims too joining the protest. According to a report in the Hindustan Times October 25 based on information provided by M Sahabdeen, a well known Muslim columnist based in the East, 90 per cent of the Muslims of the Eastern Province were against the de-merger. “Muslims of the East feared Sinhala-majoritarian domination as much as they feared Tamil domination”. He had told: “What the Muslims wanted was a separate autonomous unit for themselves in parts of the East where they were preponderant”. They did not want to alienate the Tamils, with whom they would have “to live cheek by jowl in most parts of the East”. Sahabdeen also told: “The Muslims closed their shops today to express solidarity with the Tamils but they expect the Tamils to recognise their aspiration to have an autonomous unit for themselves in the East.”
Since a referendum cannot be conducted at present, the recent agreement between the SLFP and UNP (discussed below under ‘SLFP-UNP agreement’) can be used to pass legislation extending the tenure of the merger until this becomes possible, which depends on how soon normality is restored.
Devolution debate
The opponents of devolution in the ongoing debate have ignored the frustrating experiences of the minorities under the unitary system. Their arguments are theoretical and are also stealthily based on the supremacy of the majority. In other words, the concerns of the majority should override those of the minorities. Their arguments for retaining the unitary structure that made majoritarian rule possible since independence ignore not only the root causes of the ethnic problem but also the war waged at enormous cost for a separate autonomous state. The separatists feel the only way to get out of the grip of Sinhalese hegemony is to seek a solution outside Sri Lanka’s constitution. Devolution of powers under the unitary structure is not the solution to the Tamil problem, as the separatists do not want any form of control by the Sinhalese majority.
‘Sunday Island’ columnist ‘Foxwatch’ in his analysis ‘Constitutional change and common sense’ (October 15) has opined that the devolution proposals considered so far including those incorporated in the aborted Bill of August 2000 to repeal and replace the existing Constitution, “abdicated rather than devolved power, to an extent that would have rendered a reassertion of central authority impossible”. The anti-devolutionist says there is no ethnic problem and Sri Lanka has essentially a terrorist problem.
In support of the claim there is no ethnic problem; the following facts have been cited. There are “widespread friendships between Sinhalese and Tamils in everyday life, in the workplace, and in residential areas; the prominence of Tamils in politics, business, the professions, and the Universities; and above all, with the fact that over half the Tamils of Sri Lanka live amicably among the Sinhalese, outside the Northern and Eastern Provinces”. Utter confusion is seen here between private relationship and with the State. The latter has been unpleasant because of the denial of minority rights and freedom to decide and act on matters concerning the security and future well-being of the community. Moreover, the long-term development of North and East was neglected by successive governments, because the majority of the residents there were non-Sinhalese. It is important to separate the connection of the minority communities with the State from person to person or inter communal relationships to understand the nature of the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka.
Many Tamils who had the opportunity to mix with the Sinhalese will readily admit their friendliness and readiness to help at times of need. To give an example: Rajpal Abeynayake, former editor of Sunday Observer/ The Sunday Times columnist and the slain Senior editor of pro-LTTE ‘TamilNet’ and Daily Mirror columnist Dharmeratnam Sivaram (Taraki) were very close friends but had conflicting views on the ethnic problem. There must be many Sinhalese and Tamil professionals in various fields who have very amicable relationships in their social lives and these do not mean there is no ethnic problem, which is a political issue. Despite attempts by few bigots to show the race card to keep the ethnic communities apart, the fact that Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims live peacefully in the South shows that the peace-loving majority has not been instigated by divisive moves. Again this does not mean there is no political problem concerning ethnic minorities in Sri Lanka.
This writer is fully aware that development of certain infrastructural facilities in the North-East was ignored mainly for political reason. One example is Trincomalee endowed with one of the best natural harbours. It presented a golden opportunity to serve as a catalyst for developing the national economy. But the development of that region was ignored for reason well known to those involved in preparing and implementing national development plans. The natural resource potential was not used forfeiting benefits to the country’s economy because of ethnic majority-minority politics. The human resource potential was also not exploited gainfully for national development because of the political imperative to restrict promising opportunities to minority Tamils. The cost of parochial politics has been the damage to unity, peace and national economic development. The latter deprived millions of higher income and wealth and widened the gap between the rich and the poor.
‘Foxwatch’ is against any proposal including devolution that is irrevocable. Ignoring the enormous damage done to the unity and progress of the country over the past five decades, the columnist believes all problems could be solved within the current unitary constitution. To quote: “The fad now is a federal system, an Indian-model system, whatever, all involving a new constitution, and all irrevocable. Here again, basic questions need to be asked before. What is sought to be achieved by a federal system which cannot be achieved under the present unitary Constitution? …. The issue is not how to change or replace the Constitution, but whether it needs to be changed at all”.
In Sri Lanka’s case, unitary system from a theoretical standpoint is workable but it has been made unsuitable by the inequitable ways it functioned as a result of manipulations by the parties that governed the country since independence in order to achieve their narrow political aims. This is the main reason for the Tamils to believe they will not be treated justly under any rigid unitary structure, which has been found to be ‘for the Sinhalese by the Sinhalese’.
Neville Ladduwahetty in his article titled, “Call to address legitimate Tamil grievances” in the Daily News October 17 has also taken the view that those calling for governmental action on Tamil grievances have failed to enunciate “the specifics as to the content and character of these grievances”. He wants to know what makes the Tamil community think “the mere transformation of the State into a federal structure would somehow resolve their grievances?” Any ardent supporter of the LTTE will instantly say it would not succeed and separation is the appropriate solution! Tamils of all hues of political opinion consider the ways the governing system functioned depriving the community of equal rights and opportunities, development of North and East, safety and security, making them feel as second-class citizens led to the present crisis. In essence, the ethnic problem is a collection of these failings which, of course, cannot be attributed entirely to the system. The fault lies largely on the unfair ways the powerful political leaders used it to achieve their narrow political objectives. The weakness in the system is that it permitted exploitation by governments for purposes harmful to national unity, peace and long-term development.
The critic of federal solution has also made some related comments. He has said, “not only the lack of consensus as to what Tamil grievances are, but also the fact that the location has a direct bearing on felt grievances. In these circumstances, federalism as a solution to Tamil grievances would address the grievances of ONLY segments of the Tamil community and not the Tamil community as a whole”. This is true if the ethnic bias continues to sway at both the central and regional levels. Hopefully, a change in the ways of governance will also induce attitudinal change towards fairness and unity. One should not forget the current efforts are towards uniting the divided nation, which is not possible without changing the unitary system. The minorities consider it as a failure because of the hurtful ways the system had functioned.
Regarding the grievances of minority Tamils, Neville Ladduwahetty has said: “During the late 1980s the grievances cited were, language, the policy of admission to universities (standardization), state sponsored colonization schemes and disenfranchising of Tamils of Indian Origin. Except for issues relating to shortfalls in the implementation of language policies, most others have been non-issues for nearly two decades. Therefore, under these circumstances of changing grievances it is not realistic to negotiate political arrangements that for all intents and purposes are meant to address Tamil grievances for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, since grievances are bound to change even further with time, should not the political arrangements contemplated be sufficiently flexible to accommodate such changes?”
The straight answer is that the Tamils wish to minimize the opportunities for some future government dominated by Sinhalese to return to the 1956-1983 era. Basically this relates to the lack of trust. As a matter of fact, no system – unitary or federal will function to the satisfaction of all communities dispersed across the island as it is now, if a section of the population has no confidence in the system. Building and sustaining the confidence is the responsibility of the government. In Sri Lanka’s case all past governments because of power-centered cutthroat party politics neglected this duty.
Neville Ladduwahetty has made a serious accusation against the Tamils.
He has said: “Despite these ground realities the aspiration of the Tamil community is for them to govern the Northern and Eastern Provinces as a single unit. The lack of a Tamil majority in the Eastern Province was circumvented through the mathematical innovation of spreading the numerical majority in the Northern Province over both provinces, thus transforming both provinces into a single Tamil majority region. This was to be reinforced by the mirage of a Tamil-speaking entity committed to a common political goal. What they over looked was the fundamental democratic need to seek the consent of the Peoples of the Eastern Province to such a proposition”.
“The fact that the Tamil community as a whole is opposed to the concept of democratically seeking the consent of communities in the Eastern Province for a merger with the Northern Province reflects a dismissal of and a disrespect for the fundamental freedoms and human rights of the communities in the Eastern Province. The fact that the Tamil community hopes to realise their aspirations by denying the basic rights of others reflects poorly on their sense of justice when it comes to the fulfillment of their own community’s aspirations which they expect should come regardless of the impact and costs to others”.
A sweeping generalization accusing the entire Tamil community to be undemocratic, assertive and indifferent to the basic rights of others is very unfair. Ironically, the same kind of accusation was made by dismayed Tamils against the governments of Sri Lanka for denying them equal rights and opportunities. Some Tamil nationalists might argue that the ethnic composition of the Eastern province was deliberately changed through government sponsored colonization schemes and hence for the determination of ‘Tamil homeland’ the situation that existed before the forced change should be the determinant. As a pragmatist, this writer does not agree with this argument. The unit of devolution is a sensitive subject and has to be settled in consultation with concerned parties.
The very notion of separate homeland for the Tamils in Sri Lanka arose as a result of the neglect by the State of their interests, aspirations and rights as equal citizens of one nation. The concept of two nations – Sinhala and Tamil also emerged from the sustained ethnic discrimination. The LTTE’s goal of independent Tamil Eelam is the culmination of the potent division in the society brought about by the parochial politics of the political parties dependent largely on Sinhalese votes for gaining power. There was also strong support from the other side of the ethnic divide. Tamil politicians canvassed votes in the North and East raising nationalistic sentiments.
It is difficult for those who have not suffered discrimination under the unitary system to understand why the unitary system is unacceptable even to moderate Tamils. The bitter disappointment endured in the past with broken promises and non-implementation of lawful Acts and approved policies claimed to restore the previously deprived rights and opportunities, made the unitary constitution undependable to protect minority rights. The Tamil minority wants constitutional changes for sharing power equitably at the center and devolving administrative powers to the regions. Contrary to the contention of the above critics, past spiteful experience of ethnic minorities compels the need to make basic constitutional changes irrevocable without their consent.
At the same time a rethink is necessary with regard to the ‘Tamil homeland’ concept. If it is used as a basis for territorial division of the island, instead of solving the present problem more intricate problems will arise. The Tamils will then have to accept the other part of the island as ‘Sinhalese homeland’. The status of Tamils residing there will become increasingly precarious. There could be ethnic cleansing. This is a recipe for disaster and permanent unrest. Sober thinking is needed for averting this catastrophe. At the national and regional levels there must be provisions to safeguard minority interests and their security. The aspirations and concerns of the Tamils dwelling outside the North-East must not be ignored, if the Tamil community is to safeguard its future as a distinct ethnic group and prosper regardless of where the members live or work. Hopefully, the APRC team currently in India studying the devolution model there will come up with recommendations applicable to the demographic situation in Sri Lanka.
The dispute in Sri Lanka is similar to that in a close family living together in one house. All mature members must feel they are part of the household which will be the case if no one is left out of the decision making process or sidelined in household activities and functions. There must not be even the perception that the welfare of some is less important than others. The safety and security of all members must be assured equally. If any of these requirements are not met the break-up of the family becomes inevitable. The country has been governed very similar to the way traditional family conducts its affairs. It is the husband who decides every thing and the wife has little say. But even here the old ways are vanishing with women asserting equal rights! Reconciliation and corrective measures are essential to prevent the division. This is precisely what ‘Tamil grievances’ and power sharing and devolution mean in the wider national context.
Sri Lanka’s internal conflict is the result of the fundamental weakness of considering the ethnic minorities as subordinates to the Sinhalese majority. Basically, it is a conflict arising from the division of the society into majority and minority communities and its observance in policy determination and implementation. The supremacy of the majority community thrust into the system has also undermined democracy and justice essential for peace and progress. All past governments have not made a serious effort to win the confidence of the Tamil people. On the contrary, mistrust was allowed to grow. Any approach to meaningful constitutional settlement of the conflict must not, therefore, ignore the fundamental problems that have kept the country in conflict with itself for the past half century.
SLFP-UNP agreement
The deflated peace hope has bounced following the signing of the SLFP – UNP Memorandum of Understanding on October 23. The preamble to the MoU states it “represents the inauguration of a new political environment eagerly awaited by the public of this country, which replaces the hitherto existing politics of confrontation with the politics of active cooperation on national issues, in the interests of the nation”. The MoU has been acclaimed widely as a symbol of hope for the troubled island that has witnessed bloodshed and grief all around for far too long. JVP is the only political party represented in the Parliament that has publicly expressed its sadness over the agreement. Actually all Sri Lankans should regret over the failure to come to this understanding for the past 50 years and the harm done to the advancement of their country. If Sri Lanka’s dismal performance over the past 50 years is compared with the many achievements of other countries after they gained independence that have raised their average per capita incomes and living standards of their citizens, one can gauge the extent of the damage done by poor governance. This was due to ‘politics of confrontation’ as stated in the MoU and opportunistic politics that took advantage of the ethnic division in the Lankan society.
The two parties have agreed to cooperate with each other in the following areas: (i) Conflict in the North & East; (ii) Electoral Reforms; (iii) Good Governance; and (iv) Social Development. The important structure for collaboration including the modalities will be decided after further discussion between the two top leaders of the SLFP and UNP.
With regard to the complex and pressing national issue, the MoU states,”the parties (SLFP and UNP), recognize that the fundamental challenge that stands in the way of the realization of the goals of peace, good governance and development is that of a just political solution acceptable to all communities”.
The UNP has agreed to support the Government to implement the policies and programmes in the above-mentioned four areas. It has promised to “extend support to the Government in the pursuit of a ‘negotiated settlement’ to the on-going conflict, while opposing ‘terrorism’ in all its manifestations and upholding human rights”. The United National Party in Parliament shall extend its support to the government to achieve a ‘negotiated settlement’ to the on-going conflict. The Party will nominate two Members to the Representative Committee of the All Party Conference.
The question is whether the commitments in the MoU alone are enough for reaching a constitutional settlement? What does a ‘negotiated settlement’ mean in the context of a separatist war and when there is no commitment by the separatists to seek a constitutional settlement within undivided Sri Lanka? The UNP leader’s statement at a press conference on October 23 (as reported in the Daily Mirror October 24) throws some light how the ‘game’ is going to be played. He said: “Two years would be sufficient to find a solution (which is the period binding the MoU). If the government and the LTTE cannot come to a final solution to the national issue, the MoU between the UNP and SLFP will be of no use”. He also said both parties had agreed to an Indian based solution to the national issue. If this is the case, the two parties should speedily come up with a broad frame for submission to the LTTE. Even if LTTE agrees to discuss the core issues, the discussion has to be in relation to a structure envisaged for the future. It will be a waste of time if there is no agreement on the future structure.
The UNP leader told the press conference: “Now the government and the LTTE should reach an agreement on it (the resolution of the N-E conflict). Both parties should discuss this matter in Geneva.” No one in their right mind will believe that the LTTE team has gone to Geneva to discuss the Indian model! A week before the scheduled talks, S. P. Thamilselvan told: “We are going for talks in deference to the wishes of the international community.” One can expect the rebels to throw the ball inside the government’s court at the Geneva meeting (October 28 – 29).
Prospects for structural change and peace
According to IANS report, India’s reaction to the SLFP-UNP Memorandum of Understanding is not overtly jubilant. The Indian assessment is that “the unprecedented agreement would prove to be truly path-breaking only if — and policy makers emphasize it is no small if — it helps in an ultimate resolution of the ethnic conflict. Though the agreement is crucial, it needs to be watched as to where it leads to”.
The commitment of the supreme LTTE leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran to independent Tamil Eelam remains firm. This is evident from the interview Managing Editor (National Affairs) rediff.com (published October 17, 2006)‘Sheela Bhatt’ had recently in Colombo with N. Vithyatharan, the editor of Tamil daily, ‘Uthayan’ published in Jaffna. He and Uthayan’s managing editor E. Saravanpavan were urged a few months ago by President Mahinda Rajapakse to convince the LTTE leader to resume the aborted peace talks. The relevant portion of the interview in rediff.com is reproduced below:
‘Have you met Prabhakaran?
Yes, several times.
When did you meet him the last time?
Recently, when we took President Rajpakse’s message to him.
What is going on in his mind?
He is committed to his cause. He wants a separate land for Tamils.
He is not ready to settle for less than that’.
There are no grounds to believe neither the subsequent appeals of the Co-chairs who are keeping an eye on the peace process nor the recent appalling situation in the North with people struggling to survive amid food shortages, unaffordable prices for essential items and lawlessness have influenced a change of mind. The recent happenings on the ‘war’ front confirm the continuation of the pursuit for the same Eelam goal.
On the other hand, the present government too has not given a definite commitment to change the present governing system fixed by the problematic 1978 Constitution. Although all political parties are aware of the shortcomings in the present constitution from the national perspective, no party has made any serious move to replace it with a liberal democratic constitution oriented towards national unity, good governance and national and regional development. This is because of the possibilities bestowed by the unprincipled constitution for personal and partisan gains. The most important objective to keep the country united, peaceful and politically stable, vital for the advancement of the country and her citizens was not the prime concern of its architects. The visionary outlook of the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution was totally absent since the time the island’s political leaders ventured to formulate a constitution with ulterior political motives. They did not want a constitution that prevented them manipulating the system to meet their narrow political aims. The absence of mechanism for checks and balances also helped to misuse the powers for private gains at the cost of neglecting public needs.
Now with the SLFP-UNP accord, it should be possible to reconstitute the GoSL team for future talks, if the LTTE is prepared to discuss the political issues. Prof. G. L. Peiris, former Constitutional Affairs Minister in the PA government was the chairman of the Parliamentary Select Committee. Its proposals for constitutional reform were included in the (aborted) draft Bill submitted to Parliament in 2000. Because of the last minute withdrawal of support by the then main opposition party, the UNP it was not passed. He and Dr. Neelan Thiruchelvam jointly prepared the earlier sets of devolution proposals. He was chosen by the UNF government in 2002 to lead the government team at the peace talks with the Tigers. He has played a key role in bringing about the widely praised SLFP-UNP union. His inclusion in the Sri Lanka team when the LTTE is ready for discussion on core issues will give more credence to the effort to seek a ‘negotiated settlement’.
Norway’s Development Minister Eric Solheim, who played a key role in negotiating the ceasefire agreement between the government and the LTTE in 2002, said a week before the second Geneva Talks, “it would be important for both sides to attend the talks on October 28 and 29 and agree to meet again” (Times of India). He did not refer to any particular issue or issues, nor mentioned the word ‘negotiation’. To him, talking regardless of the subject was better than fighting. On the other hand the US Assistant Secretary of State for Central Asia and South Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher addressing the media in Colombo at the conclusion of his two-day visit said on October 20, “the only way the LTTE could achieve the aspirations of the Tamil people was through negotiations and not through acts of violence”. The US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns also told a round table of South Asian Journalists in Washington DC, the United States strongly supported peace talks between Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers as there was no military solution for the conflict in the island nation.
He also said at the meeting: “The only way to go in the right direction is through negotiations. They have aspirations to satisfy some of the legitimate grievances of the Tamil community. They have aspirations to see the Tamil community respected, and be able to control its own affairs within a unified island, and the only way they’re going to achieve those aspirations is through negotiation”. The alleviation or eradication of the legitimate grievances of minority Tamils in Sri Lanka is not the ultimate aim of the LTTE. The grievances are valuable for justifying the claim for independent Eelam. Many Western leaders seem to think the LTTE is like the IRA, which unlike the former had a separate political wing the Sinn Fein that was involved in the successful peace negotiations.
From the foregoing analysis it seems the declared commitment of both parties meeting in Geneva October 28-29 to ‘negotiated settlement’ is largely to avoid offending the international community and to demonstrate the ‘other’ side is the difficult party. Attitudinal changes are needed not only from the LTTE leaders but also from the Sinhalese leaders for seeking earnestly a negotiated settlement. As this writer has suggested many times before, the breakthrough will come only when a new governing structure for power-sharing and devolution is revealed for the world to judge its reasonableness for ending the conflict. Even after reaching a settlement based on power-sharing and devolution, there is no guarantee durable peace will come instantly. It is a process and the constitution, if and when amended must be observed faithfully at all times to ensure success. How far or close we are now to reach this stage is unclear, despite the historic SLFP-UNP MoU that has been given a life span of two years by its creators.
(Also for reading – ‘Devolution and Constitutional Reform’ by Dr. S. Narapalasingam in Tamil Week 13- 19 November 2005)
[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]
