Wars for peace: Despairs and hopes

Abstract: We worry the recent events in Mumbai may harden the views on terrorism and might have a negative impact on the hopeful signs and sounds emanating from India regarding the National question in Sri Lanka. We believe there is a process set in motion behind the scenes to contribute positively towards a resolution of the conflict, to relieve our people from the cycle of perpetual violence. We argue a revamped and reconstructed TNA can facilitate for such possibilities.

by Ravi Sundaralingam
(The views expressed are author's own)

(December 02, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) There is a poignant episode in Mahabarata, where Karuna laid on a bed of arrows stitched to every cell of his body yet, he remained alive because of the Karma due to his giving and sacrifice. Knowing only by providing him with that last opportunity for an act of sacrifice Karuna will die, Krishna, the incarnation of moksa itself, was forced to beg for that from Karuna. Like in every nook and corner of that great epic, that single episode has many meanings and untold stories yet to be born, but for us simple pretentious beings it is more of a humbling experience, a reminder of our senses and position whenever we are writing, especially in expectation of India.

Last week for eighty odd hours, when time permitted we were glued to the NDTV or any other Indian channel, just as others abroad who have love and affection for the Indian people without conditions. We watched with resignation the entire people being held to ransom by a group of teenage raiders from Pakistan, with local support, who barely knew what they were doing. The mayhem and total disregard for human sanctity they raked in an orgy of violence they unleashed, ultimate act of terrorism, in the name of Islam, irrespective of the fact whether they killed Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Zoroastrians, Buddhists or Christians, which left everyone with serious thoughts about the human condition in our times. The rage and anger, not just of the invasion, but the feeling of impotence of Mumbaiers, are felt everywhere in India and beyond. The clamour for some action, any action, to make people safe against such atrocities, and to blame the politicians for everything are there.

But, deep down we are sure the Indian-self is searching, searching for the answers it has already within for the questions that are relevant to them as much as the humanity itself. These expectations of ours don’t arise because of our romantic notions of India or the trust we have of their politicians or the state or its officials, but of conviction in our objectivity, that what we see in the attempt to build a people with common concepts of civic responsibilities and reasons out of a multitude of colours and creed, who are at times have nothing to do with each other, but other times they have no meaning without the others. If we were to put it in modern, crude terms, it is the India’s long and arduous march to reach at least the socio-economic and the political unity what Europe has after several wars and two world-wars and crusades to convert everyone to one faith, which gives us the hope. What would have Karuna made of it all?

It is with heavy hearts, lingering doubts and thoughts we turn our attention to the matter, what we fear some Indian officials might dispassionately conclude, as a “threat to the Indian Southern flank”; the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. But for us, as the Tamils of Ceylon it is a matter of survival, the choice is between death and a zombie life. Before the carnage in Mumbai, we were feeling buoyed as the Tamil Nadu political parties seem to have come together on our peoples’ behalf, and we owe a great deal for all their efforts and sacrifices. Those of us visiting India have been told by many experts that the interests of the people and politicians lie elsewhere, who are also hamstrung by our past terrorist activities therefore, would resist the desire to get involved. Only those in the margins, the ‘extremists’ and Tamil nationalists would seek to exploit the situation. If not, and the politicians intervened, it would only make things worse for Indian policy makers and, in particular for the suffering Tamils; the ‘Southern Consensus’ we are made to believe is apparently as ugly as that in Sri Lanka. For those convinced by years of these arguments and advice, and the Tamil Nadu politicians are irresponsible and greedy, a popular theme and pastime for many parodying them worse than vultures with a touch of incompetence, the present behaviour by all concerned must have been a pleasant surprise, relief or for some even disappointment.

The pronouncement on our peoples’ right-to-self-determination, though within a unified political entity in the island set the tone and the limits that ensured no party or person committed any excesses on our behalf that made all other meaningful efforts spurious in their wake. It was followed by the announcement by the BJP to settle the ethnic issue within six months of their tenure after the election, only six months away, set another bench mark, and at the same time contributed positively as an incentive, towards the process already in motion. Tamil Nadu Congress Chief Mr. Thangavelu’s verification on Tamil peoples rights, North-East merger, LTTE, relationships between Tamils on both side of the water, and the concept of Sri Lankan sovereignty are clear and purposeful, and focused on the real issues, if not his attempts to deflect the past Indian covert involvements. In many ways these are concerted efforts by the senior TN politicians to set a framework for all of their kind to constructively engage in the affairs of their brethren. If someone strayed away from these unwritten understanding, not necessarily to hijack the issue for their own purpose, but carried away by enthusiasm, others ensured it got nowhere. So far whatever their public statements and posturing it seems they have remained focussed behind the screens and now the matter has been taken up seriously by all parties and has moved beyond the normal rhetoric.

Even the issue of ‘ceasefire’ is treated responsibly with no one threatening to take the roof off India and “expose Delhi for what it is”. We learn that these consultations have tumbled along to reach a stage, where parties are exploring the possibilities of forming ‘working committees’ of experts to see how the matter can be taken forward, a condition we wished only few weeks ago (No:2894). The derision and scornful remarks poured on the suggestions so that our matter can be taken a few steps closer towards a settlement under the tutelage of the Tamil Nadu leaders, particularly its Chief Minister only a year ago suddenly feels as though were an echo in the past.

There isn’t any doubt that Delhi has no real objections to the Sri Lankan aim to reduce the power of LTTE. But, can Delhi accept its total destruction and military surrender?

We have been consistently argued against such a position on the grounds that it would alter the ethnic dynamics irrecoverably in such a manner that it can only be counter productive for Indian interests (No:2910). We have been also arguing it was India that promoted the LTTE to the hierarchy and inadvertently perhaps, allowed its claim for sole representation therefore, must own up to its responsibilities than being stringently predisposed to its post 9/11 position on terrorism. This question of Indian responsibilities, which may sound different and acquires various connotations when it comes from us, gets the correct response when arsing from an intellectual such as, Mr.’Cho’ Ramaswamy. In the same vein of our arguments ‘Cho’, an ardent and admonishing critic of the LTTE, has disentangled yet another dimension that has been wound around others, to our categorisation of the Indian responsibilities. True, he said that LTTE methodically destroyed the Tamil leadership without a thought or care so they alone remained the deciding factor of the Tamils’ fate, but to demand for its demise now would leave the Tamils exposed without any leadership, which is detrimental for their survival and tantamount to a monumental betrayal. He concludes, unless of course India itself is prepared to step in and fill the vacuum that would naturally arise. It is this part of his deduction come argument we are referring to as a new feature, especially from an Indian such as Cho.

This form of reasoning helps to crystallise a few points for our serious consideration. One, it suggests that the military defeat of the LTTE is acceptable, as it’s military capacity alone can no longer be a mechanism to deliver an amicable solution the Ceylon Tamils want, provided there is an absolute guarantee that such a solution is ready to be enforced by India, which ensures their future in the island as a people. Two, the Ceylon Tamils can afford to and be persuaded to forego their present leadership, provided they are supplanted by Indian surrogate ‘political-leadership’. Three, if the above two thought trains are concurrently not in the minds of policy makers in Delhi then they need to work with the LTTE, perhaps though third parties, which can be collectively referred to as the Tamil political leadership.

Though this is a very subtle and radical form of argument we fail to infer any practical implications from it, except in its case for a Tamil leadership that can have a working relationship with India.

Firstly, Sri Lanka alone would never be able to defeat the LTTE or the Tamil militancy without India’s direct intervention, military defeat of an army is another matter. All it can achieve is to make LTTE a non-conventional outfit until another time, perhaps it is what Indian policy makers also want now. We have already pointed out the military successes Sri Lanka has had are in many ways due to the support from India, on many fronts. On the other hand, we have also argued (No:2478) that military interventions to put ‘houses in order’ in the neighbourhood are not for India or China, which leaves the Tamils on their own, at the mercy of the Sri Lankan state. Given the chance, we have no doubt it has the will to destroy the Tamils as people, but we are talking about the LTTE, which will survive for a long while until and otherwise an adequate solution is in place. Those witnessed the way Sri Lanka conducts its wars against the Tamils in order to ‘defeat’ the LTTE at first hand will know their end, and would have also realised where it wants the Tamils to be afterwards, in a limbo, with no say in their matter even at municipality level; just ask the alleged Chief Minister for the Eastern Province, ‘Pillaiyan’, and perhaps also ask him why and who is behind the killing of his associates and advisers.



Secondly, the Tamils of Ceylon cannot build a political leadership through surrogacy, as the experience of our own Plantation Tamils will make patently obvious. For a long time in their history, while cut off from the North and East in every sense, reduced to bonded labour, and de-franchised into fifth rate existence they had a leadership that was rooted in TN and relied on Indian instructions for guidance. It is not surprising that they could never develop a leadership with independence of thought until recently, recently that is, after the introduction of standardisation and after the Tamil militancy came into the fore, and their plight was also made into an issue.



Beside this, India’s own experience through its embattled zones where it banished the entire militant leaderships by a combination of military and political actions produced nothing, except to prolong the agony, act as sergeant major for recruiting young men and women to fight to their deaths, and the postponement of a real solution. The realisation of all this has made India to extract itself from the political spectre in some cases other than to assert military control over patches of lands with tacit participation of some militants, in a political process through proxies.



If India, from its own bitter experience and the strength it has gained, can be a confident and committed farmer who plant the seeds of self-discovery, recovery and development in all fronts, then by all means they should intervene in the manner it has been suggested by Cho but, to lead a people whom they don’t make a claim of, well that is a serious matter.



Thirdly, in the future Indian intervention of any kind cannot be on behalf of one people, may that be Tamils, Muslims or Sinhalese. Indian interests, it has already learned would not be guaranteed or better served by partisan or covert support to one people or one group, which in itself will work against the people it wants to help, and India may have to work against the very people to readdress the balance due such past actions. Therefore, India’s approach, actions and plans should be to reassure every community in the island; holistic in appearance and effect.

If the Tamils are to have peace with the Sri Lankan state and with themselves, and have a say in their own destiny, then they must have an India that is in friendship with all the communities in Ceylon, and acting in the aggregate interest of all of them. India’s progress and its place in the world is so vastly different to that twenty five years ago, it doesn’t need a conflict or civil war in the neighbourhood, particularly in its Southern flank to safeguard its interest in the region. We, as a small people in the region neither have the strength nor the will to get engaged in a fight in the interest of anyone else in exchange for favourable conditions, nor does anyone need to ‘fight’ on our behalf, when fighting itself is loosing its credo.

However, the sinews within Cho’s argument on the question of leadership are not so dissimilar to what we have raised several times over. Every Ceylon Tamil would want a leadership in place that can work with India, many of them having long given up on the idea of their own input wish that India would forgive the LTTE for its past and pardon its leaders and settle the issue immediately. It is only a wish but, their hopes received no encouragement from its leader’s recent Heroes-day speech. Though it contains admission of difficult military and ‘friendless’ international conditions, when addressing India it displays obscurity and misunderstandings, thus a missed opportunity. There is even the suggestion that India has changed towards a position that argues for the struggle to continue and acceptance by India for its mistakes by the earlier administration. If anything, we see changes in India that has led to a firm Indian commitment to Sri Lanka within its strategic objectives, not as change of course towards Tamil Eelam war, and read the protests and demands by the Tamil Nadu politicians as expressions of sympathy towards our ordinary people and nothing more. The support for our struggle is there in plenty among the Tamil Nadu masses, but they remain and will remain mere sentiments for one, we cannot directly access and forge them into meaningful support. The changes Tamil Nadu and India has gone through economically, socio-politically, and of their responsibilities as guardians of a state, country and above all the region surrounding India is so vast, which does not vouch for a continuous armed struggle, in the manner it has been, in the island. The politico-military activity has its plateaus, ups and downs and we all know that. But the assessment we make of ourselves should not be based on any single one of them, subjective and oblivious to real facts, especially so when we enunciate our beliefs and aims on behave of a tormented people.

This inability to rediscover their position with India has left many Tamils wishing the Diaspora would come into its own self and play a role that befits the present phase. Then, they are also aware most of the active members of the Tamil Diaspora have been consumed by their own rage at the Sri Lankan atrocities and taken in by the idea of military parity or victory, and smitten by the unbelievable military feats of the LTTE past. Therefore, it has become easy for them to be just the passive supporters, hoping and praying for that telling blow to the Sri Lankan forces. This is, despite the fact the LTTE is delivering heavy blows to its enemy, which the Sri Lankan government doesn’t let on, without much change in the course of their political future. Still they neither understand nor believe in the prevailing condition India has put on the outcome: “no outright military victory to either party”, whether directly or as a consequence. Their belief that LTTE can never be defeated is more in hope than deductive reasoning or based on the assessment of the outcomes so far. They dare not ask themselves, whatever the LTTE is, with its strategy of a protracted war in order to establish de facto state, what has been and will be achieved that cannot be reversed? That meant the Diaspora for all its strengths will never be able to fulfil its responsibilities and can only play a subsidiary role.

TNA for all its worth has been in hiding in Europe and elsewhere, trying to avoid the Sri Lankan white-van-men, can hardly expected to deliver the LTTE, which it has to if the any solution is to become binding. The TNA would be a natural choice to be a conduit between the LTTE and India, and was even proposed as such by the Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manhohan Singh when he met the Rajapakse brothers, at different times. The wars and its ineffectiveness as elected representatives of the Tamil speaking people have eroded its people base, and now its true worth is fully exposed as it didn’t even get a mention in the Heroes-day speech by Mr.V. Pirabaharan, at least in the context as a carrier pigeon, as India has suggested. To become more than what it is, TNA lacks the facilities or authority to explore the possibilities to expand its power base beyond LTTE control, for example by simply talking to others who can not agree with them on strategies, but in complete unison about their view on the Sri Lankan state, let alone who have gone over to the other side because of the LTTE.

Herein lies the kernel of our puzzle. We agree with Cho that India has to deal with the LTTE whether India likes it or not. However, contrary to his views we think India cannot even be seen to be partial to one people or be a representative and be an honest arbiter at the same time, to solve an age old ethnic crisis. Therefore, the question is who can fill the political space as LTTE forever retreats and recoils, and be a real partner in a peace process. If we follow the implications of Cho’s type of reasoning, and discounted India as a possibility then that leaves Tamil Nadu to take that part of the responsibilities on our behalf. Well, it is for such questions we as collective Tamil speaking communities of Ceylon have to provide practical, not rhetorical, answers.

In fact, we don’t see any problem a Tamil leadership in taking up Ms. Jeyalalitha’s views on right-to-self-determination as a serious offer and talk to the political parties in Tamil Nadu to explore how this can be brought to those at the seats of power in Delhi. Instead of shunning the TNA to irrelevance, we feel it should be make viable so that it can fulfil the role of a leadership to conduct a working relationship with India, instead of holding it back until the removal of the ban on the LTTE. In fact, LTTE should allow and embolden the TNA to be the true political leadership of our people without any conditions. The present TNA is synonymous with the LTTE and is not being taken seriously by anyone, strangely even by the LTTE. If it is to become real, its political spectrum should be broadened by infusing it with more political and civilian representatives from the Tamil speaking communities in Ceylon, and the Diaspora into its structure. For this the present TNA must have the freedom and facilities, and the LTTE should see real benefit of it for the people, and for itself. There is no question the need for armed resistance has not gone away or likely to go away until the ‘peace loving international community’, principally India, forces the hands of the Sri Lankan state to restructure itself. But, the insistence that the Tamil army of resistance has to be the sole Tamil political representation and its military strategy has to be towards a de facto state, at all times are no longer viable. The philosophical demands we make of the Sri Lankan state for structural democratisation are not based on pure ideologies, but on practicalities encountered in a process of conflict resolution. This applies to any political representation of any community or people every time, without conditions, irrespective of the overall strategy of the struggle, especially when a strategy is focused towards a de facto state. Sooner we learn to accept the relevance of this simple fact, the better it is for all us. Otherwise we fear yet another scenario, where a solution is thrust upon a people who feel weak and venerable.

(Ravi Sundaralingam can be reached by E-mail: academic. secretary@gmail.com) - Sri Lanka Guardian