(July 01, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Now the thirty year old war in the North and East of the country is over. The whole country is indebted to the President for the achievement of this historic victory.
Throughout this war he had shown the world that he was a leader with a vision-oriented mission, though there were critics to disrupt his work. It has been said by that eminent historian Dr. Senarath Paranavithana: "Had there been no Vijaya Baha I, there would have been no Singhalese today." The right man for the right moment. It does not always occur; for history is not always so generous. It was by a miracle of miracles the country was able to get a leader of this calibre to fight the Tiger terror. In this case he has excelled even the other heroes like Dutugemunu and Parakrama Bahu in scale and magnitude of his achievement. Thus he is justifiably a hero in the best sense of the word.
Parallel government
Maxim Gorky once said that it is useful to climb uphills of the past in order to see further into the future. Differently stated: in order to understand the present (and perhaps future) course of events it is necessary to thoroughly examines the past.
By the time President Mahinda Rajapaksa assumed office LTTE functioned as a parallel government with the complete structure of a state; administration, judiciary, police, army, navy, air force and a broadcasting station. In the North and East there was no law and order. It was a nominal and titular assertion of sovereignty which could on occasions, when challenged or put to the test assert itself, but for the most part was invisible presence. The most pathetic thing was that the Government of the day gave the appearance of knowing nothing about it. This is the background against which we have to examine this whole problem.
Chola Tigers
The war our President fought in the North and East is reminiscent of the war King Vijaya Bahu I who fought to liberate the country from Chola Tigers who had invaded the country in 993 AD. We all know that King Vijaya Bahu I was a national hero born and bred in the jungles of Ruhuna when the nation was in dire need of a national leader to save the nation from Chola invaders. So is our present President. Born and bred in Ruhuna he emerged as the saviour of the nation at this time when LTTE terrorists held sway in almost every town and village in the North and East of the country killing innocent civilians.
Neo-colonialism is neo-colonialism, by whatever name you call it. Tiger terrorism was nothing new; it was the same old colonialism in a different guise. While Chola invasion was overt LTTE invasion was covert; Both were alien enemies that sought to usurp the sovereignty of the country. The difference between the two, if there was any, is this: one is visible; the other is invisible. They differed only in their method of operation. The foreign elements that were behind the LTTE operations were more subtle in its approach to the issue at hand than the Chola invaders. They were very shrewd propagandist that could deceive the mass of people with various lies.
Western NGOs
It has long been noted that the first victim of aggression is the truth. Right from the very beginning these neo-colonial elements, in collusion with some western NGOs, have accompanied their actions in the country with the active brainwashing of the masses building up a propaganda myth in an effort to show the legitimacy of their policy. At the very outset they made their movement look like a national liberation movement wedded to the cause of defending Tamil rights.
Thus, neo-colonial policy of setting people against each other and encouraging the formation of parties and groups on an ethnic basis played a considerable part in complicating relations among Sri Lankan people. In this matter they were largely funded by foreign NGOs who were inimical to the national interests of this country. In no time it became a mercenary force salvaging the peace in the island.
Anton Balasingham, the so-called theorist of the barbaric LTTE movement was a British citizen. Till his death he lived in Britain. He was not a Hindu by religion.
His Australian-born wife speaks no Tamil. The language they used at home was English. If these were the facts about his family how could be become its theorist? Who appointed him to his post? The entire role Anton Balasingham was reported to have played as theorist of the LTTE is one shrouded in mystery. What did they fight for? What problems were they out to resolve? These are questions that merit our attention.
Neo-colonialism
Whenever an ethnic prejudice becomes the norm in social conduct it not only divides people but also distracts them from urgent social problems, thereby helping misanthropic politicians to keep the masses in servitude. As said elsewhere, LTTE terrorism, in a way was a manifestation of neo-colonialism.
After the second World War imperialist nations were unable to retain their Asian colonies. Apart from that, the imperialist powers, seeing the inevitable collapse of the system of direct colonial domination, decided to switch to the tactic of camouflaged indirect control 'to leave in order to say' to preserve economic leavers and promptly to put at the helm the pro-western local elite, picked in good time, so as to steer the emergent states to the road of dependent capitalist development.
This was the kind of independence which we were conferred on in 1948 when the British left our shores. These are not factors to be trifled with, when we talk about the Eelam terrorism that hit the country.
Unhealthy measures
The making of Sinhala the official language, the closure of the Naval base in Trincomalee and Katunayake, take-over of the British and American oil companies, nationalisation of tea and rubber estates which belonged to European companies and the non-aligned foreign policy were some of the measures that shattered the long-term hopes of erstwhile colonial masters.
These western powers now seem to think that Sri Lanka is still a British colony. In the context they do not respect the right we have as a nation to settle our internal affairs as it suits us; nor do they accept the social changes that we effect to promote our national well-being. They look at this country with nostalgia. British Minister David Milliband's recent visit to Sri Lanka was ample testimony to it.
A country's defence is a matter of its internal policy and is well within its domestic jurisdiction. This principle is enshrined in Article 2(7) of the UN charter. The British Minister had to learn all this from our President.
Creating split
The main lesson of our history is that we reap as we sow. What the British Minister ought to know is this: Sri Lanka was a British colony sometime ago. History of this communal enmity is traceable to the early period of that British rule. British colonial policy of setting people against each other and encouraging the formation of parties and groups on communal basis played a considerable part in creating a split or division among Sri Lankan people.
It was they who introduced first the communal representation into our system of government, much to the detriment of the national unity that prevailed then. It was an attempt to drive a wedge between the two major communities and was in keeping with the British policy of 'divide and rule'.
Remedied
It is completely absurd to think that the Official Language Act of 1956, engendered this racial enmity. It merely made public what for a long time was carefully concealed. If there were any lapses in the Act of 1956, they were all remedied by the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Bill presented, subsequently, in Parliament on 17th July 1958. Again, Tamil language was given further recognition by the two Republican constitutions passed in 1972 and 1978, respectively. Yet for all, did they accept it? No. Instead what did they do? They resorted to killings and violence. It was then the government of India had to intervene in our affairs to help find a solution.
The solution agreed to was the setting up of provincial councils with some automation. They did not accept it as a solution; instead they were adamant on demanding a separate state, to which the government response was an emphatic 'No'. Indian government was also shocked at this behaviour of the LTTE leaders; it doubted the genuineness of this movement for reasons of its pro-western leanings.
Post a Comment