Post-War Sri Lanka- Concerns and Reservations

By R. Swaminathan

(July 10, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) President Rajapaksa and the armed forces of Sri Lanka are justifiably happy and proud of having “eliminated” (in mid-May 2009) the capabilities of LTTE to mount conventional military operations. I would, however, sound a note of caution that, while the militant leaders of a major terrorist group have been neutralized, terrorism as such cannot be eliminated till the basic grievances and deprivations of the Tamils are addressed and resolved. As long as the basic causes exist, there can be no guarantee that other similar groups/leaders may not emerge.

It can be said without fear of contradiction that rehabilitation, reconciliation, development and restoration (of democracy) are the most essential measures to be taken. It is my view that there should be no rigidity in attempting these measures sequentially, and that efforts need to be made to attempt them almost simultaneously. War consists of a series of actions by the parties involved in the confrontation, but peace is a combination of a state of mind and harmony between all the different ethnic groups that populate Sri Lanka. Another potentially complicating factor is the announced expansion of the armed forces and the proposed regular military deployments in the north and the east – raising the possibility of the armed forces becoming another credible power center in Sri Lankan politics.

History has shown that a political solution, delivered or credibly promised, is an essential component of reconciliation, in situations as in Sri Lanka. President Rajapaksa had earlier hinted that a political solution would be offered once the military operations ended. There was also the hint that the report of the All Party Representative Committee (APRC - under Tissa Vitharana.) would be implemented, when finalized. Later, the non-participation of the TNA in the formulation of a policy for reconciliation was stated as being the delaying factor. Recently, the President convened the All Party Meeting for Development and Reconciliation – without any linkage between political solution (power devolution) and reconciliation. Meanwhile, local body elections are being held without a clear definition of the issues. Now, the President says that he needs a fresh mandate and that the political solution would have to await his re-election. It is difficult to comprehend as to why separate mandates are required to wage war and to make peace. All these delays result in scepticism about the intention to evolve an equitable political solution.

Nearly 300,000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) are in relief camps and additional thousands had been semi-permanently “displaced” in earlier years. I accept the reports that the conditions in these camps are as good as could be expected in the current circumstances. However, the President says that these IDPs cannot yet go back to their homes, which (in his words) are “jungles”. The situation is very disturbing.

I will be very brief in stating my views about India’s role in the present situation. Politically, India can only be persuasive – not too obtrusively, but persistent in working towards the Tamils being treated as equal citizens the same as the Sinhalas, Muslims etc. On the economic front, India could be as cooperative and helpful as possible. In matters relating to relief and rehabilitation, India could easily display much more activism and involvement.

(These points were made by R.Swaminathan, former Special Secretary (DG-Security), Government of India, to form the basis of his “Chairperson’s Remarks” at a seminar jointly organized by Observer Research Foundation - Chennai Chapter and Stella Maris College, on 7 July 2009.)

-Sri Lanka Guardian