Tamils, India and International community: What next?

Having run destabilising programs against the states on ideological grounds, big powers have found enough socio-economical common grounds to argue for the rehabilitation of states as the common institution to convey a common language.
________________

By Ravi Sundaralingam

(November 11, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) Every event has its meaning underling the immediate issues and, beneath it a fundamental trend that connects events and issues outside it. The genius of Darwin, Marx or Einstein was not about solving the immediate puzzle or a problem, but spotting the connectedness or the overarching trend between seemingly random, disjointed events. When those trends are generalised they take a global perspective, apparently detached from the local reality. Not everyone has the abilities, skills or the boldness of those pantheons of intellect, but even we can at times take the hint, and are allowed to stretch our imaginations a little.

It is in this sprit we may ask, whether can there be a connection between the decision to eliminate Sadam, LTTE, make war on the Islamists, take issues with the Iranians, election and the Nobel prize of President Obama or are they random events governed only by local and basic international conditions? If so, what implications can we make of it for us, the Tamil and Sinhala speaking Dravidian communities in the island? Are there any common patterns of behaviour among the various social groups in the world, which have direct implications for us? Do they suggest either a natural tendency or subconsciously evolved assertive policy at work, making many to take steps considered impossible at times? Or, our attempt to seek patterns among scattered events is a passion only suitable for mathematicians and fantasists?

We start with a few questions utmost important to the Tamil speaking communities in Sri Lanka.

1. Was there a consensus among the International community to eliminate the LTTE?

(a) As for India, the LTTE had to be finished.

India had to square a circle, a circus they helped to create a while ago in the shaping and making of the LTTE. Whatever the Indian initial intentions and expectations were, whether any of them were achieved or not on the back of the LTTE, the affair had become a burden and a security concern.

When we suggested this four years ago, even our friends tried to reprimand us for such a ‘stupid’ view.

“India cannot afford to be against the Tamils, as both their interests are intertwined and, defeating the LTTE therefore is not an easy option,” was a view that held strong at that time as they shuttled up and down to Delhi from Western capitals, trying to ‘repair the damage’ in its relationship with the LTTE.

Unfortunately, they either refused believe or totally misunderstood the resolve Pirabaharan has had about India. He knew by his own experience and on the basis of his expectations that relationship would never be true and, even in the twelfth hour, when all else had failed and the end was so near, he didn’t turn to Delhi for help.

“India has no control in Sri Lanka as it lacked the economic clout, diplomatic policy allied to a development policy, military capacity, diplomatic ingenuity, etc, etc,” and “LTTE and the Tamil military struggle cannot be defeated,” are two premises of the ‘ultras’, the genuine anti-Indians, based their riposte that gave the flip side to the earlier argument.

Along this line, to prove our naivety a professor present in a discussion did an instant back-of-the-envelope calculation on the Lankan GDP, its revenues, and the Tamil Expatriates’ financial support at a very low rate of 1.4% Lankan-GDP equivalent, compared to LTTE’s income at that time, to show us if such Indian decision existed that can be easily thwarted.

If the Tamileelam nationalists, just like the greater Sinhala nationalists thought the Indians couldn’t be trusted, the ‘ultras’ gave it the fig leaf of an ‘intellectual’ cover by arguing the Indians are inept and corrupt.

Anyone questions such self-indulgent positions had to be pro-Indians or worse, Indian-agents.

When things fell apart most of them sort comfort in saying, but not believing, “Delhi cannot ignore the feelings of the Tamils in Tamil Nadu”, while they held utter contempt for its politics and its politicians.

When things were apparently going right as well as when all hell broke loose, our fundamental question always has been, “if India can achieve what they needed, whatever that may be, from the Sinhala government, without having to withstand a civil conflict in its neighbourhood or having the responsibility of sustaining a future ‘Tamil state’, why wouldn’t India take it?”

(b) But, what was shocking for the Tamileelam nationalists and, particularly for the ‘ultras’, was the decision to eliminate the LTTE was not made in Delhi alone.

In fact, every power and power-blocks had come to the same view, and were actively aiding the Sri Lankan war efforts. Meanwhile the LTTE was militarily conditioned and politically persuaded to maroon itself in a narrow strip of land off the coast of Mullaiththeivu, holding its own supporters as hostages, waiting in vain for the arrival of US warships for their leaders’ rescue.

It is interesting to note however, for those who have been following the ‘intelligence reports’ by the World Bank, private investment banks and CIA about the various aspects of the world, spotting a trend, which suggested most of them didn’t consider Sri Lanka as a trouble spot mired in terrorism beyond 2015. This in itself meant nothing, but considering with their projections for other aspects of lives in the island and the region might have suggested the ‘end of the LTTE’ to a few, provided they had their independent reasoning.

2. Why such a collective understanding about the LTTE among the ‘International Community’?

(a) We have argued in the South Asia Analysis Group that for the international community, the ‘state’ is the only dependable and localised political institution to be forwarded as ‘globalisation’ enters a new phase of purpose and uncertainties.

Globalisation has many different aspects and, in its raw form it may be about commercialisation and maximisation of the expropriation of labour. Economists and activists go into a frenzy hearing the term, depending on their ideological convictions, and none of us are immune from these arguments.

Globalisation also means harmonising the values and standards among the various nations, communities, which need local political institutions. There are issues that matter to every citizen of the world, which cannot be supervised or enforced by macro-methods or massive institutions. In the developed or developing world, there exist no better candidate for this purpose than a state.

Having run destabilising programs against the states on ideological grounds, big powers have found enough socio-economical common grounds to argue for the rehabilitation of states as the common institution to convey a common language.

But, what are those values to be harmonised and how to do it? These are questions, which will eventually see the world divide into three major segments, as Indo-Europeans and Mongoloid, and others. We will not dwell on this idea here.

(i) In the developed world, the ‘free market’ has been proven to be a failure as the sole arbitrator of social-organisations as its proponents have been advocating.

The recent events in the ‘market’, and the need for the state to ‘recapitalise’ the liquidity of the banking system prove this point and take the state to another level in its collaboration with capitalism.

The anti-capitalist pretences by the political parties are no longer tenable, so is the position of the state as just a regulator of social-policy.

The state is now in full partnership with capitalism, not just as part of the decision making process to manage the macro-economy and the labour policies, but as a shareholder.

Feeling confident that the ideologies of the left are defeated, the ruling classes are no longer worried about left inspired social discontent, and the state is comfortable in its new position. Presently, which means the working masses can only be organised by rightwing militants and national socialists, hence the efforts to bring them into fold. In fact, in many of the European states these groups are already part of the governments.

State in the develop world is acquiring a newer and portent meaning in its functions and as a variable.

(ii) For the developing countries theses arguments may be irrelevant at this stage. The effect of the collapse of the free-market capitalism as an ideology, soon following the collapse of the Soviet style collectivism, may have no impact on them.

However, strengthening of the arguments for the state has its own relevance in the Indo-European linguistic world, particularly in the South and Middle-Eastern Asian states, a much welcomed relief.

Countries like India, Sri Lanka or Pakistan were never a unified country before the arrival of the colonialists and, even for India until recently, a hollow concept. The ‘state’ is the only real meaning of political unity among the different peoples even if they benefited nothing from it. Thus, the state seeks reinforcement from whatever available, usually religiously based cultural ideologies; identity based on ‘enemies’ than its peaceful collective self.

The phase of globalisation, with it the prospect of economic and social development, has given greater freedom for these states to seek identities outside the traditional frameworks, thereby emboldening their claims of sovereignty.

The wars to eliminate militancy in Sri Lanka or Pakistan and, now in India cannot be viewed outside this context, even though the circumstances and the cases may be specific.

Indian state is becoming increasingly free from the regional capitalist constraints at the present, which is interpreted as an achievement of greater unity. The pressure from the emerging capitalist and trans-global capitalist classes in India and the argument that the state can intervene to make serious social impacts through centralised policies are driving the Indian elite to argue against the alternative power-centres or non-state-actors. That meant not just a case against the groups like the Naxals, but also, regionalists and separatists.

The state is the maxim; it is argued because it can deliver social development as well as being a grantor of capitalism, therefore cannot allow any centres of power outside its realm.

For India, its realm means the entire region that has a direct impact on its present and future aspirations, therefore not just the LET and others like in Pakistan and Bangladesh, but also those in Sri Lanka come in to focus. The recent statement in Egypt by Dr. Manmohan Singh on the Baluchies was a testament to the Indian intent, even if the group were their former ally or their own creation.

The ambivalence and discussions about the sovereignty of the state were never an issue in the Mongoloid nation states. From the feudal to the modern times or throughout any ‘transition periods’, their views on social construct have been based on the idea of a ‘perfect social order’ where state is the total authority.

The return of the revamped capitalist state is not an accident or merely stemmed from the persuasive power of its argument. If anything, the failure of the liberation or revolutionary movements to live up to their promises has been the primary contributor than the success of capitalism.

The cruelty and the crudeness of the LTTE, JVP or the Islamists in the name of confronting the state-terrorism and, capitalism and imperialism against even their own supporters and populations are indicative of the ineptitude of their promises. The long drawn out wars, deaths and descent into the abyss of anti-social activities for self-serving purposes have become all too familiar. Whether it were a nationalistic group like the LTTE or rabid religious groups like the Jihadies or the once fashionable leftist groups, like the FARC in Columbia, they lead so many to witness only disappointments and wasted lives.

The legacies of the past revolutions in Russia, China and Cuba are fast becoming distant memories as the people in those countries turned against their past and the systems they built, which on the long run turned out to be nothing but shadows of the free masonries and Mafiosies of the capitalist world cloaked in political terminologies, though not the original intents.

No one is saying the revolutionary heroes of the past can retrospectively be judged to be frauds or fools. But the systems they professed to have known well and devised, to replace the unfairness of capitalism, have all proven to be sand castles, as the selfish-genes running in the blood of their inheritors reversed every values and turned to capitalism, thus raising the question of the real effects of the endeavours, valour and sacrifice of those pioneers.

(b) The LTTE has proved itself to be (i) an untrustworthy allay for any power involved in the Sri Lankan affairs, (ii) neither capable to understand nor flexible to the changes in the region and the world, (iii) only a military outfit, just as India had originally intended, unaware of its political responsibilities, (iv) incapable of changing its behaviour towards its own peoples and other communities, and perhaps, (v) with shady commercial and politico-military interests.

What next

The green light given to exterminate the LTTE is a long rope around those who executed the decision, in their own cruel and crude manner.

India may have failed in some of its policy directives that don’t mean failing in its strategic objectives. India is now contented that (1) the Tamil militancy is contained within the island, (2) Sri Lanka is not actively seeking to undermine its authority in the region, (3) its Southern flank is secure, and (4) Delhi alone, not any Tamil group or Tamil representations decided the political fate of the Tamils in Sri Lanka.

If these four were the main strategic objectives, then India may feel it has achieved them.

Delhi has always thought itself as the sole arbiter of the destiny of the Sri Lankans, particularly that of Tamils, and was willing to assert that position when faced with difficulties.

One could trace this trait throughout its dealings, whether it were the accords to repatriate Upcountry Tamils to Tamil Nadu, handling the ownership of Kachchaitheivu, deciding the type and the fate of the Tamil leaderships. In every case Delhi decided them without consulting the Tamils on either side of Palk Straight.

After aiding the Tamil militant groups and encourage them to fight for their ‘rights’, Delhi made sure those rights were merely a few passages in the appendix to a bilateral agreement with the Sri Lankan state. The diplomatic problem when interfering in another’s internal affairs may have been a reason in this case. But the fact India would not allow any broader international body or Tamil representations to be part of the deals prove our point.

However, the changes of the past two decades had also brought changes in Delhi’s attitude towards Tamil Nadu, and this time when making the decision to eliminate the LTTE, it seems, it has taken Tamil Nadu political classes into its confidence.

Atrocities against the Tamils were anticipated and probably calculated as variables to reign in the Rajapackshes and the Sri Lankan state if there is a need to eek out a ‘solution’ for the ethnic problem. But, as the leaders of a primitive and failed state they are immune to the basic human decencies, and eventually will be forgiven for having played their part in a regional scheme, in their indomitably crude and cruel manner.

As for the Tamils the questions are about their survival. It is not having a grand plan, but about making several right decisions that help to tag along the long-term trends and face the four immediate perils: (1) Present phase of confusion and lethargy, (2) Dislocation and dilution (3) Unsustainable development schemes and, least importantly, (4) Hair-brain liberation schemes.

Tamils should draw strength from their history during which they had endured defeat at the hands of their Sinhala brothers, and competitors, as much as their huge resources. After 60 years of independence and total control of the island the Sinhala-only leadership of the island has only brought death and destruction to every community and abject socio-economic progress. If anything, in the manner they had conducted the war against the Tamils, and their own JVP, while squandering and plundering peoples wealth, they have proved to be untrustworthy of any significant partnership, particularly that involved serious money. Tamils on the other hand, even though these ordeals of fire, deaths by thousands of bombs, torture by hundred promises, have become stronger, and have gone thorough a series of social transformations. International community that is overseeing their torturous journey are aware of their strengths, and unfortunately also their weaknesses. However, they know without the wholehearted participation of the Tamils, the island’s economy will be as dynamic as it has been for the past 60 years.

Tamils must also be proactive on the understanding that survival is more about psychology than a military or political plan. Those help to spread confusion and lethargy among us, making out our communities as impotent against the might of Sri Lanka, etc, are only sowing doubts to destroy us as a people. They are closely followed by those hell bent on pursuing their defeated ideas, asking for more sacrifice from the disadvantaged and the poor as they plan their hair-brain schemes from safety, far away from the smell of the blood soaked earth of our desperate people.

Our non-participation in our own struggle is our greatest failure in the recent past. If we still continue to be bystanders we will fall prey to the quick-buck speculators and resource hunters. Big businesses, from any country, have no-scruples and no faces as they sap the life-blood while you watch yourselves becoming zombies. For a big country, where human resources are ‘expendable’ assets, their effects may not be even felt by everyone but those suffer them. But for us, a small people they can only mean devastation; dislocation and dilution as people already termed IDPs are tossed around, according to the needs of the ‘investors’.

If standing aside and allowing the LTTE the full reign was a disaster for our struggle, non-participation in our own socio-economical development would be the end of our communities.

Economic development is seen as the panacea for all social ills, despite its shortcomings. Yet, for the majority of the world, still struggling to survive to the next day even the promise of it gives sustenance and hope. Furthermore, it offers the prospect of constructive engagement within and with each other. It is possible to argue even the security of the region can be guaranteed by it. India, the home for 50% of the world’s malnourished, has no doubt see this as the only course of action for its people and its neighbours. But, it cannot achieve the development uniformly within or throughout its regions.

As we suggested in an earlier paper, the responsibilities for management of these two aspects, development and security, must be delegated to regional-hubs. In this respect, we argued Tamil Nadu must play a central role in bringing peace, stability and development for the Southern region. Is it possible enlightened among the Tamil Nadu politicians are also beginning to see this prospect and their responsibilities towards all the communities in the region than just the Tamils. The recent visit by some Tamil Nadu MLAs and the decision by the Sri Lankan government to free many Tamils from a concentration camp may make us believe it to be so.

Ironically for some, purely logically for others, the existence and even the abrupt death of the LTTE may have served their purpose in reviving the old relationships the islanders had with the South Indian principalities. This trend, bringing different Dravidian communities together for socio-economic development, if it is taking shape, would mean a natural call, disrupted by the colonial period. It would also mean a mimicking of the global pattern, the overarching trend, of people slowly but surely moving towards greater unity.

But for us, if warring communities can find peace and prosperity within a broader framework of peoples, then it would also mean peace and stability for all the peoples in the region.

The question is can the Tamils be consciously be part of this programme without losing their identity they fought so desperately to keep, and find a place with in it. However, by being bystanders as they have always been, armed with only questions, they are hardly likely to find that out.

(The writer is a London based expatriate Sri Lankan Tamil and the The Academic Secretary of ASATiC. He can be reached at E-Mail:- academic.secretary@gmail.com)

-Sri Lanka Guardian