APRC ‘Report’

by Nalin de Silva

(August 04, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) A document purported to be the APRC report has been tabled in the Parliament by Mr. Yogarajan, who represented the CWC at the APRC. He has since then changed parties and is now apparently a member of the UNP. The other person involved with the so called report is Mr. Kariapper who represented the SLMC at the APRC. It is reported that copies of the so-called report would be sent to some embassies.

I represented the MEP at the APRC and I must categorically sate the neither I nor the MEP was a signatory to the so-called report. Mr. Yogarajan has been kind enough to send a copy of the "report" and I must also add that I find that it has not been signed by any of the representatives of the parties, though their names appear on it. The presence of the names might give the impression to the general public, I am not bothered about the impression of the foreign diplomats as they have no role to play in a purely internal matter, that the "report" gives the recommendations of the APRC as such but I must say that it is not the case as far as at least the MEP is concerned. The western embassies most probably will try to make use of the "report" to instigate the so-called diaspora (note the Biblical implications of the term which has connotations derived from that as far as the western world is concerned) but the government of Sri Lanka has already outplayed them even with Ban ki-Moon playing for them as a professional, meaning on a contract basis and not free of charge as amateurs used to play in the good old days. In any event, we have to support the government unconditionally if the western powers together with the likes of Messrs Yogarajan and Kariapper try to impose their will on this country.

It has to be mentioned that I left the APRC around the time the armed forces entered Killinochchi, not certainly Medavachchi, and the MEP was not represented by anybody at the APRC thereafter. Messrs Yogarajan and Kariapper may have a different agenda and may be thinking of applying pressure on the government to implement the so-called recommendations or whatever stated in the APRC ‘report’. Although I represented the MEP at the APRC, I must also state that I have never been a member of that party but the party and I had a very good understanding of the proceedings of the APRC.

APRC, like any other body, has had a beginning (uppada), an existence (thithi), and a decay (bhanga), and it cannot be resurrected now no matter how much some people want to do so. APRC is now gone for ever and if it was a living being we could have gathered to offer "pansukula" so that it will have a better life in the next "incarnation". Unfortunately, it was only a committee and it can only join the other committees that have faded away even without submitting a proper report.

The APRC was appointed while the LTTE with the assistance of the west and some political parties in Sri Lanka not to mention the NGOs financed, supported and maintained by the western powers, was threatening to establish a separate state in the northern and the eastern provinces. Although there were no problems for the Tamils and the Muslims merely because they were non Sinhalas, the Tamil racist parties and Muslim racist parties coined the so-called problems in order to justify their "struggle" to establish a separate state.

The fact that Chelvanayakam established his Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi or the Lanka Tamil State Party in 1947, which was before 1956, when all the problems began according to almost all the Tamil parties and some Sinhala groups sponsored by the west gives ample testimony to the nature of the so-called struggle against the government. Of course, the problem started long before even Chelvanayakam was born as the English wanted to pit the English educated Tamils against the Sinhala elite in the country. The Tamil leaders had been demanding equal or more representation at the centre, but after 1931 could not achieve their ambition mainly due to the universal franchise given to Sri Lanka by the British. In their history of colonialism the English from their point of view had not made a bigger blunder than giving universal franchise to Sri Lanka (Ceylon). Chelvanayakam and others realised that the Tamil leadership was not capable of leading the country from Colombo, as there was no way of reducing the Sinhala representations in the legislature even with multi member seats and nominated MPs. Thus, they resorted to clamour to rule at least the northern and the eastern provinces and began to "pile up grievances" in order to justify their demand for a separate state. The Muslims were not involved in racist politics of the Tamil parties earlier but Ashroff having realised that he could make use of the situation established his own party after having being a member of the TULF at the time the infamous Vadukkodai resolution was adopted.

He was taken up so much by the "strength" of the LTTE and Prabhakaran that at one stage he even demanded three national flags and wanted the national anthem be sung in Sinhala and Tamil. That was the absurdity that the Tamil and Muslim leaders could descend and of course we had the so-called Thimpu conditions. Thimpu talks and various other talks named after cities in the world and deliberations at various All Party Conferences including the APRC took place in this background with the LTTE calling the tune with the support of the western powers and India.

The Sri Lankan government proceeded with the operations against the LTTE and when the armed forces entered the Killinochchi area we knew that our role was over as far as the APRC was concerned. The MEP as well as the JHU did not take part in the proceedings of the APRC after that and the APRC died a natural death though some members continued to meet probably twice a week until late night and also visiting foreign countries to "learn" from their experiences. I did not take part in any of those visits as I had nothing to learn from them and I was waiting for something else to happen.

If the APRC managed to come to an agreement before Prabhakaran was killed and if the government and the LTTE agreed to implement the recommendations of a report that gave expression to the agreement then that report would have had some validity. The APRC could not come to an agreement before Prabhakaran was dead and the conditions under which the APRC was appointed are no longer valid. The APRC, though not stated explicitly, had to find a solution to a problem that had been formulated by the Tamil elite with the help of Indians and the western powers.

Messrs Yogarajan and Kariapper have the freedom to take the dead body (read the APRC ‘report) to Parliament, the western embassies and plead with them to resurrect it. However, now the conditions are different and the "standard formulation" of the Tamil problem by the Tamil Parties, the west, NGOs and other such organisations is not valid. In summary the conditions under which the APRC was appointed are not valid now and hence the document produced by Messrs. Yogarajan and Kariapper as the so called report of the APRC has no validity at all. There are different problems and so far the west has forced us to solve the problem as formulated by the elite. The APRC was the last "attempt" to solve that problem in the eyes of the west, the NGOs and other such organisations, the elite etc., and it is all over though Messrs. Yogarajan and Kariapper fail to understand that. The APRC "report" will end up where it should be namely in the dustbin of history.