 |
| The ending of the war has not changed much in Sri Lanka either. It can be said that the conditions have changed for the worse. It seems that the country has traded off one afflicted by a civil war for an authoritarian state. The laws of impunity, Prevention of Terrorist Acts, Emergency rule are still in robust health. The paramilitaries are still at large carrying out there activities with total impunity. |
by Sivanendran
"To employ the coercive apparatus of the state in order to maintain manifestly unjust institutions is itself a form of illegitimate force that men in due course have a right to resist." – John Rawls
(May 29, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) What is particularly horrifying about ethnic wars is that people are brutalised and killed not because of anything they have done, not even because of their politics, but simply because who they are. That is what it is so terrible about the persecution of the Tutsis in Rwanda, the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the Kurds in Iraq, the Muslims in Bosnia and the Albanians in Kosovo. Ethnic wars are quite different; they are about malevolence – not quite like other wars conducted according to moral or legal rules. ‘Ethnic cleansing’ like ‘final solution ‘is surely one of the most sinister phrases to enter the political vocabulary of the twentieth century.
All Sri Lankans know that its recent history is littered with some horrendous occurrences between the two principal communities since independence – the 1958 riots, 1977 riots, 1983 riots and the civil war of 28 years ending with the defeat of the Tamil Tigers (LTTE). The deaths in detention of people such as Kuttimani, Thangathurai, Wijeweera and many others are known. But this is not all. Sri Lanka is soaked in the blood of her children of all races and of all political persuasions. It is this contemporary history - which began in 1958 when the first disaster took place and ended with the war in 2009 - it is this history with which we have had to come to terms. We could not pretend it did not happen. Everyone agrees that Sri Lanka must deal with that history and its legacy. It is how we do this that is the question - a bone of contention still between the two communities.
The Political divide
The ending of the war has not settled anything between the two communities, but exacerbated them. The Tamil National Question has not been settled by war – This should be clear to all those watching the developments in Sri Lanka.
The Paradox of Democracy
The ending of the war has not changed much in Sri Lanka either. It can be said that the conditions have changed for the worse. It seems that the country has traded off one afflicted by a civil war for an authoritarian state. The laws of impunity, Prevention of Terrorist Acts, Emergency rule are still in robust health. The paramilitaries are still at large carrying out there activities with total impunity. The rule of law has been nibbled away over the years that its absence today is hardly noticed. Journalists have been subjected to violence and intimidation that they do not risk scrutinising the executive government but only sing hymns of praise for the current regime. The goons of the government and the paramilitaries are free and on the prowl everywhere.
The increased role for the army and retired officers in civil society is a significant part of the new strategy. The spreading tentacles of the military machine into every area of society complete the absolute control of the regime and the militarization of civil society. The most disturbing decision which smacks of militarization was the plan to send new intakes of undergraduates to military installations for a three week leadership training programme. The young university hopefuls are to be trained by military officers in leadership skills, English and social etiquette, etc.
The current regime has used the war to lay the foundations for the authoritarian state by pursuing its undemocratic practices like suppressing the press and media. The opposition was unable to resist this juggernaught of repression. It is a moment in Sri Lankan history, when the country needed a robust opposition and the opposition walked away from its responsibilities. The loyal opposition is lifeless and ineffective. They are silenced by the forces of repression. The unity of legislative and executive power is the very definition of tyranny and Sri Lanka has accomplished it. It allows lawmakers to make and implement draconian laws with the certainty that these laws will never be applied to themselves or their families. Such unity is pernicious to society precisely because it threatens fairness and justice.
GOSL Perspectives
The traditional intransigence of the government to address the causes of the civil war indicates definitively that the government is not willing to compromise. The state is responsible for a large number of deaths, disappeared and the detained. Two years after the ending of the war, the anguished relatives are still kept traumatised and the hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons are yet to be settled.
While no one should excuse the LTTE for the crimes which they have perpetrated during the past decades, the government’s rationale reflects the constant theme of President Rajapakse’s declaration that implies that the victims of this war may have been guilty by their own share of villainy. In this regard, it would be more appropriate for India and its allies to support the UN to act to ensure that all responsible parties on both sides are brought to justice rather than seek to use one side's conduct as justification for supporting the other. Nonetheless, it would be appropriate in the meantime to assess the goals and intentions of GOSL and ascertain whether or not they deserve such unequivocal Indian support. The truth is that GOSL believes that India and the West will simply not confront Sri Lanka indefinitely, and the failure to negotiate a political settlement with the Tamils in the very near term is likely to significantly lessen (if not end) the West's commitment.
The UN Expert panel report has given the government the opportunity to rouse patriotic anger of the Sinhalese against the UN and the West. Based on this predicament, the government appears to have derived a two-pronged strategy. Their efforts focus on the wilful discrediting of UN panel report combined with a propaganda campaign to persuade the international community that the panel report is part of a vendetta against them by the West. Additionally, the Sri Lankan government bases its future on perceived new Chinese, Russian and Islamic allies who traded in arms and money during the war.
The Tamils National Alliance
While publicly claiming to be interested in a fair and comprehensive political solution to the conflict, GOSL instead continue to take actions which demonstrate a lack of desire or will to tackle the causes of the civil war. For example, despite GOSL’s overt support for the resolution of 27 May 2009 at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), it encouraged its forces to utilize every moment to improve field fortifications, seize tactically dominant terrain, and reposition units in the North and East. Any objective policy must judge the veracity of Sri Lankan claims based on their actions rather than their words, and these actions of GOSL suggests intent to continue with the divisions rather than heal the wounds of the society.
All activities in the North and East are controlled by the Sri Lankan Army and the paramilitaries. In the light of the specific characteristics of Tamil society after the war, and the ferocity of the military domination and the ensuing repression, GOSL cannot predict the prospects for the future. Even the TNA, the only credible Tamil political formation is still stunned by the enormity of the defeat. The problems of the Tamils to be tackled are huge requiring enormous resources. There is no self governing mechanism within Sri Lanka at the disposal of the Tamils to address and respond to their needs. The Tamil political leadership has responsibility but no power. They cannot bring change to their own people.
This situation cannot last forever. Armed with the UN report the Tamils and the TNA now feel encouraged to remind the world of their fate during and after the war. The youth from the University for the first time have defied the military authorities in their effort to remember the dead. TNA has been pressurised by the international community is carrying out the public ritual of talks with the regime. President Rajapakse has downgraded the talks and no devolution package is expected from the Government. The Sri Lankan state at different times in the past have come up with proposals for devolution to solve the National Question - Chandrika Kumaratunge proposal, APRC proposal etc, to name a few. Two years after the ending of the war GOSL have come up with a derisory proposal called the "Senate Option" which does not even come remotely anywhere near the spirit of the undertaking given to the UNHRC in May 2009.
Indo Lanka relationship
The spotlight is now back on the Indo Lanka relationship. GOSL expects the relationship to continue and help them. India and the international community placed a lot of hope on GOSL to create favourable political conditions to bring all communities together and mobilise the whole country in order to promote the urgent and necessary welfare measures needed for the victims of violence. GOSL had the opportunity to progress these .pressing humanitarian issues. Instead, GOSL broke all promises made to the International community to secure their support during the war.
What was hidden during the war has now been exposed by the UN panel. GOSL has to answer the allegations in the report. Sri Lanka needs help but what is the nature of this help? Is it to establish truth and set the people free or for it to provide another dose of state oppression? If GOSL has nothing to hide, why should they fear investigations by international experts as recommended by the UN panel? Should the international community assist them in their immoral behaviour? The help they are seeking is to further the oppression of both the Tamils and the Sinhalese. That is a big ask and a huge obstacle to any relationship. So what will India do?
The joint statement, issued after External Affairs Minister Prof. Pieris’s visit to Delhi, offers some hope, that this time round Delhi is not prepared to be taken for a ride. Delhi has attracted considerable flak from the Sri Lankan media and the nationalist supporters of the government. GOSL expects India to bail them out, as they did before. The joint statement reveals that India at last seen daylight and has decided to take a step back and start asking for delivery on its past promises. This time, India has ratcheted up the pressure on Sri Lanka for a breakthrough in laying the foundations for peace and stability.
It is clear that there is tension developing between Sri Lanka and the international community. India will also be embroiled in this. India as a true friend should warn the Rajapakse regime that the country faces international isolation if there is no movement to resolve the National Question and satisfy the International Community on the UN panel report. India cannot want democracy for itself and tyranny to its friend and neighbours. These are the foreign-policy issues that should be the focus of Indo Lanka relationship. If the leaders do those subjects justice there will be little time for trivial angst about the health of the special relationship.
There was always tension between a foreign policy based on interests and one based on values. This was always the case in respect of Indo Lanka relationship. Lately, India has expended many words trying to square the circle. But its pragmatic, split the difference approach has enmeshed it in a series of contradictions. At the moment the realist India is in eclipse, the humanitarian India is in ascendant. You cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just. Sri Lanka needs a new beginning.
Post a Comment