“Anti-Tamil or Anti-Terrorist?” – A Response

| by Dr Laksiri Fernando

( June 08, 2012, Sidney, Sri Lanka Guardian) The central question that Gajalakshmi Pramasivam has asked in response to my previous article titled “Sri Lanka at Crossroads: Struggle for Democracy is the Way Ahead” was whether the “Sri Lankan War was Anti-Tamil or Anti-Terrorist” although it was mildly titled as “Democracy or Anti-Terrorism” (SLG, 5 June 2012).

I am not sure whether the ‘effects are equal the cause,’ as she claims, but as effects of the war, the LTTE was completely vanquished at least militarily while many or some Tamil civilians also were killed deliberately or otherwise. The numbers are still controversial. It was the ‘vanquished’ military nature of the LTTE that I would call terrorism and this is agreed by 32 countries which proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist organization. It is also a fact that the war rescued nearly 300,000 Tamil civilians trapped in the war zone even if you consider that they were not kept as a human shield. The keeping of civilians as a human shield is a terrorist act.

As GP (Gajalakshmi Paramasivam) is interested in effects and quantification to judge the main nature of the war, I would say the two major outcomes were the defeat of terrorism and the rescue of the civilians, and my weightage would be not less than 80 per cent. It is as a result of the defeat of the LTTE that the country is now free from terrorism although there are some other continuations on the government side. I have not counted this separately.

Protest against Sri Lanka ? or Rajapaksa ?

During the war, to the extent that the civilian deaths were deliberate, that could be considered anti-Tamil. Also the torture and killings of captured LTTE cadre or their family members could be considered anti-Tamil. These are the crimes. These could have been done by a small group of people or by orders and they should be investigated and perpetrators punished.

As GP has appreciated my position, I don’t consider or never considered the conflict in Sri Lanka purely or even mainly as a terrorist problem. But when terrorism arises, whatever the background reasons, if the issues cannot be resolved through negotiations within a reasonable time frame, there is no other option for a government other than eliminating terrorism. It is in this sense that the war was justified.

At the same time I understand that the military defeat of the LTTE has affected the Tamil community in Sri Lanka and abroad immensely. It is possible that some or many would consider the defeat of the LTTE as a defeat of the Tamil cause at least temporarily. There has always been a nexus between traditional Tamil demands and LTTE politics. Therefore, for them the war was anti-Tamil. What I call terrorism perhaps was not terrorism to many of the Tamil community. These are matters that we need to discuss and discuss dispassionately in my opinion.

My objection to the present government, among other matters, is that it has and is giving credence to this feeling of the Tamil community. President Rajapaksa in his speech to Parliament on 19 May 2009 said (in Tamil) “The war against the LTTE is not a war against Tamil people.” He added that “All people of this country should live in safety without fear and suspicion. All should live with equal rights. That is my aim. Let us all get together and build up this nation.”

But the words have not been transformed into deeds. “Fear and suspicion” have not disappeared but increased. More importantly, “equal rights” are not established or even tangible steps have not been taken in that direction. No proper initiatives have been taken “to get together and build the nation.” These are of course not purely efficiency issues but influenced or determined by ethnic factors. That is why I consider the ethnic conflict as unresolved. But I don’t consider the conflict to be irreconcilable. It is difficult as far as the people consider the different interests or conflict purely from one’s own ethnic point of view. This applies both to the Sinhalese and the Tamils, and even to the Muslims.

One example of this strand of thinking appearing in GP’s argumentation is her reference to her colleagues in ‘racial’ terms, with reference to a personal case in Australia, saying “white Australian colleagues.” I am not disputing her claim against “racial discrimination” if that were the case. I am not in a position to comment on that and don’t see much relevance to my article at all. But what I am saying is that if we try to see everything and everyone in racial or ethnic terms then we create subjective barriers to resolve problems between us. This is apart from whatever discrimination that she has gone under the Australian public administration.

GP has particularly requested me to comment on how would I “as a member of minority race in Australia, compare Australian leadership in public administration and management with that of Sri Lankan leadership in public service?”

In the first place, I am not considering myself as a member of a so-called minority ‘race.’ I am not a believer in ‘racial’ differences while recognizing the social formations of ethnicity even that in relative terms. I am a new member of a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society in Australia and don’t have much experience in comparing public service in Sri Lanka and Australia. Given my limited capacity and time, that is also not my present interest. I can only sympathise with her if she has gone under any discrimination.