Right to Self-Determination – we were born with it

| by Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

( August 07, 2012, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) I write in response to the Sri Lanka Guardian article ‘Whose Right is Self-Determination’ by Dr Laksiri Fernando - Visiting Scholar at the Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

Even as I read through Dr. Laksiri Fernando’s analyses my mind kept referring to my family and community experiences. As per these experience, I came to the conclusion that one of the reasons why I was experiencing difficulties with new migrants in our family and community – was the conflict between individual governance and collective governance – including collective as a family. Relative to the Common Australian, the Common Sri Lankan is driven more by collective governance. My most recent experience of this fitted well with the following section of Dr. Laksiri Fernando’s article:

‘There is no question that Lenin often went into the other extreme and in fact supplied some formulations that have become political slogans of some of the nationalists today. He at times said that self-determination strictly means the right to have a separate state. But other times he was of the opinion that it is a ‘trump card’ like the right to divorce; while you have the right, you always do not invoke or exercise it.’

The ‘experience’ I had in relation to the divorcee label happened in relation to family elders from the area of Vattukottai – where the political declaration of the right of Sri Lankan Tamils to govern themselves was made. As quoted above, these elders used it as a ‘trump card’ to deny me the right to Administer the Estate of my lawful Brother in law. I have now escalated the matter to the legal level towards exercising my right as an individual on merit basis rather than due to birth-rights – the same way I did in the case of Senior Australian Administrators. Yet most of the family - if not all, would vote in favor of self-determination for Tamils as separate state and not directly under Central Administration. Even if there is one person truly committed to self-governance – not just at word level – but at practice level – then the right of that group that includes that person would naturally be elevated to realize the values of self-governance – whether or not it is ‘seen’ by others. We as individuals are born with it. We need to seek, find and identify with it.

The above family conflict is due to whether a sister has a greater right to administer the Estate of a Bachelor than a sister-in-law who on merit basis has demonstrated to be a much stronger and effective Administrator than the sister. The parallel of this in relation to Jaffna Tamils is the question of Caste based status and in the case of Sri Lankans and wider world, it is Race based status. As per my Australian experience at the University of New South Wales – the question was whether a migrant Administrator was to be heard above a traditional white Administrator?

At first sight – it would appear that the sister has preferential right to the sister-in-law. Sister would – if all else was Equal. Former is by birth and the latter is by law. In citizenship – the parallel status to the former is citizenship by birth and the latter is citizenship by immigration law. The question of Equal Opportunity usually arises due to marriage. In terms of citizenship it arises due to immigration.Where Aborigines due to longer residency as a group have preferential right to Administer/Govern Australia, then Sister has clearly preferential right over Sister-in-law.

In Thesawalamai Customary Law applicable to Jaffna Tamils –the distinction between inherited wealth (Muthusum) and acquired wealth (Thediyathettam) is clearly made. The former is governed by principles of hierarchy and the latter by principles of Equality. If we disintegrate the status through the former -the values would be sacrifice, respect and vertical growth. Good Governance of traditional systems is based on these values being present. Hence lawyers still bow to the Judge inside the courtroom. . If we disintegrate the values of Equality – they would show immediate current benefits and hence majority vote – applicable at that place and time only. They do not carry strong traditional values representing sacrifice/abstinence and respect. I sacrificed for the children of my sisters-in-law but the children and their parents failed to respect that sacrifice. Hence the conflict.

As per my direct experience – the people of Vattukottai used Self-Determination as a trump-card than as an earned right. In all types of government there exist both types of structures and practices.In Australia, due to immigration – the lateral system based on Equal Opportunity is practiced more than the vertical system based on higher respect for the older investor. In Sri Lanka, it is the other way around. The latter uses Democracy as a trump-card and the former uses Monarchy as the trump-card.

To achieve independence / self-determination, one could use either path. One who seeks to ‘show’ more and know less of this independent status would tend to naturally use the lateral democratic path which ‘shows’ money related benefits more than status related benefits. Singapore fits this system more than Sri Lanka. Australia ‘shows’ commitment to this system through policies whilst Singapore shows the use of this system more through business and commerce.

Dr. Laksiri Fernando states ‘If the needs for autonomy or independence are not satisfied of that particular group through the devises of ‘self-determination,’ that leads to demotivation, passivity, alienation and even rebellion. They most often act collectively rather than individually under the circumstances.This is exactly the situation in Sri Lanka in respect of minorities, particularly the Tamils, throughout years. What are the indications of this deprivation of self-determination of the minority communities?

Tamils in terms of numbers are a minority group in Sri Lanka. But not so in terms of mental power. Tamils of Sri Lanka – especially of the North have traditionally invested in intellectual activities which strengthen the mind. A Tamil may naturally take a lower place with an Englishman of Equal qualification but not so with a Sinhalese of Equal qualification. The investment in self-determination as individuals is high in those who use the intellect to discriminate on the basis of Common Principles and Values. Where education for life is at low level – one needs institutional power – which would be vertical due to faith in ancestors or collective power – showing current outcomes more than traditional ones. To me – the questions we Tamils need to ask ourselves are (1) which one are we? (2) Which one do we seek to be?

The Sinhalese Government cannot nor should it try to do this for us. If Tamils as a group were truly independent and therefore governed themselves, they would have gone to Sinhalese areas merely/largely for income purposes.Likewise, Sri Lankans to western countries. This happened largely with Jaffna Tamils – especially the more educated Jaffna Tamil who had invested strongly in the hierarchical system - including through caste, which cannot be practiced in ‘foreign’ lands. This is the reason why ‘Traditional’ Muslims tend to live in their own ghettos. Self Governing individuals would naturally integrate with independent individuals of other cultures. Others need to be protected by collective (political) power or institutional (administrative) power to prevent assimilation and loss of identity.

In his article ‘revaluating national self-determination and the progressive project’ Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka says in response to Tamil TNA parliamentarian Mr MA Sumanthiran’s essay entitled ‘Self Determination: Myth and Reality’:

‘So, internal self-determination, in this definition, is not really internal in the sense that it has firm parametric constraints – guardrails, banisters or firewalls--that keep it confined and committed to the internal. In Tamil nationalism’s definition the ‘internal’ character of self determination is purely volitional and utterly elastic: “a people can, in the exercise of their right to self-determination decide to remain within a pre-existing state”. Note: ‘can’, not ‘shall’. They can, but are not obliged to and may not. Or they can today, but may choose not to, tomorrow. What’s ‘internal’ about that?’

As a ‘Tamil’ I read the message different to Dr. Jayatilleke. Mr. Sumantiran’s definition quoted by Dr. Jayatilleke is “It is important to note that a people can, in the exercise of their right to self-determination decide to remain within a pre-existing state but choose the degree of autonomous self government within the framework of a sovereign state. This is known as internal self- determination.”

To my mind, the need for self determination arises when we seek to develop our own branch independent of the parent. Where majorityadult familiesin a community live separately from parents and in harmony, that community has earned the status of self-governance. A fair minded parent / central government would recognize and respect this. Governments seeking economic growth need to invest more in promoting such independence rather than blocking it. If Mr. Sumathiran continues to ‘show’ respect for his father as an elder who earned respect through the vertical hierarchical system, even after Mr. Sumanthiran in the eyes of wider society rose above his father in status – then, it is natural that he would make the above statement of acknowledging and respecting the entitlement of majority race to form government of the country and show that Tamils are included in that governance – at least symbolically. Hence the words ‘can but not obliged to’. To my mind, there is no law that says that a lawyer shall bow to the Judge in a courtroom. Under the circumstances it would be quite appropriate to say ‘can but not obliged to bow’.

Dr. Jayatilleka asks ‘What’s ‘internal’ about that?’ That we do so not because we are obliged to but because we respect the higher position that we also have contributed to and continue to contribute to even if we do not have faith in the occupier of that position. It’s ‘internal’ because we Tamils render that form to our consolidated work and do not let others ‘give’ us – something that we already have earned. We, the educated Tamils would not use the word ‘shall’ because we recognize that those ‘seen’ to have higher status than us due to occupying government positions – failed to take responsibility for us so we would feel confident that one day we would take up those higher positions at country level. ‘Shall’ is the word that LTTE would have used for us to follow its leadership. Mr. Sumanthiran obviously is more democratic than the LTTE leadership.

So long as there is greater investment in intellectual pursuits for life by Tamils as a Community relative to Sinhalese as a Community – Tamils have already confirmed their Natural Right to self-governance. It’s an inalienable right of that Community – whether or not outsiders recognize it. Sri Lankans who recognize this would feel greater independence with other nationalities with apparently higher status than Sri Lankans.

We were born with the right and ability to self-govern. When we do so – individually and/or collectively – it is the duty of those in high positions to respect that right and ability. THAT is the challenge faced by the Sri Lankan Government with the Tamil Community. The laws of Thesawalamai confirmed to me yet again – the investment of Jaffna Tamils in self-governance.