(
November 16, 2012, Paris, Sri Lanka Guardian) Sri Lanka’s ambassador in France, Dayan
Jayatilleke, calling for “autonomy within a unitary structure,” at a seminar in
Paris earlier this month was a political-populist statement, responded
Professor Emeritus Peter Schalk, who participated the seminar arranged by
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). A unitary structure
excludes autonomy. A social scientist would not have uttered such a sentence,
Prof Schalk said, in a note sent to TamilNet on Thursday. Calling CNRS partial
in providing propaganda platform to Colombo, he said that the violence by the
governments of Lanka is structural and genocidal that is practiced over the
decades and not just an occasional aberration or some nuts.
Meanwhile,
in an interview to Palaka’ni programme of TamilNet this week, Mr. Gajendrakumar
Ponnambalam came out with similar views, explaining how the talk of ‘devolution
of power’ under unitary structure goes against all realities in the island.
‘Devolution
of Power,’ without the rejection of unitary Sri Lanka and without recognition
to the sovereignty or the right to self-determination of Eezham Tamils, is a
persistent chant of particularly Washington and New Delhi.
Full
text of the note received from Prof Peter Schalk:
Autonomy
within a Unitary Structure?
Professor
Peter Schalk
On
November 7, 2012, I participated in a seminar in Paris arranged by Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS).
The
theme was Sri Lanka and South Asia: New Challenges for a Regional Policy. I
expected to get a new and deep geopolitical analysis, but we can forget about
that.
The
guest speaker was Dayan Jayatilleka who was presented on the written
announcement to the public as Ambassador of Sri Lanka in France, not as social
scientist. He performed as ambassador. He was openly backed up by one invited
scholar from the CNRS and by consenting voices from the public which was
supportive.
I
have never seen before in Scandinavia, UK or Germany during my 42 years of
academic service that an academic institution has invited only one party of a
protracted conflict. I was baffled by the fact that the CNRS made no attempt to
counter-balance the ambassador’s partiality. The chair-person just kept silent
having declared that he had no competence in the subject.
The
seminar in the locality of the CNRS was a propaganda meeting for the policy of
the Sri Lankan Government from the beginning to the end. The ambassador came up
with the usual and expected anti-LTTE attacks: The LTTE did not want to
negotiate and therefore a war of total annihilation of the LTTE in the final
end in 2009 was justified.
A
time consuming consenting exchange of statements took place during the seminar
on the question why Tamil speakers supported the LTTE. Dayan Jayatilleke’s
favourite comparison with Nazi Germany was retrieved by himself as usual. Tamil
speakers’ support of the LTTE was allegedly caused by the LTTE’s terrorist
methods against the Tamil civilian population. None in the seminar took up the
possibility that the support by civilians of the LTTE was a result of the history
of suffering by the Tamil people. Against this background they declared in 1976
that they wanted to found a separate state of Tamililam.
The
ambassador’s tirades of hate against the LTTE has taken sickly proportions and
is a true obstacle to reconciliation between a large Tamil population in Paris
(“La Chapelle”) and his embassy.
According
to him the Sinhalas have a justified fear of the 70 millions of Tamils in South
India where still the LTTE is supported.
Indian
policy was taken up several times by him, but China was only touched.
When
it came to the 13th amendment of the Constitution in which he was heavily
involved in the late 1980s, he pinpointed the LTTE as cause why it has not been
implemented.
He
also pointed at a “discussion” that is taking place about this amendment within
the Government.
I
have heard all his platitudes and clichés many times before during my
observation of the island from 1970s onwards. Therefore, I was astonished to
hear him say that the 18th amendment was not good.
A
critical voice from the public, the only one, had earlier pointed out the
undemocratic features of this amendment.
The
history of suffering of the Tamils was no theme during the seminar. Nothing was
said about the last months of the war, of Mänik farm, of the 300 000 displaced
civilians, etc.
It
is not possible in the future to say “I did not know” because there is a very
good documentation of structural violence against the Tamil people documented
in the book Massacres of Tamils (1956-2008) issued in English in 2009 in
Chennai and in German under the name of Damit wir nicht vergessen… Massaker an
Tamilen 1956-2008, issued by the Draupadi-Verlag in Heidelberg 2012. A French
version will be issued very soon. A Tamil version is also available.
Realising
that the violence by the Governments of Lanka is structural and genocidal being
practised during decades, it is not possible to classify the present violence
as an occasional aberration or as being related to some nuts only.
The
ambassador’s presentation ended with the following characterisation of the
Lankan state’s policy: It strives for “autonomy within a unitary structure”. A
social scientist would not have uttered such a sentence. A unitary structure
(=centralised structure) excludes autonomy. But the ambassador’s point is to
show that he has listened to Tamil demands for autonomy. It was a
political-populist statement.
The
seminar had no scientific qualifications, but it left a tragic insight that the
Government represented by Dayan Jayatilleke has not learned any lesson from the
past.
Peter
Schalk, professor emeritus, Uppsala, Sweden
 Sri Lanka’s ambassador in France, Dayan Jayatilleke, calling for “autonomy within a ...){kind=link}