| by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam
( April 9, 2013, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) I was recently directed to an interview with Mr. Gajendran Ponnambalam regarding Tamil Nationhood. In that consciousness I read also the paper submitted by Professor Laksiri Fernando through the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum Sydney – on Political Economy of Ethnic Conflict and Reconciliation.
Would I consider Tamils or the Sinhalese or Sri Lankans to have achieved Nationhood? Mr. Ponnambalam says in this regard that to Tamils they are a nation, to others Tamils are a minority. To my mind, to qualify to be a nation attained through the democratic path – Tamils have to show that majority Tamils are represented by a leader who believes that her/his homeland is a nation and not just a state or a country. It’s the difference between family and relationship. I am yet to see such a person endorsed officially by majority. Hence each one of us who believe we are leaders – would be right in claiming that our part of the community where majority are represented by her/him – is a nation. When more Tamil groups achieve this before any other ethnic group – Tamils actually would be pioneers in Sri Lanka – in achieving nationhood.
It is now global reality that there is ethnic divide in Sri Lanka. Whether this is a problem or an opportunity is in the eyes of the beholder. Both – the LTTE as well as the Sri Lankan government – escalated the conflict to global level and hence we do need to show a solution that would benefit the global community. But to focus largely on showing and less on realizing – would be wastage. It would be the parallel of hoarding. If we take the issue to the higher level and see it through the highest common factor – the solution would look global and at the same time there would be ownership at the root of the solution. It would be an internally developed solution. Whether it would reach global heights – depends on the persons involved. They need not necessarily be part of the Diaspora leadership. They could be local residents actually practicing self governance through global pathways. Often in disorderly systems, such folks would not have the focus of majority voters.
To my mind, the test as to whether we are independent of another – for example whether Tamil leaders are independent of the Sri Lankan government – is whether we give form to the problem wholly from within. In other words – the two sides of an issue need to be within our own circles. That’s when we are a nation. The more we blame others – the stronger our claim that we are not yet a nation. We need to own the problem fully within the community if we are to be separate from Sinhalese. If on the other hand we keep blaming them and are disregarding similar traits within our circles, we are claiming that we need them as an opposition and therefore we seek to work through a Unitary state. All ethnicities to achieve nationhood within their respective diverse faiths – would be possible within this unitary state.
Often problems arise when we are attached to our investments in our cultural systems but desire / expect returns from another cultural system. Even in the West – there are limits to practice of Equal Opportunity systems and use of Objective measures. Once we know the Truth about that area and realize that we are more democratic than the officials in charge – we need to become their facility and think of them as their facility. This means we do not ‘tell’ each other. Where this is not possible / too difficult for us – we need find our own areas where we would have subjects who would complete the picture of our work – without needing to know rights and wrongs. When this connection is made both sides would share each other’s strengths and needs. Diaspora for example would get the status and the local communities – mentors who would motivate them to seek and find new opportunities – at global level.
Right now, this sharing is not strong in Sri Lanka – amongst all communities. When it is – we do not need to point the finger at others except in very serious current matters.
Land settlement is a very serious issue. The money value of land would vary as per the cultural investment in a particular area. Hence if the Government takes over land or even blocks those to whom Sri Lanka is home – wherever they may live and whichever part of Sri Lanka they may relate to as their home – it buries the cultural value and hence in real terms goes down in value. Taking over other movable assets is not as bad as taking over land. If the Government knows that a particular block of land belongs to a community outside majority community – the Government has the responsibility to refrain from taking over those lands. Every move in breach of this would go against the community that has majority power to elect government. The strength of the return karma would be proportionate to the feeling of ownership felt by the owner in that part of the country. The moment we feel – rather than think and calculate – we are in the zone of Truth and therefore naturally influence the system of karma to return the karma with full force. This risk is greater for those who have custody of powers than to those on whom those powers are being used.
As I wrote today to our folks in Northern Sri Lanka – in the Hindu legend of Sathyavan – Savithri, Savithri the wife brought her husband back from death due to her powers as a wife. When we love, we become One and therefore we influence Divine Powers. Hence, like Savithri who was seen as a minority power in husband - wife relationship, minorities in a country could bring dead governments back to life – provided they have been self governing citizens.
 I was recently directed to an interview with Mr. Gajen...){kind=link}