| by Upul Joseph Fernando
( May 15, 2013, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The UK High Commissioner was asked to comment on accusations that 'divide and rule' policies of the British colonial administration precipitated the present ethnic crisis in Sri Lanka.
"When the British came to Ceylon in 1796, there were three distinct kingdoms. The British made it one country for purposes of administrative convenience. In over half the number of countries in the world, the British colonial rulers adopted a 'divide and rule' policy. In that regard this policy was not unique to the island alone. If one were to truly examine Britain's role one important aspect deserves special mention. That is the constitutional arrangements that Britain left behind. It left behind the Soulbury Constitution. Britain considered the Soulbury Constitution as having the necessary arrangements to provide for safeguards for minorities.
"Britain thought that the rights of the Tamils in particular would be safeguarded by these arrangements. However, history has proved otherwise, that these safeguards were inadequate and not robust enough. I regret that Britain's policies have to such an extent been the cause for the problems," High Commissioner, Dominic Chilcott, said.- 'Sunday Virakesari' ( 15 July 2006 )
Rare opportunity
British High Commissioner in Sri Lanka, Dominic Chilcott, made the above confession nearly 22 months before the end of the war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Four years after the end of war, Britain has now got a rare opportunity to correct a mistake they have admittedly made by depending too heavily on the Soulbury Constitution to ensure the rights of the Tamil people. This much-awaited opportunity by the British has come in the form of CHOGM – the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.
No one can underrate Britain's capacity to use it effectively to set right a wrong committed several decades ago. CHOGM is a singularly powerful tool in the hands of Britain to persuade Sri Lanka to safeguard the rights of the Tamils. Meanwhile, international human rights organizations have expressed some misgivings as to whether Britain will use it for its economic benefits.
With the introduction of the Donoughmore Constitution, an ethnic division between the Sinhalese and Tamils were firmly established with the result that it took a grip in the national psyche with far-reaching repercussions. Tamil Councillor, N. Selvadurai, in a speech at the State Council in 1935, noted the fact as quoted below.
"We considered ourselves to be a community side by side with the Sinhalese and we co-operated with them. The contribution we had to make was greatly appreciated by the other communities. But suddenly, after the Donoughmore Constitution had come to Ceylon, we, who were occupying a position of real importance and who by reason of numbers and by intelligence were able to contribute a very valuable share to the political progress of Ceylon, found ourselves in a very small minority."
Britain realized its mistake only after a war erupted between the two sides – the LTTE and Government Forces. At the initial stage of the conflict, Britain allowed the LTTE to have its Headquarters in London, expecting to act as an intermediary in a peace process. However, subsequent events compelled Britain to proscribe the LTTE but extended its support and blessings for a Norwegian-sponsored peace initiative. Moreover, Britain was a Co-Chair of the committee supervising the peace process.
When talks broke down, Britain's foreign affairs authorities wanted to broker a peace deal after the suspension of hostilities by the LTTE. But the British security establishment allowed the war to go on and helped Sri Lanka when needed.
Subtle accusations
As Sri Lanka failed to bring about a political solution after the war, Britain started supporting international human rights organizations to force the hand of Sri Lanka to solve the Tamil problem by adopting a political solution. Human Rights activists and the Tamil Diaspora therefore believed that Britain would in due course boycott CHOGM. To their dismay, British Prime Minister, David Cameron, made his intention to attend the meeting known in advance. Immediately after Cameron's confirmation of his attendance at the Colombo meeting, there arose a chorus of subtle accusations that the move was a result of a trade deal favourable to Britain.
Yet, it appears Britain's strategy in dealing with the Rajapaksa regime is more or less similar to that of India's. India eschews any attempt at exerting pressure on the Rajapaksa regime for fear of pushing it too much towards China. Its strategy seems to be to use international pressure to do the needful. In like manner, Britain seems to consider using CHOGM to attain its goal of a reformed regime much more effective than any direct pressure. The Tamil Diaspora and human rights activists have not yet given up hope of Britain's efficacy in persuading Sri Lanka to ensure Tamil rights.
When Mahinda Rajapaksa was invited to address the Oxford Union some time back, Britain did not interfere with the arrangements. It was only after his arrival in London that he was informed of the last minutes cancellation of his address, thus giving the Diaspora and rights activists a victory of sorts. Yet again, the same elements intervened to disrupt Rajapaksa's scheduled address to the Commonwealth Economic Forum at a sideline event on the occasion of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations.
The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group Meeting is scheduled to be held in September and the Diaspora and Human Rights activists are most probably planning a repeat of the Oxford drama.
( The writer is a senior journalist based in Colombo, Sri Lanka, He works for the Ceylon Today, an independent daily, where this piece was originally appeared)
( The writer is a senior journalist based in Colombo, Sri Lanka, He works for the Ceylon Today, an independent daily, where this piece was originally appeared)
 The UK High Commissioner was asked to comment on accusations ...){kind=link}