Aachcharya

On Palestine & Sri Lanka: the Politics of Aid & Development - Some Reflections and Notes for Future Research

2011-05-16T01:20:00.000-07:00

(Graphic Courtesy: The Hindu, May 20 2011)

Dr Sara Roy of the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University is an eminent scholar on Palestine. Her profile can be viewed here at wikipedia. In this speech delivered in 2008 she talks about the politics of donor activities in Palestine which ignored Gaza and supported West Bank with the intention of dissecting, splitting and diluting the Palestinian movement for independent statehood (Fast forward to the 38th minute of the video for this part of her speech). She talks about how Western donors engaged with the status quo in a manner whereby donor support by design and effect supported/support Israeli Occupation. She points to how the earlier notion of occupation as bad for peace is being replaced with 'normalising' occupation. Also see her response to a question on Hamas here.

There are definite parallels to Sri Lanka. Scholars like Patrick Peebles have commented on how the dry zone colonisation programme had an impact on the ethnic conflict. Serene Tennakoon has commented on how the rituals of big developmental project was important to the kind of post colonial nation building project that was being experimented by the Sinhala elite. Amita Sashtri in 1990 wrote an important article that dealt with the material basis for the movement for Tamil separatism. Sunil Bastian has extensively written about the politics of land reform. His recent article for Panos Sri Lanka provides for a good overview.

More recently in 2009 the International Crisis Group in a report (couched in a language that seeks to make the point without discomforting donors) points to the need for conflict-sensitivity and to ensure local participation in planning and implementing developmental projects in post-war Eastern Province.

In a lecture that i delivered at the invitation of the Jaffna Science Association at the Faculty of Science of the University of Jaffna on the 13th of July 2010 titled 'Environment and the Law in the Contest of Post War Development', I drew attention to the ADB Funded Dry Zone Water Supply Programme and how it related to the Maavilaru Anicut Controversy of 2006 that triggered the final war. I also drew attention to how quick fix, rapid, mega style development and associated political imagery is being used by the GOSL (with explicit or inadvertent support from donors) in post-war Sri Lanka to undermine the political project for sharing of state power. In that speech I drew attention to the following projects being currently funded by the ADB: 1) ADB's Dry Zone Water Supply and Sanitation Project - its sub project in Vavuniya - which involved the construction of dams requiring 700 acres of land (including the acquisition of 96 acres of private land belonging to Tamils), 2) The Iranaimadukulam Project of bringing ground water to 300,000 residents in Jaffna peninsula which i claimed would have a 'Cauvery dispute effect' in relations between the people of Killinochchi and Jaffna thus dissecting the Tamil community in the North and weakening the focus on the need for a political solution. (Consider parallels to what Sara Roy says about dissection of the Palestinian community) I also drew attention to the Extra Ordinary Gazette Notification 1617/32-2009 which detailed plans to build Mankulam as an urban centre and eventually the capital of the Northern Province. The Urban Development Authority disclosed plans to settle 100,000 people by 2010 in Mankulam and estimating the population to triple to 300,000 people by 2030. I questioned 1) whether this was being planned with the objective of further effecting demographic changes in Tamil majority areas with the focus now including the Northern Province and 2) the intelligibility of the water supply project to Jaffna from Iranaimadukkulam (in the Killinochchi District) given the water scarcity in Mankulam (also located in Killi). I also raised issues relating to the Lime stone quarrying taking place in Jaffna which in fact is a major contributor to ground water salination, being carried with support from the Ministry of Defence. I proposed that rain water harvesting would be the best response to the ground water problem in Jaffna and requested at that meeting for University academics from the relevant departments (Community Medicine, Geography, Law, Economics et al) to come together to study this issue scientifically. So far nothing has come out. I hope to research further on this on my own later this year.

On why the Tamils (& the Minorities) Have No Space in the English Print Media in Sri Lanka

2011-01-30T02:05:00.000-08:00

We have known this all along. But if someone was looking for post-war evidence of it, they should read today's Sunday Times Editorial. If anyone thought a section of the English media in Sri Lanka leaves some space for 'liberal', 'progressive' politics, think again. Note that the tone of the editorial is critical of the Govt. But note how even in being critical of the Govt they cant help but spat the communal venom.

The editorial:

1) spats venom on the TNA ("MPs of the TNA, most living in Colombo preaching the gospel of hate and communalism from their local pulpits seem assailed by convenient amnesia");

2) says that the GOSL is right in being wary of devolving powers to the North and East ("If the Government in Colombo is wary of devolving political power to the North, and quite rightly so, then there is a bigger onus on its part not to choose to ignore the happenings where its writ is now back in force")

3) justifies the High Security Zones ("it is far too early to dismantle the large scale and widely spread military garrisons in these areas");

4) has a utilitarian advise to the Govt on dealing with paramilitary forces ("No doubt, these political elements did yeoman service in helping the Security Forces neutralize the LTTE during the latter years of the 'war', but their determination to enforce an iron grip on the populace and run their writ on the politics of the area has all the hallmarks of backfiring on the Government.")

5) and plays on the Sinhala polity's fear psychosis that India/TamilNadu has an expansionist agenda in the North and East. ("The Government had better beware. Into the vacuum of inaction comes increased Indian presence. The opening of a consulate was the first step. The Sri Lankan Government must treat the North as part and parcel of this country before someone else considers it as an extension of Tamil Nadu".)

Building internal capacity for autonomy

2011-01-04T03:49:00.000-08:00

Watched two past episodes of Hard Talk regarding challenges faced by sub-state actors in making the case for a separate state (in the case of Martin McGuiness - the case for a unified Ireland) in the current climate of financial crisis- the primary question being whether small states can cope up on their own when they are faced with a crisis of similar scale and sorts.

Interview with Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wk7w5

Interview with Marin McGuiness - Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wmjh9

Alex Salmond cant fail to impress. An economist, he was very much in control of the subject of Stepehen Sackur's questions and argues persuasively why being an independent country might have helped Scottish economy face the crisis better. Our minority leaders - and those within the TNA would do well by watching this interview - I don't know anyone within the Tamil political circles who has a good understanding of the economics of the North and East and the country in general, and articulate the need for more fiscal autonomy for the provinces. We need to develop better capacities to make the scientific case for autonomy.

The interesting part of the the McGuniess interview is the section where Stephen Sackur asks McGuniness whether he now feels trapped and cooped by the Birtish state into the devolution agreement with dissident Republicans getting more and more angry with Sinn Fein. The culture of politics is different here in the UK - McGuiness's point about political evolution might not make sense in our context - but there are lessons for Tamils as the Sri Lankan Government tries to co-opt our political formations into something very inadequate - PCs and the 13th Amendment.

The 'Sui Generis' Nature of Kosovo

2011-01-01T03:41:00.000-08:00

Read this on Prof William Schabas's blog:

"Dick Marty, the member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe who exposed the secret US detention centres and the rendition flights, confirms the charges of Carla Del Ponte that forces associated with the Kosovo Liberation Army took Serb prisoners into Albania where they were murdered for their organs, which were subsequently trafficked through organized crime networks".

The Political Leader of KLA is now the Prime Minister of Kosovo. Something that was and is repeated by western diplomats in Sri Lanka is how it was impossible to side with the LTTE because it was highly illiberal. Clearly the KLA seemed to be worse. So supporting a secessionist movement really comes down to nothing but pure and simple geo-political calculations. Hence the US promoting Kosovo's independence as a 'sui generis' case. All this talk about earned sovereignty doesnt really help make sense of why Kosovo and why not Tamils in Sri Lanka.

Staying on the Kosovo topic this recent opinion piece in the Guardian restates the realist school on the politics of state recognition:

Notwithstanding that states encompassing between 80% and 90% of the world's population (by my rough calculations) recognise the state of Palestine, while states encompassing only between 10% and 20% of the world's population recognise the Republic of Kosovo, the western media (and much of the non-western media as well) act as though Kosovo's independence were an accomplished fact while Palestine's independence is only an aspiration that can never be realised without Israeli-American consent; and much of international public opinion (including, apparently, the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah) has – at least until recently – permitted itself to be brainwashed into thinking and acting accordingly.
As in most aspects of international relations, it is not the nature of the act (or crime) that matters but, rather, who is doing it to whom. Palestine was conquered, and is still occupied 43 years later, by the military forces of Israel. What most of the world (including the UN and even five EU member states) still regards as the Serbian province of Kosovo was conquered and is still occupied, 11 years later, by the military forces of Nato; the American flag is flown there at least as widely as the Kosovo flag and the capital, Pristina, boasts a Bill Clinton Boulevard and a larger-than-life-size statue of the former American president.

Note: I am back to blogging after a 8 month absence. One of the new year resolutions is to blog more regularly.

General Elections 2010: If ACTC had not split could TNA have secured a 6th seat in Jaffna?

2010-04-09T20:43:00.000-07:00

It is widely speculated that UPFA (EPDP) might not have got their 3^rd seat in the Jaffna electoral district and TNA could have got their 6^th seat if the votes received by the Tamil Congress had gone for the TNA. Lets us scientifically test this claim:

---------------------------------------------------------

The present configuration for seat allocation in the Jaffna Electoral district has been worked out as follows:

Total number of relevant votes

(Votes of all parties receiving more than 5% of the votes) = 125,365

“Resulting number” (Number of votes needed to secure one seat) = 125, 365 / 8 = 15,670

(calculated for 8 seats; one seat bonus going for the TNA)

Hence in the first round of seat allocation

TNA – 65, 119 / 15, 670 = 4 seats and a remainder of 2439 votes + 1 bones seat

UPFA – 47,622/15, 670 = 3 seats and a remainder of 612 votes

UNP – 12,624/15,670 = 0 seats and a remainder of 12,624 votes

7 seats allocated one seat yet to be allocated. So in the second round of allocation the 8^th seat goes to UNP for having highest number of remainder votes.

--------------------------------------------------------------

If the ACTC (TNPF) had not split and the 6,362 votes it received had gone to the TNA the seat allocation would have been as follows:

Total number of relevant votes

(Votes of all parties receiving more than 5% of the votes) = 131, 727

“Resulting number” (Number of votes needed to secure one seat) = 131, 727 / 8 = 16,465

(calculated for 8 seats; one seat bonus going for the TNA)

Hence in the first round of seat allocation

TNA – 71,481 / 16, 465 = 4 seats and a remainder of 5,621 votes + 1 bonus seat

UPFA – 47,622/16, 465 = 2 seats and a remainder of 14,692 votes

UNP – 12,624/16,465 = 0 seats and a remainder of 12, 624 votes

Only 6 seats allocated in the first round. 7^th seat allocated to UPFA having highest number of remainder votes, which means they gain their 3^rd seat. 8^th seat allocated to UNP for having second highest number of remainder votes.

HENCE THE CONGRESS VOTES ADDED TO TNA (if the split had not happened) DOES NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE FINAL SEAT ALLOCATION. UPFA would have got their 3^rd seat irrespective.

The loud and clear message from the voter turnout and the voters in the North and East

2010-02-13T18:03:00.000-08:00

Note: This piece appeared on Groundviews on the 29th of January, two days after the election results and (to my surprise and discomfort) was republished by Mangala Samaraweera on his website on the 1st of Feb 2010.

I wrote on the 30^th of December in a post to Groundviews (and republished in the Daily Mirror) that the assertion that the Tamil people would be deciders in the Presidential election would be a myth. There was nothing brilliant or extraordinary about what I said at that time, but it was contrary to public perception that was prevalent all over the country and in international media circles. What I suggested was that for the Tamil people to be deciders two conditions have to be fulfilled. I wrote:

“For the Tamils to be the deciders in the election (like they could have been in the last) they have to vote as a whole, to one candidate and the Sinhala votes to both candidates should be almost equal.”

A lot of people thought it would be close in the South. I feared a good lead for Mahinda Rajapaksha in the rural south. I told my friends that a 600,000-800,000 lead in the South by Mahinda cannot be offset by SF by the margins that he receives in Minority areas. I never expected a 1.8 million lead for him in the South. Some of it might have been rigged. We just don’t know and we will never know. But one thing is clear the rural south did come out strongly for him.

My vote

I voted in the Nallur electorate in the Jaffna electoral district and I did vote for General Sarath Fonseka. My early impression was that both candidates did not deserve my vote but I soon altered my stance. For me taking a decision to spoil the vote meant not believing in the system. The system is indeed fundamentally flawed but then if we can’t change things democratically, the only alternative is for change to be attempted violently. Most in this country are tired of losing lives and I am definitely one of them. So the option of not believing in the system was not open to me. It was just inconsequential. I also thought that it is not right to approach this elections standing from an ivory tower of personal conscience and die hard political philosophy and principle. Politics, including the act of voting, is about taking tough decisions. I did not have the energy for another MR presidency. I was convinced that a vote for anyone else but SF would in effect indirectly contribute to a MR Presidency. The unknown devil at least I thought would provide an opportunity to try something differently. If the SF presidency even by a fraction or a chance might have increased the collective opportunity of life over death of the Tamil community I thought it was my duty to vote for him. And hence I voted for Sarath Fonseka, despite his flaws, despite the vaguness vis a vis his position on the problems of the minorities, despite his anti-minority pronouncements in the past, despite his role in the war. I voted for him because it was the only strong way of showing my protest to the incumbent and because I believed in the political forces supporting him. It was an uncomfortable decision to take but I had no other option.

The voter turnout in Jaffna

Many have expressed concern about the ‘poor turnout’ in Jaffna. Some die hard SF supporters were annoyed with the turnout. Some Pro-LTTE and Anti- LTTE Tamil Diaspora sites who opposed TNA’s decision to support SF have called the low voter turnout a boycott. Some know-it-all types in the Diaspora have said that the Jaffna people are not interested in a democracy. Nothing can be more insulting.

The following are some reasons for the ‘low voter turnout’, in my opinion:

40% of registered voters are not in Jaffna. The 600,000 registered voters includes those migrated. Many Tamils in Colombo who moved from Jaffna have their vote in Jaffna – they are not registered in Colombo.
Killinochchi low voting (Killinochchi is part of the Jaffna electoral district. Only 7% voting was recorded mainly because of the poor state of facilities provided for the IDPs to vote),
Bomb scare in TNA strongholds on the day of the elections (example Nallur, Manipay),
Internal displacement within Jaffna (From the Islands to the mainland. From Chavahacheri (Thenmarachchi) to Jaffna and other places). People possibly were not willing to travel 10-12 kilometers to vote.
80,000 people displaced by the High Security Zones (23,000 live in welfare centers and the rest with family and friends or have migrated).

The Chavahacheri, Udupiddy, Manipay, Vadukoddai, Thenmarachchi electorates in Jaffna recorded 30% voter turn out. This must be 60% of the actual residents. The Jaffna and Nallur electorates polled around 20%. The Jaffna peninsula average voter turnout should be in the high twenties and this must be at least 50% of the actual residents. If there had been no High Security Zones, internal displacement within Jaffna and proper voter registration this might have gone upto at least 60%. The 2010 turn out is the highest voter turn out ever in Jaffna in a Presidential election. The figures from the last election are:

2005 – 7.868 (1%) (Note: LTTE enforced a boycott)

1994 – 17,716 (2.97%) (Note: Jaffna was under LTTE control at this time)

1999 – 117,549 (19.18%) (Note: Killinochchi polled less than 4% – Was under LTTE control).

In 2010, 185,132 votes were polled with an average of 25%.

A comparison with the general election also shows us that this turn out is quite decent: In the 2004 General Elections Jaffna polled 300,000 votes (47%) the highest recorded in more than 20 years in election history. (I attended the only TNA rally in Jaffna on the 23^rd of January in Sangilyan Thoppu, Nallur where R. Sampanthan of the TNA said that last time the margin for MR was less than 200,000 and the vote that TNA had received in the 2004 General Elections was 620,000. I thought at that time that comparing the turn out at General Elections was not good analysis). In the 2001 election around 200,000 votes were polled (30%). In 2000 around 130,000 votes were polled averaging at just over 20%. It must be remembered that in both 2001 and 2004 General Elections the TNA had the backing of the LTTE.

The voter turnout in the rest of the North and East

Batticaloa has polled a remarkably consistent 64% as in the last three presidential elections. Vavuniya polled 43% this time and voted in the 40s in 2005 and 1999. Trincomalee polled 65% and had polled in the 60s in the past three elections as well. Voter turn out in Mannar was 35%. It has been consistently in the 30s. In 2005 the turn out was 30%. None of these districts were affected by LTTE’s enforced boycott in 2005. Mullaitivu has recorded less than 4% in the past having been under LTTE control and this time recorded a 14%.

What is the message from the voter turn out in the North?

The message is that there are very serious issues to be addressed prime among them being the resettlement of IDPs. This includes both the Vanni IDPs and the Old IDPs. Demilitarisation is also key to a higher voter turn out.

What is the message from the people of the North and East at this election?

The ‘liberated’ have clearly registered their protest against their ‘liberator’. The vote in Killinochchi and Mullaitivu amongst all difficulties and however small were clearly against the President. All over the North and East this has vibrated. The Jaffna vote clearly rejects Mahinda Rajapaksha’s Chechnyan style local leader Douglas Devananda. I don’t know how Dayan Jayatilleke is going to still call him the Jaffna people’s choice. EPDP won only Kayts in the 10 electorates in the Jaffna peninsula that even by a 600 vote margin. Even in Jaffna and Nallur which make up by and large the Jaffna Municpal Council (which he supposedly won) he lost receiving only 27% and 21% of the votes. It is loud and clear from Jaffna that he is not wanted; his style of politics is not desired. (But he might do well in the general elections under an MR presidency. Patronage politics will help him for another six years). The East has similarly spoken very clearly rejecting MR’s Chechnyan style local leader V. Muralidharan alias Karuna Amman. Pillayan should be silently happy with the vote. Two years of centrally controlled pseudo-provincial council rule has been rejected by the people. (Here again the TNA might struggle at the General elections under a MR Presidency).

The vote shows a clearly divided country: 65% of the minorities (Tamils, Muslims, Up Country Tamils) preferring one candidate and more than 60% of the majority community preferring another. I do not know what else we need to show that we are far from being a united country. But the President does not seem like he wants to reflect on this message. To journalists who met him soon after the elections he has repeated the same story: “the IDPs are happy in the camps”. We are likely to see more of the same.

The way forward

I am afraid that the result might be taken negatively by the minorities and the opposition parties, that even if they come together that they cannot make an impact. But the minority parties should take the positive message – the possibility that this election gave/has given of collectively envisaging an agenda. The opposition parties have to resolve and work together to break the common sense philosophy in Sri Lanka that being in the opposition is useless. If our democratic culture is to be rejuvenated we need opposition parties to believe that an opposition can do credible work. Concrete action based on a concrete agenda that mobilizes the people has to be worked out. The minority parties have to show their communities that it is possible to serve them sitting in the opposition. A strong coalition between the TNA-SLMC-DPF is immediately possible. That should be a starter for a broader coalition of progressive forces. This Government is sure to continue to wage a war on the opposition with new force. It has to be resisted and fought back democratically. For that we need opposition leaders who believe in themselves.

The Tamil Vote will be the Decider: A Myth

2010-01-05T17:41:00.000-08:00

This piece written for and posted on Groundviews on 30 December was reproduced by the DailyMirror on 31 December

Two Tamil Dailies Thinakkural and Uthayan (Jaffna) carried yesterday (28 December) a headline report of retired Supreme Court Justice C.V. Wigneswaran’s opinion on whom the Tamils should vote for at Presidential elections. (Justice C. V Wigneswaran is a highly respected member of the Tamil intelligentsia and while on the Supreme Court was known to be extremely independent and forthright in his views. He was named by TNA as their nominee for membership in the Constitutional Council)

Though the report is filed in a manner as if though the newspapers contacted Justice Wigneswaran to get his response regarding rumours that some sections of the diaspora had contacted him about contesting at the presidential elections, the two reports are verbatim similar which probably means that Justice Wigneswaran himself wrote and sent the interview to be published to both these newspapers, on his own volition or possibly responding to a request from the TNA leadership.

In the interview he has said that certain individuals’ self centric actions (probably referring to Shivajilingam, Srikantha) have led to confusion among the Tamils. The following are translated excerpts from the ‘interview’:

“There is no point in voting for a Tamil candidate. Even if all Tamils vote for him we will achieve nothing. It is one of the two mainstream candidates who will win the elections. It will be the same if we boycott the elections. This will only display the desperate state of our politics or that we haven’t come to realise our democratic rights. So far Tamils have either voted for a Tamil candidate or boycotted presidential elections. This was to display the distinctiveness of the Tamil people’s politics. But now after the armed struggle has fallen silent this trend has to change. We have to be strategic. We have to see what we can get out of these two mainstream candidates. I am happy that the TNA is doing this. The TNA engaging in discussions with both candidates is productive. Tamil people should listen to the TNA leadership on this issue. The 22 parliamentarians speaking in different voices is no good. The TNA leadership should let the Tamil
people know of their decision soon. One thing is for sure if we vote for a Tamil candidate or boycott the election it would either mean alienating our democratic rights or supporting someone else [probably meaning voting for Shivajilingam being voting for MR]”.

He also refers in the interview to how the Upcountry Tamil leadership and the Muslims have used the ballot effectively in the past. Tamils have no option now but to take up this weapon he says. He also says that if the Tamils stand united we can decide which way the majority goes in the parliament at the next general election. He concludes: “Our differences will aid them. Our unity will aid us”

The Jaffna Uthayan which has for now long supported a vote for SF has written an editorial overjoyed with Wigneswaran’s public stance on the issue and have insisted other community leaders also come out publicly with a similar stance.

The All Ceylon Tamil Congress met in Jaffna yesterday to decide on whom to support and on Kajendrakumar Ponnambalam’s insistence they have voted on a resolution to boycott the elections. Former MP Vinyagamoorthy who is the President of the ACTC is not happy with the decision (he wants to use the vote to de-seat MR) but has gone with the resolution not wanting to challenge Ponnambalam. 4 MPs attached to the TNA are supposedly favouring a boycott – Kajendrakumar, Pathmini Sithamaparanathan, Solaman Cyril, and Kajendran, all being Jaffna MPs. They all are in Jaffna these days. They met with the Jaffna Bishop yesterday.

Earlier Shivajilingam also claimed support from seven TNA MPs for a Tamil candidate. One is not sure how many of these TNA MPs will support Shivajilingam as the Tamil candidate though. MP Shivashkthi Ananthan has come out accusing Shivajilingam of receiving money from Mahinda Rajapaksha to contest the elections.

I suspect that the TNA leadership (R. Sampanthan, Mavai Senathirajah, Suresh Premachandran and Selvam Adaikalanathan) might come out and ask the Tamil people to vote for “regime change” without naming Sarath Fonseka. In short the call will be for Tamils to cast a silent vote in favour of SF. One will have to wait and see how many Tamils feel like voting. I suspect that the voting numbers in the North will be small – small that they will not be able to influence the national vote significantly. The way Eastern Tamils vote is also very unclear. Pillayan is unlikely to come out strongly for MR or to inspire people to vote for SF. Karuna’s influence (unless he stuffs ballot boxes) is also not clear. For the Tamils to be the deciders in the election (like they could have been in the last) they have to vote as a whole to one candidate and the Sinhala votes to both candidates should be almost equal. I doubt whether the challenger to the incumbent can muster that many Sinhala votes to equal the incumbent’s or that the Tamils will vote significantly to one candidate despite their being a disguised call from the TNA to vote for Sarath Fonseka.

And finally what can a vote for SF achieve at all for the Tamil people? Tamil people’s ‘active engagement in national politics’- what will it lead to? Will SF devolve powers, dismantle the High Security Zones, repeal the PTA, revoke Emergency, resettle IDPs in places of their choice? Has he promised any of these? Or has MR promised any of these concretely? (Dayan Jayatilleka might say all of these are stupid/unintelligent demands. For him there is only one thing that will be intelligent for the Tamil people to do: Vote for MR.). Both candidates know well that making concrete promises on any of these will mean betraying the Sinhala nation. The TNA knows very well that none of them would even promise any of these or might just pay lip service to some of them. Hence my prediction that they will call for a silent vote.

Justice Wigneswaran is deeply anxious and nervous in his call for unity. It is going to be very difficult to bring TNA under one umbrella again. And that’s why, like the state of Muslims politics today, Tamils can never be King or Queen makers. The days of Ashroff and Thondaman are gone. And unless there is a change in the way South does politics even if you are a King maker, the Tamils will be disappointed once again as they were when their King maker Chelvanayagam was disappointed when the B-C and D-C pact were dishonoured.

Judging Public Intellectuals: Dayan and Sivaram

2009-12-19T08:55:00.000-08:00

Beyond Borders, as part of a discussion series aimed at connecting youth activists with key opinion and decision makers, organised a discussion with Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka on 8 October 2009. Around 25 young people interested in politics participated in the discussion. Negligible Minoritist, SP and i who were present shared our reflections on Groundviews. My piece is reproduced here with two comments that were specific to my piece.

It is impossible not to be swayed by Dayan’s display of intellect. The way he answered questions was exemplary, being able to quote from very ‘high theory’ and then engage with us the very next minute in some very good ‘common sense’ but vivid and sharp analysis, replete with anecdotes, a quality I must say, is in the dying in our intellectual tradition.

I asked Dayan a very lengthy question with primarily two limbs 1) the role of public intellectuals and the choices that they make regarding direct, mainstream political engagement 2) his prescription for Tamil politics (I asked him rhetorically: what would he say if he after twenty years is invited to lecture at the Jaffna University). I shall reflect only on the first one here and save the second for sometime later.

Dayan

Dayan explained his alignment with Rajapaksa and earlier with Premadasa as justified because he thought the greater evil of the LTTE and JVP had to be wiped out. He argued that the Sri Lankan state offered always a ‘minimum democratic space’ which these two actors never were able to provide and for the oppressive politics that LTTE and JVP practiced they just had to go was his argument. He compared his engagement with the GoSL as something close to Kethesh Loganathan’s decision to join the Peace Secretariat. He was careful to point out, as he has done in the past (see for example his interview with the Groundviews editor given shortly before his departure from Geneva) that he did not defend what he thought he could not associate with – some of the atrocities committed by this regime, like for example the Trinco five killings. He maintains that there was no willful targeting of civilians during the final war (which I am not sure) and that to have defended Sri Lanka in the UN Human Rights Council was right because the resolutions brought by the West was not about things like the Trinco five but about war crimes which Dayan wants to believe did not happen. (This question of how to be ‘anti-imperialist’ and at the same time ‘anti-statist’ in a third world country is a pretty fascinating debate. Can you be unhappy about the West for its double standards and still agree with the content of their accusations of what they say are wrong with Sri Lanka? I think you can.) He told us that this was not him disassociating with the Rajapaksha regime and in an abstract sense said part of the decision to engage and take sides is also the readiness to take the moral guilt that comes with association. I am not sure however what moral guilt that Dayan is prepared to share with this regime. At this point I asked him about the process of disassociating as justifying any engagement including the Late Dharmeratnam Sivaram’s (Taraki’s) engagement with the LTTE. Could not then Sivaram argue that he never sided with the LTTE on all what was bad about them but only aligned with them because he believed in the importance of the struggle and chose to ignore the mistakes of the LTTE?

Sivaram is quoted by Mark Whittaker his biographer as having said:

“Let history judge.. to all these people I ask do you sell off your mother because your brother has cut off your arm? Because your brother is a scoundrel? So are we just going to say that the LTTE is a static thing, that it is fascist and that it killed a lot of people. Yes it killed a lot of people… I don’t care a f*** being called an LTTE apologist.. Because I am fighting another war – my war. .. This problem has nothing to do with the LTTE. It started long before there was a LTTE in the 1950s, when Prabaharan was a f***ing kid…If the LTTE was not there we would all be f**ed. At the end of the day that is why the Tamils do not want the LTTE gone. Because we know what the Sri Lankan state has done… So you have to make practical choices – that this is your own man, was a brother once, so you try to reform him. And it is not just him who is the problem”

(See Mark P Whitaker, ‘Learning Politics from Sivaram: The life and death of a Revolutionary Tamil Journalist in Sri Lanka’, Pluto Press, London (2007), pp. 216-7)

Dayan at the discussion referred to an article in which he was quoted, written by Philip Gourevitch for the New Yorker,

“Rather than blaming the dead journalist for failing to denounce the crimes of his side, Jayatilleka said, the Sinhalese should ask themselves what offenses they have chosen to ignore. He posed as “the final question” of his friend’s life a conundrum that belongs equally to every side in every ethnic-nationalist conflict on earth: “Had we been Tamil, are we sure we would not have been Sivarams?”

(available here)

I am very happy that Dayan acknowledges this difficulty – that choices of engagement by public intellectuals are not divorced from considerations like ethnicity. But I think Dayan argued (if I understood him properly) despite all of this that Sivaram’s choice of supporting the LTTE was a wrong one.

I understand that the choice of side for political engagement that one makes can never be satisfactory. While I don’t blame people for non engagement for the reason that they do not want to be associated with any sort of guilt, I respect people who make the decision to do so and get their hands dirty. This paragraph from Edward Said which is from a speech that he delivered n the subject of public intellectuals says so much about the difficulty of taking sides:

“..Just as history is never over or complete it is also the case that some dialectical oppositions are not reconcilable, not transcendable, not really capable of being folded into a sort of higher, undoubtedly nobler synthesis. The example closest to home for me is the struggle over Palestine which, I have always believed, cannot really be simply resolved by a technical and ultimately janitorial re-arrangement of geography allowing dispossessed Palestinians the right (such as it is) to live in about 20% of their land that would be encircled and totally dependent on Israel. Nor on the other hand would it be morally acceptable to demand that Israelis should retreat from the whole of former Palestine, now Israel, becoming refugees like Palestinians all over again. No matter how I have searched for a resolution to this impasse, I cannot find one for this is not a facile case of right versus right. It cannot be right ever to deprive an entire people of their land and heritage. But the Jews too are what I have called a community of suffering and brought with them a heritage of great tragedy. But unlike Zeev Sternhell, I cannot agree that the conquest of Palestine was a necessary conquest. The notion offends the sense of real Palestinian pain, in its own way also tragic.”

Edward Said, “Public role of Writers and Intellectuals’, Alfred Deakin Memorial Lecture, 19 May 2001 available at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/deakin/stories/s299210.htm

Given this complexity that Said so vividly explains how does one then pick and choose a side? I think we need people who will not pick sides and will make contributions that will help us see politics beyond what the different sides show us. I also think it is important that there are people who choose one or the other side and work towards transforming it. But the emphasis is engagement and the picking of one side should help transform the other side. Did Dayan and Sivaram do this is the question? How much of criticism did Sivaram make of the LTTE at least internally? Is Dayan with the demise of the LTTE now prepared to take on this Government for all what it is wrong about it, at least in the post war scenario?

Dayan Jayatilleka said: It wouldn’t be fair if I didn’t say something about Aacharya’s post which is the most philosophically probing. For those who are interested, I have dealt with some of these issues in my treatment of the Sartre-Camus debate on commitment and violence, and my attempt at a resolution or synthesis, in my “Fidel” book.

Suren Raghvan said:

It is a positive sign that even under some NGO arrangement the space is created for direct (honest?) discussions on how we as different nations and schools could move forward. Let this be a beginning of a long and fruitful endeavor. The kinds of stimulation that average university lecture(r)s have failed to do in SL to investigate the current political anthropology.

Having read the questions and the comments, I believe Acharya is spot on in his politically transcendent analysis.

Having associated and worked with Siva (Anna) in his last days, on an important project to connect him to the noted Sinhala intellectuals for a wider dialogue , I could vouch that he was involved in the internal as well as the external dialectical on the LTTE and the State of SL. I am sure Prof. Sumanasiri Liyange, Prof Desmond Mallikarachchi, Prof Jagatha Weerasinghe and many other academics and some members of the (thinking)JVP and (former ) X Kandayama, will testify that Siva was a defender of the State while willingly challenging its post-independent surrender to the world order , largely led by the Sinhala elites. Those who were associated with this project will remember his analytical defense of Lanka even against the Indian Imperialism into the very late hours of every night that we met with. In this sense he was more Bhoomiputhra than the ones claiming to be. And that is the reason that the majority of the Sinhala youth gathered in these discussions, who were originally hostile even to have him as a speaker, agreed to continue the discussion with Siva, till he was assassinated.

I agree with Achraya, one has to take sides as much one can avoid sides. But that decision should be governed by the judgment one makes on the outcome S/he intend to bring however marginal it may appear.

Since we have talked of him, I wonder whether Dr Jayathilake with his international and local connections help to narrow the search of the killers at least for the friendship (he had) with Sivaram? Because Siva Anna in the manner he lived and died was a true internationalist beyond lecturers or writing thesis on the same.

The need for an independent Attorney General's Department

2009-08-28T00:18:00.001-07:00

Today's New York Times reports:

"Despite the C.I.A. pressure and the stated desire of the White House not to dwell on the past, Mr. Holder (the US Attorney general) went ahead with an investigation that will determine whether agents broke the law in their brutal interrogations (during the Bush era)"

Here is Obama saying no to looking back into the past and the CIA saying please dont. But still the US AG is pushing for investigations. This would be unthinkable in Sri Lanka. I have seen the AG's department fellows vigorously defend the political programme of the GOSL in front of both judicial forums (Journalist Tissanayagam's Trial in the Colombo High Court , Pakiasothy Saravanamuttu's IDPs case in the Supreme Court) and in international political forums (like the UN Human Rights Council). Same goes with the AG absolutely surrendering his independence in advising the government on bills that might be constitutionally incompatible. The AG basically nods for everything.

The Ag's department should be acting in the public's interest and they are paid by the public. But they act as the Government's lawyers. They have absolutely no integrity. The AG has been appointed by the President whereas he should have been by the Constitutional Council which remains unconstituted by the President for more than four years now.

Analysis of how the Jaffna people voted in the Municipal Council Elections

2009-08-10T18:36:00.000-07:00

(I wrote this first as an email to colleagues and friends. Groundviews published it yesterday night here. I reproduce it here on my blog)

It appears to me that the TNA and TULF might have got more of the Tamil votes than EPDP in Jaffna.

Out of 13 seats for the UPFA, 4 have gone to Muslims candidates. 9 are from EPDP.

A Northern Displaced Muslim friend of mine says that 3000 votes were cast by the displaced Muslims living in Puttalam (If anyone has a better/accurate number i am willing to correct myself on this). Moulavi Sufiyan of Independent Group 1 himself polled around 1100 votes. The rest went to UPFA.

Total number of votes polled by UPFA is 10,000. If you subtract the Muslim votes from the 10,000 only about 8000 votes have gone to the EPDP from Jaffna Tamil residents. (i substract only 2000 since about 1000 have gone to the Moulavi) TNA has then got almost the equivalent number of votes that EPDP polled- 8000 - from Jaffna Tamil residents. Add to this TULF's votes that's 9000 votes. More than actually what EPDP received. This also reduces the number of Jaffna MC Tamil residents who have actually voted from 20,000 to around 17,000.

Remedius, TNA's Mayoral Candidate has topped the preferential votes (4,233 votes). That is 1000 votes more than the second on the preferential list (an EPDP candidate). UPFA's Mayoral Candidate Theyvendran didnt get enough preferential votes to be elected.

It is also no secret that most of the 3000 resettled from the Jaffna IDP camps on the 5th of August were from Kurunagar. A key constituency for the EPDP. This link is from EPDP's Official site: http://epdpnews.com/news.php?id=4130&ln=tamil

No wonder Douglas Devananda has told Daily Mirror that he is disappointed with the results. He has told the local newspapers that it was a loss in Jaffna and a heavy one in Vavuniya.

The Chechen model of Conflict Resolution for Sri Lanka

2009-07-25T10:36:00.000-07:00

The soon to come back home UN Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to Geneva, Dayan Jayatilleke has repeatedly wrote about the Chechen (Chechnya) model (yes he loves Russia) for conflict resolution in Sri Lanka:

In a recent interview with David Blacker Dayan noted:

I have long advocated the Chechen solution — an all-out, combined arms war to destroy the terrorist militia, followed by the implementation of some form of autonomy and self-governance for the area and stabilization through the rule of an elected local ally. Our military victory has to be politically conserved and socially stabilised. That’s what my advocacy of the 13th amendment is about.

Earlier this year he wrote:

Do we attempt to imitate the Israelis and practice a policy of occupation, settlements and discrimination, triggering endless cycles of conflict, or do we follow the no less tough-minded but much smarter Russian leaders, who having had to smash the Chechen terrorist insurgency with untrammeled force, have since ensured a high degree of stability by devolving power to their Chechen ally the tough young Ramzan Kadyrov, and transferring enough economic autonomy to guarantee a surge of prosperity in Grozhny?

I excerpt this paragraph from the Times topic introduction to the Chechen issue from the New York Times:

Vladimir Putin anointed Ramzan A. Kadyrov as the region's president; his father had held the post before being killed by rebels in 2004. Mr. Kadyrov crushed the rebel movement. He has strong support in Moscow, where he is praised for quelling the insurgency, rebuilding areas devastated by the war and rejuvenating the local economy. But he has also been the focus of widespread accusations of human rights violations.

Mr. Kadyrov has sought increased autonomy for Chechnya. That goal may be helped by the official end to Russian counterinsurgency operations, announced in April 2009, a move of at least symbolic value to Mr. Kadyrov.

The announcement also underscored his success in establishing a stability that has, among other things, allowed rebuilding to begin in the obliterated capital city of Grozny. But critics charge that the peace has been achieved through campaigns of unsparing brutality that have included widespread human rights violations.

The announcement did not mention troop withdrawals, though Russian officials said they would now have more legal leeway to scale down the number of federal military and security forces. While the violence in Chechnya has declined, however, the insurgents have not been completely routed, and it seems likely that many troops and security forces will remain there for some time.

I will leave it to my readers to draw the parallels to how GOSL is positioning its local allies in the East and now in the North. It does look like the Chechen solution is taking shape except that President Rajapaksha is trying to do it without giving away anything, not even as basic as the 13th amendment. So Dayan who presses for it is sent home. Now at least Dayan should come out and say that he was wrong to have expected from this regime anything like even the 13th amendment and hence that his support for the regime right from the beginning was wrong. He won't.

'Aid'ing and Abetting

2009-05-02T22:15:00.000-07:00

There are whole load of spontaneous citizen initiatives that have propped up to respond to the IDP needs in the camps in Vavuniya.

Now i must at the outset say that such initiatives are good and probably needed but all i am saying is lets not forget the larger issues that need to be addressed and the politics of aid. It is acknowledged that those involved might be doing it without being aware of the politics and/or not caring is there is politics behind it. It is also not the intention of this blogger to ask for a halt in the aid effort. I would be a demon if i do suggest that. My intention is purely to raise some questions so that our response can be better.

One of our prominent bloggers who is involved heavily in the aid effort thinks that killing 50,000 people to get rid of the LTTE is ok. (See earlier post on this blog). Now thats not an indictment on all those involved. But i cant help thinking that this is a further indication that humanitarian concerns cant be divorced from politics and if the politics of these people are not good then there is no point.

Why do i say there is no point? The value of citizen initiatives is that they are symbolic. They provide for an opportunity for people to people connection and confidence building. Their usefulness as actually providing relief to people is secondary. Why, because the big humanitarian agencies are doing their best and the citizen initaitives will never be able to match their capacity. Of course these initiatives can help bridge the gaps and loop holes. But that also i am doubtful because these initaitives do not have the access to information etc to do this. Now, this people to people connection is that happening? Are people meeting these IDPs and are they able to talk to them? I dont think so.

The worse part of all of this is for example the JHU types who are going on padhayatras to collect rations. Add the state media initaitives to this. Their intention is to support the claim made by the government that 'these are our people. we know our responsibility to protect. these are our bretheren'. Now thats bull shit. I wont be able to believe anyone who says that the govt cares for the tamil people. Of course there might be individual army personnel who show care for the IDPs (the inherent huamneness) but thats no reflection of what the govt's attitude is. They are bombing the NFZs, hospitals etc. So these JHU and state media types are out there collecting rations as part of a govt image building exercise. I say dont support them.

Now to the question of what can we do at this moment - my appeal to all those genuine aid collectors and people concenred for IDPs. The problem in the camps seems administration and distribution of relief. Suresh Premachandran MP (TNA) in an interview with BBC Tamil Service says that the GA Trinco (an army fellow) and the military establishment are the ones involved in running the camps. The Tamil GAs of Killi and Mullaitivu are sidelined. 20 people have died since coming to the camps. Two children died of stampede during a dry ration distribution. Now these are the concerns that people worried about IDPs should raise. Sunday Times reports that Walter Kalin the UN Special Representative for Human Rights for the IDPs has given the Govt certian conditions that they need to adhere to for UN support for the camps run by the Govt. Back in October 2008 the UNHCR issued an aide memoire stipulating the basic minimums that need to be satisfied for their engagement in running the camps. Most important of these is freedom of movement. These camps are internment camps. We should urge that these will be lifted. Issues relating to space (because the govt doesnt want to open more camps), visit by relatives etc all of these are issues that we need to raise.

One further question that everyone has been meek on is as to whether the money that the Govt is getting specifically for spending for IDPs being properly used for the purpose? There is very little information available regarding this.

Unfortunately for this sort of activism there is very little interest. And the govt is happy that we collect the anchor packets. They will be worried if we talk about the other humanitarian issues.

By not raising these issues arent we guilty of abetting with the Govt? One of my friends involved in the effort said if we riase these issues then we wont be given an opportunity to help out in the aid effort. This prominent blogger has been talking about 'cooperating'with the govt and the military establishment to get this done. But i ask the question then whats the point? I dont think we can keep these issues for later.

A small note on our experiences during the Tsunami. Even during the Tsunami we saw this out pouring of humaneness: Helping out irrespective of who has been affected. A lot of commentators wrote that this humaneness should be used as the base that opens the window of opportunity for conflict resolution. That was not to be. PTOMs was crash landed by our CJ and the JVP. The Ache example didn't work here. The social capital that one was able to generate during the Tsunami could not be transformed into productive political capital.The people of this country elected MR. And we keep voting for him at all elections. We have allowed the war on terror to be a war on the minorities. So what is the use of this bubble humaneness?

Oh then once somebody told me dont be such a cynic. When we help atleast we help one child get a cup of milk or some buscuits. Isnt that a good enough reason. Of course it is (though you might be duplicating). Lets not get satisfied with that. How do we make sure that that child will never ever have to be in a position where he or she will have to rely on our aid?

I do not want to be mistaken for having a generalised suspicion on the genuiness of people involved in the aid effort. I am only asking for introspection and care for detail.

PS: I stand corrected by a friend who is very involved in monitoring IDP related humanitarian issues and HR stuff in general that the relevance of the citizens initiative in the immediate phase of the relief (especially after the arrival of more thank a lakh people on April 20) has been crucial and life saving (in the light of aid agencies and the govt not being able to cope with the immediacy of the situation. They were under prepared). I reiterate however my call on the need for wider activism.

Killing for the promise of democracy in the aftermath

2009-05-02T19:58:00.000-07:00

Sanjana has posted here on Groundviews a poll asking whether it will be acceptable to kill the civilians if along with it you can get rid of the LTTE. He was triggered by a comment made by one of Sri Lanka's most prominent bloggers who in an email conversation with him had said:

“I would accept 50,000 dead to finish the LTTE. That’s what it comes down to. And I would, to end that war.”

I had noted this blogger slipping to nationalist ego (now worse this is extremism and i wont mind calling it racism as well). I said on my twitter deck on the 1st of May: "one of our prominent bloggers formerly very critical of the govt has now got caught up with the nationalist ego. very sad".

The question that Sanjana poses is as follows:

Would killing 50,000 civilians to finish off the LTTE bring peace?

and the voting options:

Yes, if this is what it takes.
No, this is just wrong.
Maybe, if there are guarantees of a post-war political process on power-sharing.

One commenter on Groundviews was disgusted:

"Much as admire what you have accomplished with Groundviews this poll does it a disservice; I am very disappointed. It is just stoking extremism based on heresay, surely not what you intend to foster with Groundviews. How can the numbers or the sources you quote be verified or the implication that it is the aim of the government?"

Sanjana had a good response:

"This post intends to interrogate extremism. The numbers in the quote are really peripheral to the argument, which exists today, that to finish off the LTTE, collateral damage is not just unavoidable, it is even a prerequisite. What do you feel about that?

"If you cared to read them, and I suspect you’ve not, *both* stories referenced above are unverified, yet the immediate reaction of both you and another before you is to believe the one against the LTTE and question, nay, vehemently deny the one against the Government. I find that an telling reaction."

I responded:

"Most of the commenting on this post so far wishes to be in denial of the extremism/racism that is there in this country - largely probably because they are uncomfortable with this rise in racist/extremist instincts in our society and/or because they think this cant be . I know who Sanjana is talking about and i was one of the first to note this prominent blogger slip away to nationalist ego. This prominent blogger was a very good critic of the Government and politics in general and it is very shocking for me to find people like this blogger slip away. The change in the mindset of this blogger is indicative of two things that have been part of the moderate southern polity’s psyche (sorry for this random group formulation) especially in the Mahinda Rajapaksha era: 1) That what the govt is doing is acceptable or tolerable given that the other side (the LTTE) is a larger evil 2) (1) is acceptable because of the very huge democratic potential that will be opened after the defeat of the greater evil the LTTE. These are the reasons, i suspect, for our prominent blogger to be happy to see 50,000 people die if it will wipe off the LTTE as well.

I contest both and i comment on some of these questions in a comment/s i wrote to Rohni Hensman’s post on the same here at kafila.org:

http://kafila.org/2009/04/07/who-is-responsible-for-the-slaughter-of-civilians-in-the-vanni-by-rohini-hensman/

Niran Anketell, Ahilan Kadirgamar, Nirmala Rajasingham and Ragavan’s comments to Rohini’s post are valuable reading.

I am with Sanjana on posing this question. Ya it shocks but its the kind of question that our society has stooped low to even consider".

To be able to call for a Ceasefire

2009-04-14T06:06:00.000-07:00

I posted this on kafila. org in reponse to an article by Rohini Hensman.

Rohini Hensaman: “One of the demands, for example, has been for a ceasefire and peace talks with the LTTE. But Rajan Hoole and K.Sritharan of the award-winning University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) report that Sri Lankan Tamils are wary of any peace talks that will give oxygen to the LTTE.”

Just to clarify should there then be no ceasefire? Even if one is to agree with Hensman that the destruction of the LTTE is in the interest of peace in Sri Lanka - at what cost? Is it that we can sacrifice a few thousand lives because it is in the long term interest of achieving peace? More on this later but to remain on the question of a ceasefire let’s look at Hensman’s alternative:

“Stop shelling safe areas and civilian targets within LTTE-controlled territory; this only results in propaganda gains for the LTTE.”

For any even layman observer of the history of the war in Sri Lanka or for that matter any civil war it is an obvious fact that you cannot do this. Distinguishing civilian targets from rebel targets is impossible especially now in the No fire Zone which is heavily congested. So how do we save the people? If the LTTE will never release the people what should be the option? Still go ahead and finish off the LTTE (and in the process a few thousand people) because its good for peace?

Is it possible at all to argue for a ceasefire without being then associated with the LTTE? The fear of such association should it prevent us from calling for a ceasefire? I am not sure of how one handles the LTTE. It is not easy. But their destruction at any cost is not an option for me.

The other point that Tamil alternative political commentators have to consider is, if we agree that both the warring parties are equally brutal in the execution of their military agenda and that both parties’ political agendas are absolutist how can one party winning over the other in a war desirable? She’s definitely worried about the war crimes that the Govt is committing but minus that is the war acceptable then?

Added 15 April 2009

Nirmala Rajasingham Responded:

“Is it possible at all to argue for a ceasefire without being then associated with the LTTE? The fear of such association should it prevent us from calling for a ceasefire? I am not sure of how one handles the LTTE. It is not easy. But their destruction at any cost is not an option for me.” Aacharya

Could Aacharya explain why the destruction of the LTTE is not an option for him? Is it because in the course of the government prosecuting a continued war against the LTTE to destroy it, it would end up killing many civilians? Or is it for other reasons? Why is the continued existence of the LTTE desirable?

I think the key is in Acharya’s own question:
“If the LTTE will never release the people what should be the option?”

That is the problem. Let us look at a couple of scenarios:

1. If a temporary ceasefire for humanitarian reasons is announced the LTTE will not let the civilians go. That is what is happening now. The 100,000 people are their only chance of survival. The civilians are the forward defence lines , unarmed and totally exposed. We note that more people escape during hostilities than during the pauses, because when there is active fighting going on the LTTE finds it difficult to prevent the people from fleeing. This is the macabre irony of the situation.

2. If there is a ceasefire and the LTTE is asked to come for talks they will still not let the civilians go out, as they need to hold territory and people under their control, to be able to go for talks to legitimate their claims. This bank of people is necessary for the LTTE as labour, as reproductive resources to provide man/woman power. They need to rebuild their fortifications and earth bunds; rebuild their army, and get fresh recruits. If they let go of these 100,000 civilians where will they go? Even during the Norwegian peace process when they controlled a large area of land and had a very advantageous ceasefire agreement civilians in the Vanni were in an open prison, having to get passes to go out for even funerals, urgent medical treatment; family members were held as guarantors till they returned. If there is a new ceasefire a desperate LTTE will be even worse than it was before the war.

The government is opposed to the ceasefire as it believes that its military gains could be undone if the LTTE is given a respite. I am opposed to it for different reasons – as any ceasefire in which the LTTE is allowed to dictate terms, it would not be in the interests of the trapped civilians as it would want to hold them.

These 100,000 people will never be released by the LTTE, ceasefire or no ceasefire. For the LTTE the civilians do not count for anything except as a resource. A blanket ceasefire solution is only helpful if we want to rescue the LTTE from its current defeat. If we want to save the civilians we have to think of something else.

The government wants to press on with the war and destroy the LTTE militarily. but that will in the current circumstances result in massive civilian killings. The government cannot pursue this option. Any military objective of the government should be subordinate to that of civilian safety.

Because of what has happened the LTTE has lost all credibility and legitimacy. Its sole strength lay in it being a mighty fighting force and now it has lost even that. All those who desire peace but with democracy, must emphatically state that there is no room for an organisation like the LTTE. All those who want to secure the future of these trapped civilians and the Tamil people should publicly denounce the LTTE, regardless of their views about the State. A powerful message should be sent to the SL government and the international community by Tamils that they are willing to ditch the LTTE but want the civilians to be saved. We have to make it clear that we understand that the military survival of the LTTE is irreconcilable with the objective of saving the civilians but that no military action should be taken to jeopardize civilian safety. There were reports in the press that the international community was to negotiate a deal in which the LTTE leadership could be offered a way out of its presumed political responsibilities to lead the Tamil people. If the LTTE meets the conditions then that could be one solution for the moment to save the civilians. There could be offers of amnesty for the cadres. This could save civilian lives more than any other option.

I am opposed to any talks with the LTTE before it is willing to renounce the armed struggle,, without giving up the demand of secession and while holding onto the notion of sole representation. All of this is a must in the interests of the Vanni civilians. These are conditions essential to ensure the security of the Tamil people, much abused by the LTTE apart from the broader interests of democracy. What is unfortunate is that I do not believe that the LTTE is capable of acceding to these demands. Even if it agrees to these demands it then has to let go of the civilians as a good faith measure first.

As for the correctness of the war, many of us from the Tamil dissenting community opposed the war when it first began and have consistently done so, including Hensman, if I remember correctly. This is a war of LTTE’s own choosing. It walked out of the Norwegian backed peace process barely a year after it began in a pique for not having been invited to the international donor conference. It refused to discuss substantive issues. It had a most advantageous ceasefire agreement through which it wreaked its revenge on Tamil dissent and ran its writ across the whole country through murder and assassination. In 2005 itself it began its attacks on the SL Army which was then confined to the barracks. These unprovoked attacks intent on teasing the SL Army to a war was capitalised on by Mahinda when he was elected and he mobilised the Sinhala Buddhist constituency behind him and went to war with the LTTE but then used that as an excuse to wage war on the Tamil people as well. The war that was courted by the LTTE has become its nemesis. This is a military contest between two extreme nationalist armies, and the vagaries of military success of either party is immaterial to us except in terms of their impact on the peoples of Sri Lanka.

The bottom line here is that one has to be clear about where the future of the Tamil people lies – in cohabitation with other communities within a united Sri Lanka or in a tryst with death in the company of the LTTE. We have to develop a clear perspective on the fact that the LTTE’s continued presence and survival is inimical to civilian safety in the short term and the future of the Tamils in the long term. If we are for the former option then we can begin anew , to build a democratic struggle to challenge the Sri Lankan majoritarian state and its Sinhala Buddhist nationalist backers. We need to join forces with the other minority communities and with progressives in the South in a common effort to challenge the Sri Lankan State for peace democratisation and demilitarisation. We can begin to do this without having to watch over our shoulders that we will get shot at from behind by the LTTE. Tamil progressives and the Tamil people have to opt out of the exclusivist Tamil mindset that the LTTE has trapped us in.

And I responded:

Nirmala, my stances have been that 1) I say ceasefire because it will stop people being killed. 2) I do not comment on the desirability of annihilating the LTTE in any of my comments but what i did ask why it would be better to have one devil annihilate the other.

Nirmala my question is then are we prepared to make an ‘instrumentalist’ use of the State - A majoritarian state that is at the root of all these problems- to finish off the LTTE because the latter is bad.

And then after the LTTE is done what is the the way forward?: Build a grand coalition with other minorities and the South? Yes this is important. But what would be the incentive for the other minority communities to join hands with the SL Tamil community? Cooperating with the Majoritarian state is how the leadership of the Muslim Community and the Up Country Tamils seem to think is the best operandi for them to achieve their goals. And who in the SL Tamil community is going to stand up to build this coalition? What does the experience of the formation of TULF where Thondaman and Ashraff were on board tell us about the scope for a grand coalition? Given that we see no indications that the majoritarian state is not going to let go its coercive tactics wont such an initiative be crushed in its budding stage? Nirmala makes it sound so simple. And i am confident that she knows that it is not simple.

The discrediting of the armed struggle is painful. The fact that it was not conceived properly; that it was monopolised and delinked from the people; it lacked politics in it - should not discredit it as a response. It was the only response and the only plausible response that the Tamil people have and had. If not for armed struggle what are the other options? Go back to Parliamentary coalition politics? Or for a grass root movement? How is such a movement going to succeed within a heavily militarised society? Haven’t movements like this been crushed in the past by both violent actors. None of these suggestions are novel. (I am aware of Ahilan and Raghavan’s similar view points on this and the post on Lines to this effect. I am hoping to write regarding this on my blog in the near future)

Finally then, while Nirmala is good at pointing out how the LTTE will not release people under any circumstance, she does not offer then what the option that will save the people would be.

So my question remains for the sake of finishing off the LTTE are we then not to call for a ceasefire?

As for my stance on the long term question i think the Tamil community is doomed. (i am very much typing this from within inside the country with family still in Jaffna). The South will not offer anything, they will deal with the Tamils’ political demands minimalistically. Will crush all dissenters and assimilation will continue.

The LTTE has no doubt contributed to where the Tamils stand right now but the only option (if there is an option at all) is to see how the armed struggle can be brought back to its basics. This can only happen either 1) by starting all over again or 2) the LTTE changing course. Of course i am tired of deaths and hence even i am not happy with my suggestion and that’s why i say that there is nothing much to hope for. You can call me a defeatist.

Niran Anketell also commented:

Nirmala Rajasingham’s argument that a ceasefire at this stage would be inimical to the interests of the civilians within the safe zone is perplexing, bewildering, and if she is to be understood to mean what she says, downright facetious. She argues that the LTTE will not allow people to come out, and thus the destruction of the LTTE is desirable. This is patent nonsense. Yes, the LTTE cannot be expected, brutal and cynical as they are to allow the civilians to come out, even during a ceasefire. But doesn’t she realise that a ceasefire will bring the number of daily dead from 70 to 0. Is this not a sufficient incentive to stop the fighting? The killings will not stop until the guns are silenced, and the guns will not be silenced unless there is a ceasefire. Pure and simple. No ceasefire = more killings, and yet she deigns to suggest that no ceasefire = better for the civilians, at a time when all the world is calling for a ceasefire from the UN to the EU to the White House.

To be fair she seems to suggest that, (even if she doesn’t, it remains a popular view), that a ceasefire will only delay the inevitable. The war will resume again, and the LTTE will use the civilians as shields again. Again, this is possible, but isn’t it less inevitable than the certain prospect of increasing civilian deaths! Are we as certain that of 70 people being killed per day after the presumed resumption of the war after the presumed breakdown of the presumed ceaefire, as we are certain that in the next few days hundreds of civilians will lose their lives, and hundreds more will be injured?

But perhaps I am not going to the root cause driving Rajasingham to her opposition of a ceasfire, that seems to me to be a sure way of saving lives in the now. And that root cause is her political agenda, the one that undergirds her opposition to the ceasefire, although such opposition is facetiously framed as one that is civilian friendly. But what is this political position.

She articulates it best

“I am opposed to any talks with the LTTE before it is willing to renounce the armed struggle, without giving up the demand of secession and while holding onto the notion of sole representation”, she announces.

Ok, that is what it is isn’t it. There is a logic here. The temporary ceasefire is opposed because it will inevitably break down. But is it not her position that a temporary ceasefire MUST and SHOULD break down, because a permanent ceasefire and peacetalks with the LTTE should not take place. So she doesn’t want unconditional peacetalks, and because she doesn’t and is aware that the LTTE will not meet her, and incidentally Rajapaskshe and JHU’s conditions, she sees no need for a brief interlude to the fighting she anticipates will happen anyway. This is not an unpopular view. The Southern polities clearest thinkers share this view. It is deeply thought out, and it stems from a political position that views unconditional talks with the LTTE as repulsive. This is unfortunate, that Nirmala Rajasingham can consider the lives of the civilians as a worthwhile sacrifice to the utilitarian political objectives she is committed to. It is also sheer hypocrisy, because that is what she, rightly , accuses the LTTE of doing.

The ICRC evacuation programme

2009-04-14T03:57:00.001-07:00

The ICRC has posted an interview with its Surgeon on the 31st of Marchon its website where some details about the nature and modus operandi of its evacuation programme from Putumattalan (in the 'No Fire Zone') are revealed. Here are excerpts and questions:

Given the large numbers of sick and wounded people in Putumattalan at the moment, how are patients selected for medical evacuation?

Because of the limited space available on the ferry chartered by the ICRC, there is no way to avoid selecting patients based on need. Patients are selected for evacuation on the advice of medical professionals who work in Putumattalan. Every evacuation is carried out with the agreement of the local authorities. The ICRC is not involved in the selection process. After patients board our ferry and arrive in Trincomalee or, as has been the case in recent days, in Pulmoddai, health facilities take over from the ICRC. They set priorities for treatment based on the degree of medical emergency.

The 'selection process' is possibly handled by the Deputy Director of Regional Health Services. Does the LTTE have an influence over this? How does the SL Navy treat this issue? Its known that once the initial treatment is given most of these people are transferred to the Vavuniya camps. Note how the interviewee says that in recent days people are taken to Pulmoddai. This is where the Indian Doctors are working from. What is special about what they are doing? Why Pulmoddai? Why cant they work in the Trinco Hospital and help boost the capacity there?

The Putumattalan Health authorities dont even seem to have things like basic surgical cotton etc:

Many patients need to have a limb amputated because of a shrapnel injury. We also treat injuries to other parts of the body, sometimes to remove shrapnel. I have seen many patients with heavily infected wounds, sometimes in the area where the amputation is required. Infections set in rapidly when a wound is not treated with antibiotics or a dressing cannot be changed. On some patients arriving here, strips of sarong or tee-shirts have been used instead of dressings. Pieces of wood are often used as splinters to immobilize a fracture and spare the person a lot of pain.

Also see further here.

'Moral Relativists' of our time

2009-03-02T08:01:00.001-08:00

See Kumar's post on Groundviews here.

A moral relativist is one who hastens to compromise with iniquity and injustice on the pretext of laying “foundations in ground realities“.
When simple folk do it we call them apologists, when the well schooled bring their scholarship to bear for these unbecoming ends, it is moral relativism.

A lot of people have joined this wagon. Kumar identifies Dr Michael Roberts as one of them. Dayan Jayatilleke is another. Rajiva Wijesinghe is a third. I wont be as kind as Kumar. These are truly apologists. Why give a special status just because of their 'master-serving' scholorship?

Wijepala on Groundviews responding to a comment by Kumar on the same subject in a different post does ask this significant question:

Why is it that the people who complain about being tarred as LTTE apologists for criticizing Mahinda, are the same people who label others as Mahinda apologists for pointing out Western shortcomings and hypocrisy?

and Kumar's response:

Wijepala's comment is well taken. Yes pointing out the things Michael has, is reasonable. But overall the article to me seems to seriously lack balance; this is intellectually troubling in an intensely politicalised time like the present.

My problem is indeed fundamentally with the 'exposure of the Western hypocrisy' that Roberts seeks to make in his post. Its a cheap one used by a cheap Sinhala Chauvinist. In simple terms it goes like this: "you all bombed indiscriminately earlier. now dont shout when we do it". How can this be 'well- schooled scholarship'?

"Indiscriminate slaughter from the air is a barbarism that must be abolished"

2009-01-15T18:20:00.000-08:00

I find this piece from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian written in the context of the aerial bombardment of Gaza very very relevant to Sri Lanka's war in the North as well.

The tragedy in Gaza surely marks the time when the world declares air-launched bombs and long-distance shells to be illegal under the 1983 Geneva convention. They should be on a par with chemical munitions, white phosphorous, cluster bombs and delayed-action land mines. They pose a threat to non-combatants that should be intolerable even in the miserable context of war.
I can accept Israeli claims that they are not intentionally targeting civilians in Gaza - or the United Nations base set on fire yesterday. But the failure of their chosen armaments had the same effect. The civilian death toll is now put at 673, mostly women and children.
It is barely conceivable that the most accurate weapon of war, an infantryman, would deliberately enter a house and massacre unarmed women and children as they have their dinner. As a result, mercifully few do. When such cold-blooded murder is committed, from the 1968 My Lai killings in Vietnam to those now coming to light in Iraq, we are appalled, and inquiries, trials and disciplinary procedures follow.
Those killing from the air need have no sight of the carnage they unleash. They are placed at both a geographical and a moral distance, with a licence allowed no soldier on the ground. Whether they are dispatching free-fall bombs or GPS-guided missiles, tank shells or predator drones, Hamas's Qassam rockets or improvised explosive devices, they know they often miss their targets, but they launder any carnage as "collateral damage" and leave politicians to handle the backlash. The soldier shrugs and walks away, with no obligation to humanity beyond the occasional apology and a reference to the other side being just as bad.
If gas, landmines, chemical weapons and cluster munitions are now banned - a ban broadly obeyed by most civilised armies - why not aerial bombardment? Instead, bombing is becoming ever more prevalent. It precedes any operation, as a sort of overture, and eagerly takes part in each tactical twist. Counter-insurgency war, in Iraq and Afghanistan, has seen western armies take heavy casualties. But such is the political aversion to them that Israeli, American and British ground forces operate under strict "force protection" rules to minimise losses.
This has led to the reckless use of stand-off munitions, as regularly reported by embedded correspondents. Rather than employ infantry to clear an apparently hostile settlement, commanders call in air strikes and pound it to rubble. The Israelis have responded to the Hamas bombardment of their towns with a far heavier bombardment of Gaza. Both endanger civilians to a degree that cannot be other than criminal. That human shield tactics may be involved is no excuse: the law does not permit the killing of innocents in the hope of reaching the guilty.

Also see Jayantha Dhanapala: (I wonder whether he has the guts to see the same thing to the SL Govt)

the high number of civilian casualties in Gaza indicates once more that there is no such a thing as a clean, technological and aseptic warfare where civilians are spared and only combatants (soldiers or insurgents) are hit.

The connection between the celebration and the mourning

2009-01-09T19:45:00.000-08:00

Lankadissent run under the auspicies of the Sri Lanka Freedom party (Mahajana Wing) - Mangala Samaraweera's party - and edited by Senior Journalist Kusal Perera (good friend of murdered Journalist Dharmaratnem Sivaram-'Taraki') has decided to call it a day after Lasantha's killing.

They have issued a statement in this regard. Hats off to Kusal Perera for this part of the statement

"Many who thought they as the media have a right to freedom of expression, they have a right to information, that the people also have the same right and that it is a fundamental right in a modern civilised society, have been told very bluntly and at times most brutally, that it isn't so in this land of the compassionate, democratic republic, run by a "patriotic" regime.

The Tamil media in the North were the first to have been told this bluntly and ruthlessly while the Colombo media did not want those dissenting voices in the North, heard elsewhere. They had to learn that lesson, first hand."

XXXX

My friend Dinidu has got it spot on:

"If you tell me that four guys on four unmarked bikes, wearing all black, can kill a man in broad daylight and vanish, or twenty people can come to an office, blow it up, and then disappear without anybody knowing, yet I can’t stand on the road for my bus for longer than five minutes without one of your uniform clad brainwashed cronies coming and asking me who I am, what I’m doing there, and when I plan on buggering off, then there is something seriously wrong in what you say."

XXXX

This capturing of land business if it is done in the name of providing humanitarian relief to the Tamil people why would you celebrate that? Why celebrate as if though you have annexed land to your territory or as if though you have conquered the Tamil people? The celebration has a direct link to providing courage to those parties who now think they can do anything they want. I was so dismayed with the fire crackers yesterday. Would it not have been right for the President if we has so much of feeling for the death of Lasantha to say lets not 'celebrate' this time, unless of course he saw that the incident on the 8th is also a reason for celebration.

The myth that holding elections are inherently good and 'godly'

2008-12-25T21:30:00.000-08:00

Kashmiri Muslim protesters shout pro-freedom and anti-election slogans outside a polling station in Barsoo, some 28 kilometers (17 miles) north of Srinagar, India, Sunday, Nov. 23, 2008. Government soldiers opened fire on hundreds of stone-throwing Muslims protesting against elections in Indian Kashmir on Saturday, killing two people and seriously wounding another, police said. (AP Photo/Dar Yasin)

To hold elections is a noble thing. To oppose the holding of elections is undemocratic. This is what we are used to hearing. This is what we were told when the Eastern Provincial Council Elections were held. The same thing is being said in Kashmir with the recent Legislative assembly polls there. The Hindu today has an editorial titled 'Democracy triumphs' praising the inherent goodness of elections:

In the event, the people of J&K have left no doubt that they see in India’s democracy, however imperfect, the best means to address the multiple problems they face. From the outset, this newspaper has editorially argued that free and fair elections would do more to defuse the crisis than the regrettable practice of seeking backdoor deals with forces claiming to represent the State’s people... India’s exemplary Election Commission, Governor N.N. Vohra, National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan, the State government’s officials and, above all, the people of Jammu and Kashmir deserve unreserved applause for enabling democracy to triumph amidst the most difficult circumstances imaginable.

The turn out was surprisingly very high: On the first count, voter turnout in the 87 Assembly constituencies rose dramatically from 43 per cent in 2002 to around 62 per cent — slightly higher than the national average, which hovers around 60 per cent. Without dispute, the most heartening signal came from the Kashmir Valley, where voter turnout was 55 per cent compared with 29.5 per cent in 2002. Even in Srinagar, the heartland of J&K’s Islamist-led secessionist movement, voter turnout quadrupled from a pathetic 5.06 per cent in 2002 to 21 per cent in 2008.

This has according to the Indian express has shocked the moderate secessionists to reconsider their options. See article here.

Here comes the other side of the story. An article on the Wall Street Journal reports as follows:

But many voters who lined up at the polls Saturday in south Kashmir, for example, also turned out at anti-Indian protest marches weeks earlier. In the town of Tral, 20-year-old student Manzur Ahmad said that he was voting for an incumbent candidate because, in recent years, the lawmaker had managed to curb the harassment of local youths by government forces. "We vote because this makes our lives easier - but this doesn't mean we don't want freedom," he said.

So much for the Hindu editorial claiming that the turn out was an acceptance of Indian democracy. Further the article reports,

In the village of Samboora, residents said that Indian Army troops went from house to house on Saturday morning, rounding up families and taking them to a polling station. As a reporter drove into the village Saturday afternoon, an army vehicle with several soldiers stopped by the walled compound of Ghulam Mohammad, pulling the 59-year-old retiree onto the road. Seeing a foreign reporter, the soldiers jumped into their vehicle and quickly drove off. "They asked me why I'm not voting, and I said that's because I don't like any of the candidates," Mr. Mohammad said moments later. "They said, if I don't vote, I'll be sorry later."

I am grateful to Kafila for pointing me to this piece.

I argued in earlier posts (here and here) that the Eastern Local government and provincial council elections cannot be considered 'good' on their own and that the turn out at the Eastern provincial council elections (despite the enormous ballot stuffing) cannot be considered an acceptance of TMVP's or Mahinda's scheme. People vote for a multitude of reasons. The Kashmir example i hope illustrates this more clearly.

'Majoritarianism wins with the acquiescence of the Minorities' ?

2008-12-22T07:48:00.000-08:00

The following extract is from Prof Jayadeva Uyangoda's October article to the EPW (Economic and Political Weekly) dated 25 October 2008. A full version of the article is available from tamilnation here.

"I believed for quite some time that ethnic majoritarianism is a political condition that the political leaders of the majority community impose by means of coercion on the ethnic minorities. It accords an unequal, at best second class, status to the minorities. Minorities do not accept majoritarianism and they resist it. That is why ethnic conflicts flare up. Observing how the Tamil and Muslim political parties in Sri Lanka have come to accept the second class and unequal status with great pleasure, I changed, realising that my understanding of majoritarianism was an incomplete one.

I now know that ethnic majoritarianism is not necessarily coercive. It has a strong element of consent of the minorities, or at least their political leaders. Majoritarianism is completed when the political representatives of the minorities accept, with happiness and even in intense competition with each other, the condition of inequality. They do so in exchange of other benefits which are usually couched in the respectable language of “development assistance to our community”.

That is what the 25 years of civil war has done to the minority rights project in Sri Lanka."

The part italicised is my own emphasis from the original. It is a very short article and the excerpt above comes at the tail end of the article.

I am unable to agree with the professor's analysis (which is not detailed possibly because he was constrained by space) and hence my disagreement with his 'new conclusion' about majoritarianism. Prof Uyangoda's reference to the minorities accepting a second class status is possibly a conclusion resulting from his analysis of Karuna's, Douglas's and possibly Thondaman's politics.

I do not think the minority ever willingly gives into majoritarianism. I do not think that they give it up with 'great pleasure'. The fact that the minorities 'give up' is essentially related and directly linked to coercive majoritarianism. The Prof seems to tag this 'giving up' as unconnected with coercive majoritarianism. Its a victory of one over the other, where the victorious picks the new leaders of the minority. I would say Thondaman, Karuna and Douglas are all examples of this. The fact that these political parties have given up does not mean that the entire community has given up. These political parties have 'given up' because they were unable to survive in their attempts to resist coercive majoritarianism. The petty agendas of these political parties and their leaders cannot be taken as a give up by a minority. I can understand a war weary population seeking out developmental assistance - an assistance which is reliant on the resources the majority has almost exclusive control over. Hence destruction, starvation and hunger is a tool of coercive majoritarianism. War wearediness can also result because of the leaders of the minority struggle lacking startegic political vision as in the case of LTTE. The dillema of minority politics in Sri Lanka is not because it has given it up with 'great pleasure' as Prof Uyangoda calls it. It is because 1) coercive majoritarianism having been able to cleverly stick to the fundamentals of majoritarian democracy (having periodic elections) has succeeded or appears to have succeeded in winning over minority politics both by the use of tools associated with majoritarian democracy (again elections and numbers) and through the use of arms and 2) because minority politics lacks imagination and flexibility.

India: Secular politics feeding Muslim Fundamentalism?

2008-12-02T03:30:00.000-08:00

There is an interesting debate going in the media around the world regarding the source and question of Islamic Fundmentalism in India. This is from an opinion piece that appears in the Hindu today:

"Muslim fundamentalism has also been helped by India’s “secular” political establishment which, barring the Left, has not only made no effort to develop a progressive Muslim leadership but actively prevented it from taking root. Instead, it has relied on a class of Muslim “leaders” whose own political interest lies in keeping the community backward-looking.

By mobilising Muslims around issues that have nothing to do with their daily lives they have landed the community in a situation where it finds itself a target of Hindu fundamentalists, on the one hand, and susceptible to faith-based militant Islamist elements on the other
While the Congress is the chief culprit in this respect, it is not alone in propping up self-serving Muslim leaders.

The fact is that it is hard to name any progressive Muslim leader in any of the secular parties. Over the years, the only change that has been noticed is that instead of “mullahs” with long beards we now have suave English-speaking Muslim leaders to match the “modern” face of Hindutva. Their language and worldview, however, remain unashamedly sectarian".

I see a very valid point in the analysis. It is a difficult point to articulate given that those articulating may be accused of playing into the hands of Hindutva's 'appeasing the minorities' argument. The piece actually exempts the Left parties from this but I remember reading a chapter from Partha Chattergee's "Politics of the Governed" where he argues using a case study relating to the issue of modernising Madarassa education in Left governed West Bengal that the Left parties may also be accused of the same. Shabana Azmi (the acclaimed actress and social activist) makes a similar point in a TV interview available here on youtube.

Reflecting on the Mumbai attacks

2008-11-30T06:05:00.000-08:00

When a disaster (natural or man made) takes place there is a period of uncertainty that follows – a period of confusion where people are at a loss in terms of how they should respond to the disaster at an individual level and in a collective sense; at a personal level and as a political society. The period provides for what is described as a clean slate during which new things can be written and the ideological masters who wait for the window of opportunity to arrive, seek to write hastily on the clean slate. This is the theme of the book that I bought recently when I was in Madrid, titled ‘The Shock Doctrine’ by Naomi Klein. (I have a habit of buying some book whenever I am abroad - my idea of collecting souvenirs)

xxxxxxxx

I have moved to a new place and one of the negatives of the new place is that my new landlady unlike my old one doesn’t have cable TV. I terribly miss my NDTV. I don’t mind NDTV though it’s no different from your typical News Channel (where sometimes or rather most of the time entertainment/cricket news is bigger than the politics). But it is definitely better than our own News First. Be that as it may, I was at my former landlady’s place yesterday and was watching NDTV’s ‘Big Fight” (a Saturday political talk show kind of) which was last night an extended show for two hours dedicated to discussing the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks. The show was titled: “Fight against terror: How can we win?” Vikram who moderates the show is a fairly decent anchor. Yesterday when I got there around 7.30 half way into the show I saw Vikram almost being hysterical. He was asking why enough money is not being spent on providing the proper ammunition and armory for the police and India’s National Security Guard and he was demanding for a proper research and statistics on how much the Government spends on defence. Shekar Gupta, the editor in chief of Indian Express, whom I have followed and found to be a respectable journalist was sane enough to calm him down and say that there is enough and more money being spent and that the real question was where the money was going. There was a strategic studies expert from the centre for policy research who was making the point that urban guerilla warfare was on its rise and that the Indian police force wasn’t trained and equipped enough to handle it. There was an academic attached to a hindutva think tank saying that there is a clean slate that has been created by the disaster for the future and that we should start writing on it. Vikram suggested what he would write first: call for a non partisan support for more training, equipment for the police and the army. At this stage BJP’s Arun Shourie (one of BJP’s very pro-RSS idealogues) was introduced and Vikarm asked whether he would agree with him. Shourie asked Vikram how dare he asks him that question when the media was the one that was running down the police. He was referring to NDTV and other media coverage and Vikram’s own big fight programme on the fake police encounters in Delhi and elsewhere recently. Vikram almost agreed with him and didn’t have much of a response. The fear had gripped Vikram so much that he probably started suspecting the need for scrutiny over law enforcement agencies and Shourie had the sway. NDTV continued to play scenes from the funerals of the police officers who had died fighting the terrorists at Mumbai Taj hotel. At 8 in the news room Vikram had a candle lighted in front of him and his correspondents from different parts on India were seen joining him. The height of emotion that NDTV sought to display quite dramatically was a bit too much for me, I left. This morning reading the Sunday Times I was disgusted to read in the “Obituary/Appreciation” page of the paper a reader from Banadaragama suggesting that we should build a temple for the soldiers who have died in what he called ‘defending our 2500 year old civilization’. The patriotism reflected at my faculty gates at university with a banner carrying the Sri Lankan flag crossed with a Buddhist flag along with photographs of Army soldiers and the Bodhi pooja held at the University all make me wonder what kind of a society we are. Why not a Bodhi pooja for all people who have died in the war so far – the innocent civilians – would that be unpatriotic? And what kind of a war is this? Between two civilizations? What was the Buddhist flag doing on the banner? The president is being iconised by the state media to an extent where it won’t be surprising if there are calls to build a temple for him.

xxxxx

I am quite confident that because of the enormity and diversity of the politics of that country, in the long run saner minds will prevail in India. But for a Muslim in India it’s going to be tougher to be not doubted as being ‘anti-National’. The fall out of the Mumbai attacks which follow the one in Bangalore and Delhi ones will show the Congress Government as week in the face of terror. BJP brought in the draconic Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) as a response primarily to the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament. The Congress government repealed the act. (I think now there is a law called the National Security Act) The attacks have largely targeted the urban middle class in the past (the Mumbai attacks possibly stand out) which is increasingly now moving towards the BJP. Ashish Nandy India’s topmost political scientist shows us how all religious extremism and riots have occurred and center themselves in the urban areas and not in the rural areas. People like the BJP Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi (the one who is responsible for the 2002 riots against Muslims in the state) who are seen to be good for business and tough with terror will benefit. But because of the fact that BJP will never be able to form a Government of its own they will never be able to pursue their agenda at a level they would like to and hence my opening statement in this paragraph.

xxxxxxxx

Of course our Government is quite happy with the Mumbai attacks. Its simple message to India: “You fight your war on terror and we will fight ours. Please take care of your business and don’t interfere in ours. Hope the attacks will shut Tamil Nadu’s voice. Deepest sympathies. Good Luck”.

As Bush prepares to leave office and to get back to shooting ducks at his Texas Ranch his writing on the clean slate after 9/11, of the war on terror, that brands all ‘sorts’ of terrorist projects together and fight them all will continue to devastate us world over for a long period of time, as preparations are underway for the Obama presidency.

Co-Artists of the President rally for more war

2008-11-15T01:09:00.000-08:00

Sri Lankan, (sorry i would rather call them) Sinhala artists held a demonstration on Thursday to show what the Daily Mirror decided to call their 'disapproval' of the take of the Tamil Nadu Cinema 'Kollywood' artists regarding the persuction of Tamils in Sri Lanka. Here are some hilarious comments from some of our artists

Malini Fonseka- “I wish they will visit Sri Lanka and see the truth for themselves; that Tamils, Sinhalese and Muslims all live together in tolerant and peaceful communities.”- Oh really??!! Which country is this Malini? Sri Lanka?

Geetha Kumarasinghe-"All Sri Lankans, regardless of race or religion, will stand as one united force, against inequality, and support our troops" - Whose troops Geetha? We know that you want to destory the Tigers only. We are prepared to take the burden that we will have to be inconvenienced in this pursuit. Get displaced; homes razed to the ground and even get killed. Thats ok. These are our troops. We will welcome them with open hands when they come to liberate us. Brilliant.

Perfect state of denial.

I have had the chance to listen to some of the speeches made at the different rallies that Tamil Nadu Cinema personalities have had so far. I do concede that they have enagaged in a bit of exaggeration here and there. But there were saner voices like that of Director Cheran's speech at the Rameswaram rally. But none of their statements or speeches were as widely sweeping in effect as some of the statements quoted above from our lovely artists from Sri Lanka. Of course the lovely president himself was their former colleague.

Groundviews has an article on the same subject here.

Rajiva Wijesinghe's personal blog

2008-11-06T14:53:00.000-08:00

Finally somebody decided to give Rajiva Wijesinghe some proper whacking. The best line for me was this one: "The Sri Lankan government should know that in this country (UK) we use the very long held principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

He uses the SCOPP website like his personal blog. His daily work involves searching the interent and if there is anyone writing in English who has said anything even lightly suggestive of bringing the government to direpute he would have a lengthy response. Quite jobless. Understandbly - the Govt is waging a war. Its a secretariat that defends the govts war effort. Of course Rajiva will have a strong rebuttal - the war is for peace. Good.

War and Peace: Learning from Einstein

2008-10-11T18:29:00.000-07:00

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein.

The Government and the LTTE will agree with Einstein on the subject of negotiating for peace. Both sides would say we have tried it out with them enough and hence trying it again would be insanity.

The Government and the LTTE will disagree with Einstein however respectively on the subject of waging war for peace and waging war to create a separate state. Both sides will keep trying out the war strategy. For them this cant be insanity. How can it be? You will be considered unpatriotic on both sides if you say it.

Hence, Einstein you are not very helpful. I am sorry, I am frustrated.

CJ: Demerger judgment sought to recognise cultural differences

2008-10-04T17:54:00.000-07:00

The CJ speaking at the opening of the Kalmunai High Court Complex has according to the Sunday Times observed on his North East Demerger judgment as follows: "The landmark judgment on the de-merger of the Northern and Eastern Provinces was given taking into consideration not any political reasons, but differences in culture and traditions in the two provinces".

Now i thought the judgment was given because the decision taken by JR Jayawardena to merge the two provinces through an amendment made to a law using the powers under emergency was ultra vires the powers of the President (that he exceeded the authority and powers given to the president).

So the above reasoning was just legal veneering over the actual reason which the CJ has inadvertently now disclosed: the cultural differences. The CJ said this is not a political reasoning. By all means it is a political consideration. Who is he decide, with respect, that cultural differences exist between the Eastern Tamils and the Northern Tamils. I am not saying there are none but is this what the court does?

And if i may with respect post this question to the Hon Chief Justice. The Tamil people in this country obviously have 'cultural differences' with the Sinhala people. So applying your logic Mr Chief Justice may we de-merge them from the rest of the country, because they have 'cultural differences'? So do you approve the claim for a separate state Mr Chief Justice?

See related post on this blog here.

Displacement in the Vanni

2008-10-04T07:19:00.000-07:00

Photo courtesy: puthinam.com

People from Killinochchi are getting displaced and are moving towards interior Mullaitivu - Tharumapuram, Puthukudiyiruppu etc. I listened to BBC Tamil service's daily programme day before yesterday which reported that people have to pay between 10,000-15,000 rupees to hire vehicles - mostly lorries - to get displaced with their belongings. Those who cant are leaving their belongings behind, carrying with them whatever they can.

The BBC interviewer in the course of interviewing a resident from Killinochchi, now stuck at the Killinochi hospital, asked as to why people are not going to Vavuniya. His reply was simply that there is no road that will take him to Vavuniya. I also wonder whether any road be safe enough to travel towards Vavuniya even if there was an accessible one. The interviewee also noted that there is no public transport system functioning between Vavuniya and Killinochi. Earlier when the A9 used to be open public transport within LTTE controlled areas were given by the LTTE's 'Thamileala Transport Board'. That is obviously not possible now. So much for the call of the Government asking people to come to Vavuniya. Where is this humanitarian corridor? A Thinakkural news item quotes the Commissioner for Essential Services admitting that the efforts to bring the people to Vavuniya was a failure. He is reported to have said that it might have been because the LTTE did not allow them to or because people thought it fit to remain in Vanni.

A representative from the World Food Programme was also interviewed. He had said that the food that was recently brought with the 'permission' of the Government can last only for about a week. Imalada Sugumar the GA from Mullaitivu noted that the availability of liquid money has become an issue of concern.

All over the North and East without any discrimination life for the tamil people has been always on the wheels. Of course its for their liberation one way or the other. So we should'nt be complaining. My staying in Clombo which was registered last week in a census exercise was also according to the government a census of those who had got displaced from the north. And yes whatever you say about how my eastern bretheren being different they are not being discrminated. They are queuing up to register today. And yes in this the Government does accept the North and East are from the same mould.

"A trade off on my dignity"

2008-09-28T18:54:00.000-07:00

This blogger is quoted in a news item that appeared on The Economist available on their website here.

"THE police served them toffee and sweet drinks as they queued up to register at designated centres in Colombo. But for many of the thousands of Tamil civilians obliged to turn up, this was scant consolation for a violation of their rights. Guru, a 23-year-old law student from Jaffna, called the toffee “a trade-off on my dignity”. The orders to register were given on September 20th by police with loudhailers moving slowly along the streets of Colombo’s Tamil areas, which have recently been receiving swarms of civilians fleeing the intensifying war in the north.

The government labelled the exercise a “census”, to determine whether there had been a change in the ethnic balance of the Western province, where the capital is located. It is increasingly edgy about attacks in the capital by the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. For 25 years the Tigers, who have a history of terrorist atrocities, have been fighting for a separate homeland for the Tamil minority in the north and east of the island. But Tamil civilians fear the real objective is to weed out anybody suspected of Tiger links. The government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa says the war is entering its final stages. And the president’s brother, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, the defence secretary, maintains that stringent security measures are an “inconvenience” that the minority Tamil community will have to endure."

Victor Ivan lends his intellect to the 'Victor'

2008-09-27T21:14:00.000-07:00

The joyous mood of victory has caught up with everyone and this time it is Victor Ivan who thinks it’s prudent to lend his intellect to the victor.

He wrote a piece for Ravaya about two weeks back saying that its good for the Tamil people that the LTTE will get defeated. Kumar David responded in the Sunday Island and a translation of Victor’s piece also appeared. Gamini Viyangoda also had responded. I have not read any of these pieces in detail. This weeks Sunday Island (28 September) carries a response by Victor to Kumar. This is a response primarily to this piece of Victor’s.

The crux of Victor’s argument seems to be the following: It is naked power that operates in any war. It is the same naked power that the security forces and the LTTE are unleashing against each other in competitive fashion. And when the LTTE is defeated when the war is over freedom will be restored to the Tamil people though nothing new to them might be “offered”.

Now I do not quarrel with the fact that LTTE uses naked power. Naked power, Victor defines quoting Bernard Russel is, as being the loyalty enforced through the infusion of fear disregarding all traditional beliefs and social approval under a situation when two or more fanatical creeds are contending for governance and when all traditional beliefs have decayed. I agree with this.

However my quarrel starts here. The issue is this: whether the Tamils like it or not through a bloody system of killings and counter killings ‘they’ remain the only option for the Tamil people for a just solution to the problem. This is because it is power and hard power that politicians in the South take notice of and they are the only ones who have it. Now that is what is under a threat of destruction. Victor thinks this is desirable. Of course he might ask the question is it worth risking the lives of Tamils for a ‘just’ solution? The following is a response to that.

Destruction of one naked power will lead to ‘no war’. That’s very simplistic. The naked power that is sought to be destructed was a response to the naked power exercised by those who are ‘winning’ now. Victor thinks that the naked power that was unleashed on the Tamil people will stop once the naked power that responded to this ‘original’ naked power is destroyed. The original naked power is still there and its roots are in majoritarianism. Has this changed? No. That might not be visible militarily once the responsive naked power is destroyed. But this ‘original’ naked power will continued to be exercised politically and this will lead eventually to the annihilation of the Tamil people or to their assimilation in a grand ‘Sri Lankan society’. Of course Victor makes a value judgment as to which naked power is better to live under. His choice: The original majoritarian naked power. That can’t be for me. Hence I agree with Kumar. The only option is for the LTTE to be reformed.

Here are a some excerpts from Victor and my comments on them:

Then in the absence of an armed rival group to fight the security forces, the need does not arise for physical suppression, maintenance of high security zones and for the security forces to get involved in the management of day to day matters. Along with the cessation of war assassinations, disappearances, abductions and arrests will cease.

The problem is the word 'absence' here. When will one be satisfied with finality that there is now an 'absence' of the armed rival group? It is predicted that the weeding out process will continue for a long time and my prediction is that the final result of the weeding out might be the total annihilation of the Tamil people.

Victor also seems to have completely subscribed to the now popular notion that once the armed rival group is gone the ethnic conflict will be gone. We will have a rosy Sri Lanka.

(After the defeat of the armed rival group) the democratic outlets which were hitherto closed will gradually be opened. The freedom of expression will be restored. They will get an opportunity to carefully review the issues pertaining to their struggle and assess the reasons that led to the defeat of the Tamil struggle, comprehend the true rights that they should fight for and the right course of action to be adopted etc.

And then what Mr Ivan? What do you think the right course of action will be? What are the ‘true’ rights that the Tamils should fight for? How should they ‘struggle’? Another armed movement? Or Parliamentary politics? Or Provincial council politics? Tell us which one? Or is it the option that the Tamil people become slowly assimilated with the 'Sri Lankan' society? But you are the one who is quite sure that there will be nothing new offered to the Tamil people? So where does this comment come from Victor?

Victor says the LTTE was never serious about internal self determination. Sad. And probably true. But is that an excuse for the South not working on a solution? Of course he does think that there will not be anything new offered to the Tamil people. That can’t be helped according to Victor probably. That’s your fate he seems to tell people like me.

White Van Abduction Legalised

2008-09-23T04:49:00.000-07:00

I am reporting on this because the English print media has either got it wrong or didn't understand the proceedings in the Supreme Court (Daily Mirror) Or they have chosen not to report on it (Island - probably wasnt important enough for them). I think the flawed reportage or non reportage is deliberate because they probably believe or fear that such reporting will or will be considered as undermining the war.

The Supreme Court heard a case filed by Thondaman's party (the Ceylon Workers Congress) which is part of the Mahinda Rajapaksha Government yesterday, regarding the abduction of one of their trade union officials. The person had been abducted by a white van and becuase of the political influence CWC yields its party leaders were able to trace the person to the custody of the Terrorism Investigation Department (TID). The facts were not disputed by the State represented by the Attorney General's Department (Mr. Palitha Fernando, the Additional Solicitor General appeared). This is probably the first case and will be the only case where somebody who had been abducted had the courgae to go to courts to file a case. The reason is obvious because the person belonged to a political party in alliance with the Government. The CWC is to be commended for bringing it to courts and not pushing it under the carpet to save the reputation of the Government.

When the case was taken up before the Chief Justice's bench (the other two judges sitting with him were Justices Shiranee Tilakawerdena and Justice Sripavan) the Chief Justice in the course of the proceedings refused to condemn the mode of 'arrest'. He chasticised the petitioner's counsel, blaming him for bringing a case for 'international news consumption'. He said that the court can do nothing to give directives regarding the use of white vans as there were too many of them in the country!! He made unintelligible assertions in open court like for instance that Sri Lanka has the largest van population in the country and that it would not be possible to restrict the import or usage of white vans into the country etc!! (He was laughing when he said this and to my disgust a majority of the members of the bar and most of the public present laughed with him) Clearly what was being asked was for a delcaration that the police had violated the petitioners fundamental right by engaging in a mode of arrest that was blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional. The CJ also said that what was important was whether one was able to find the person who was abducted and hence it was an affirmative in this case there shouldnt be an issue. The counsel protested saying that this was possible because the petitioner belonged to a political party. The CJ was dismissive in his response. The CJ thought that a receipt being issued after arrest through the local police station should be satisfying. In his order at the end of the hearing he included the above 'condition' for 'arrests' being made using white vans nd also went on to say that since torture was not being alleged in custody that violation of article 13 of the constitution was not at stake. The conusel for the petitioner protested and said that they didnt say that. The CJ queried in response as to whether they are assuming torture was being inflicted. Surely the CJ was assuming that torture was not being inflicted!! The fomer assumption is more closer to the truth than the latter for anyone who knows anything about the TID.

What the Supreme Court has essentially done is legalise the use of white vans for 'arresting' a person on the condition that a receipt be issued after the abduction is carried out. This is probably the most absurdest of all sorts of 'justice' that this Supreme Court has meted out. And hence the white van abductions can now proceed with glee!!

The CJ was worried that the case was being brought beofre him for international news consumption. (I dont think the international media is that interested in what is happening in this country. For a start not even the national media is bothered). But irrespective of what has been said in the brackets above, surely if the international community didnt know this before the decision has confirmed that even the third organ of Government - the judiciary in this country is incapable of protecting the interests of its minority populations. Now thats the message that the CJ has clearly given for international news consumption.

Arundhathi Roy on Azad for Kashmir

2008-08-29T23:21:00.000-07:00

I read Arundhati Roy's piece on the situation in Kashmir titled "Azadi: Its the only thing the Kashmiri wants: Denial is delusion" as usual she has a terrific piece. (Azadi means freedom) It can be read here. You might have to register to read it. Its free though.

Here are some excerpts and my comments:

For somebody like myself, who is not Muslim, that interpretation of freedom is hard—if not impossible—to understand. I asked a young woman whether freedom for Kashmir would not mean less freedom for her, as a woman. She shrugged and said, "What kind of freedom do we have now? The freedom to be raped by Indian soldiers?" Her reply silenced me.

I have recently heard from some and had certain conversations about the issue of minority tamils (Tamils from the lower castes). While i think the issue is a serious one that deserves meritorious consideration i believe that those who raise it have mischievous intentions. (for example when Malinda Seneviratne raises it) Reading Arundadhi's comment above, its an apt response to all those who raise questions about whether freedom or autonomy for Tamils will resolve the 'other' issues. The bigger issue weighs down. 'What kind of freedom do we have now', irrespective of whether i am from a higher caste or a lower caste as a tamil, or whether you are a man or a woman as a Kashmiri, is a persuasive response.

I post this following paragraph without much comment. It has a lot of comparison to the anxiety of what a 'free' or autonomous tamil speaking territory would turn out to be:

Arguments that spring from love are also fraught with danger. It is for the people of Kashmir to agree or disagree with the Islamic project (which is as contested, in equally complex ways, all over the world by Muslims as Hindutva is contested by Hindus).Perhaps now that the threat of violence has receded and there is some space in which to debate views and air ideas, it is time for those who are part of the struggle to outline a vision for what kind of society they are fighting for. Perhaps it is time to offer people something more than martyrs, slogans and vague generalisations. Those who wish to turn to the Quran for guidance will no doubt find guidance there. But what of those who do not wish to do that, or for whom the Quran does not make place? Do the Hindus of Jammu and other minorities also have the right to self-determination? Will the hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits living in exile, many of them in terrible poverty, have the right to return? Will they be paid reparations for the terrible losses they have suffered? Or will a free Kashmir do to its minorities what India has done to Kashmiris for 61 years? What will happen to homosexuals and adulterers and blasphemers? What of thieves and lafangas and writers who do not agree with the "complete social and moral code"? Will we be put to death as we are in Saudi Arabia? Will the cycle of death, repression and bloodshed continue? History offers many models for Kashmir's thinkers and intellectuals and politicians to study. What will the Kashmir of their dreams look like? Algeria? Iran? South Africa? Switzerland? Pakistan?

ST's advice to UNP on how to be politically sexy!!

2008-08-23T22:54:00.000-07:00

Today's (24 August) Sunday Times Editorial on the provincial council elections has this offer of advice to the UNP:

By putting forward Maj-Gen. (Ret.) Janaka Perera, the UNP was able to negate the Government's accusation that the UNP was an anti-national party. But some UNP leaders still keep harping on a political solution with the LTTE, something that is not only not sexy with the vast majority of the Sinhalese electorate, but also sounds hollow in the backdrop of Security Forces advances. It will be time for the UNP to re-think this line if it is to mount some challenge to the Rajapaksa administration which seems to be able get the mileage it wants despite all the odds otherwise stacked against it.

If you are to win an election you need to put forward not a seasoned politician but a former military general. That is the mantra of winning an election. But they lost right? How the ST's reference that putting forward Janaka Perera makes UNP not an anti national party. Ho ho!! This is how we define being patriotic and nationalistic. Even the media tows the MR line on this. And then ST laments UNP partymen still talking about a political solution. Bravo!! UNP dropped the federalism slogan to be politically appealing and now is being advised to drop the slogan for the need for a political solution as well. And this coming from a media organisation like the Times!! We are irreparably doomed!!

'Burning memories'

2008-08-02T04:52:00.000-07:00

The burning of the Jaffna Public Library was probably one among the first of increasing acts of violence against the Tamils in this country that peaked in July 83 and a memory of July 83 much talked in its 25th anniversary should also include a reflection of this important incident in the history of the ethnic conflict. This is a small note from my experiences with the Jaffna Public library.

******

'Burning memories' is the title of a 49 minute documentary that Someetharan of Jaffna/Batticaloa has produced on the burning of the Jaffna Public Library. Sommetharan in the past worked for North East Herald, Thinakkural Jaffna and studied visual media in Chennai. He had apparently worked on the documentary for three years. The documentary is available in multiple languages including Tamil and English. The production according to a review published in the Kalachuvadu (Kalachuvadu is a left leaning social, literary, political magazine published from Tamil Nadu. Read the review here) is to be welcomed for its efforts but regrets that the documentary does not provide enough scientific analysis of the incident. It notes that it is frequently repeated in the documentary that 97,000 books were burnt in the incident but does not provide an analysis of the kind of books/manuscripts were burnt and the nature of the irreparable loss. The review also notes that mostly 'moderates' have been interviewed and that given the prevailing situation in Sri Lanka that Someetharan has engaged in ceratin level of self censorship. I haven't seen the documentary yet. I am looking forward to watching it. The criticism aside I am very happy that somebody is using the medium of visual media to document incidents in the history of the conflict. A 'documentary' culture is pretty much non existent in Sri Lanka and this production should be welcomed.

More information re the documentary can be found here:
http://burningmemories.org/
http://kanapraba.blogspot.com/2008/06/blog-post_25.html

******

I was born 4 years after the library was burnt in 1981 and i very well remember the blackened library that stood in front of the Jaffna Central College until efforts to refurbish it started taking place after CBK came (more on this in the next section).

I was back home in Jaffna last June and i went to the Public Library twice when i was there. I like the spacious library a lot - i have always enjoyed the peace that comes with the vacuum that adjoins spacious tall buildings. I used it a lot during the final few months in the lead up to my Advanced Level exams. The library now does not have a lot of books. A few thousands possibly. The first time i tried to go to the library when i was there this time i was stopped at an army centry point and i was asked to surrender my NIC and to collect it on the way back. I know that this can be a dangerous thing to do and turned back. The area is a 'high security zone' (this phrase is misleading any part of Jaffna can become a high security zone whenever the military wants it to be) and apparently there was some top military brass having a meeting somewhere close by. The other time i took the Vembadi road which has become one way now. Have to take a lengthy road back to return.

The significance of the Jaffna Public library burning is to be understood by the weight that the Jaffna people attach to education. As has been widely commented on, education was one of the key areas that the peninsula's economic base rested on. There is a statue of Godess Saraswathi that is still found at the entrance to the library. She is regarded as the Goddess of Education in Hindu religious belief. Users of the library have to remove footwear before entering the library. This might be possibly to keep the floor which is white tiled clean. But i cant help thinking that it is also in a a sense a show of respect to the place. In the second sentence in this paragraph i use the word 'was' in the past tense. Jaffna no more enjoys a pride of place as an educationally advanced district. It is one of the seven out of the eight districts in the North and East which 'enjoy' the disadvantaged district status. Most of our students rely on the district quota and the disadvantaged quota for access to university education. One of the main causes for the conflict was standardisation. Today the Jaffna community seeks standardisation in the form of quotas and would be happy if the district quota is increased. The decline of standards in education in Jaffna is a direct resultant of the war and the burning of the library symbolically kick started the decline.

****

I also remember the politics behind the effort to refurbish and restore the Public Library. I identify with those who stood for the burnt library to stand as a memory of a part of history that should not be forgotten. That never happened. They could have constructed a new one if they wanted. CBK was adamant and wanted to force this act of benevolence down the Tamil peoples throat while she was waging a war for peace. I also recall the debates about the act of opening the refurbished library. I agree with those who felt that there should be no opening ceremony as such. I couldn't appreciate any extravagance associated with opening the library to public use again. The Jaffna Municipal Council is the proprietor of the library and the Mayor wanted to open it. Some were opposed to this for a really ugly reason - that he belonged to a lower caste. Anadasangaree at that time head of the entire TULF also wanted to open it himself. The LTTE also got involved and the scene became uglier. Anadasangaree's website provides a statement of the UTHR here which gives a brief of the incidents that took place: http://anandasangary.com/?p=201. I went through this link after i typed up this post and find that my views on the whole issue mostly resemble that of the LTTE. This is entirely coincidental.
The library was later opened for public use without anybody opening it.

******

My interpretation of the Eastern Provincial Council Elections

2008-06-11T20:12:00.000-07:00

I have in the past on this blog written about the Local Government Elections in the East questioning its purpose and motive. I decried in that post about how calling for elections have come to be understood as inherently good. Nothing short what is called ‘electrocracy’. The Govt needed the ballot box to justify what it was doing in the East. Now it has become clear that the LG elections were held by the Govt to check how much of a hold its partner the TMVP has in the East. Being assured by the results they decided to call for the elections.

No Election Manifesto
It was an election campaign where the TMVP did not have an election manifesto. Where they did not embark on detailed campaigning. The arms were there. Having them was enough to scare the people. You didn’t have to use them. It would have been unimaginable what would have happened if they had lost. I am not denying that they attracted considerable popular support. Ill come back in this post for the possible reasons for this popular support.

There was no election manifesto probably because MR’s ‘East is rising’ programme was acceptable to the TMVP. This despite the concerns expressed by various groups (Muslim Civil society organisations, SLMC, reports such as those of the International Crisis Group and of course the TNA) that the programme was nothing but a plan to manipulate the demographics of the Eastern Programme in the name of environmental safe havens (Champika Ranawakka is our Minister of Environment) and discovery missions to find relics of Buddhist heritage in the East. Of course you build a bridge and lay a road here and there as part of the programme. Even building bridges and roads can be used to cater to the main objective of changing demographics. This is nothing but a discontinued programme that has been resurrected.

Running the Eastern PC – Capacity issues
In an interview that Pillayan gave as soon as it was announced that he will be the CM all he could say was that he will try to find employment for all those who asked from him at the elections. So much for his plans to develop the East. I suspect that there will be a huge issue with regard to capacity when it comes to running the council. Provincial councils elsewhere in general have experienced this even where they have been run by age old parties experienced in organisational stuff. Passing statutes (that is how laws passed by PCs are known) and getting through the know how of that is pretty complicated in the tough job of understanding what your competence is vis a vis the reserved list and the national list. There have been very few statues that have been passed by Provincial councils in Sri Lanka. It doesn’t need much elaboration as to how PCs are already suffocated from any actual powers. (for eg the Central Government can pass a law on any subject under the guise of making national policies). This issue of capacity will be exploited well by Basil Rajapaksha. The Asian Tribune reports that three capable people have been recruited by Pillaiyan (including Dr Vickneswaran former Secretary to Varatharaja Perumal when he was CM for the North East, also formerly with the EPDP and now has his own party. He is a capable man with a PhD in Engineering) I am surprised that these people accepted Pillaiyan’s invitation but happy that they will probably be able to resist any big time incursions from Basil). I wonder how land issues will be handled. Land is largely a subject belonging to the Central Govt but since the ruling party in both CG and the PC are the same one wonders how this will work. Especially the Muslim-Tamil land issues. Pillayan has already said that he doesn’t want police powers. (probably because he has his own!!)

About the CM himself.
It was easy for the Govt that it was Pillayan and not Karuna. (That’s probably why they packaged him off to London). Karuna’s baggage is well known. Not many people know who Pillaiyan is or what his past was about. He was probably third or fourth down the order in the Easter Tiger hierarchy. So for the South to accept him wasn’t that hard.

As a Tamil I am worried about the damage that these elections have brought about on Tamil-Muslim relations. Hisbullah’s campaign that they need a Muslim Chief Minister and the way he craftily handled the allocation of nominations within the UPFA has produced more Muslim PC members than Tamil (almost double the number of Tamil PC members).

TMVP’s popular support
And finally on the popular support for TMVP in the East. Pillaiyan despite the enormous ballot stuffing probably did attract a lot of Tamil voters and I suspect most of them youngsters. Whether this was because he was the only ‘electable’ Tamil candidate (someone with a chance of winning and not allowing a Muslim to become CM) or whether it was because the people identify with the regionalist sentiments that TMVP stands for is a matter of debate. My hunch is that it is the former. I would find it difficult to see how the Tamils could have voted for a party which despite its regionalistic sentiments could join hands with what is perceived as the common ‘enemy’ – The Southern Sinhala Buddhist Chauvanistic bloc. (Consider the good relationships between the JHU and the TMVP). And hence the vote for Pillaiyan. That was sad. I would have preferred Hakeem as CM!

To be in Government should not be the only objective of Political Parties

2008-03-11T04:21:00.000-07:00

Tridip Suhrud a Social Scientist from Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India is a columnist with the Inidian Express. Today's column (http://www.indianexpress.com/story/282683.html) is a criticism of the way the Congress party works in India. A criticism that doing politics is not just about being in the government. The criticism is valid for all parties in India and Sri Lanka which are caught up in an era where colaition governments have become the norm - an era where dubious, 'unholy' alliances are forged to be able to 'govern'. I have found it disgusting when our parliamentarians cross over and provide justification that they are doing it so that they can serve the people. Meaning that is the be all and end all of doing politics and 'serving the people'. Looking at the present Mahinda Government it is a soup of political parties and it would be futile for anyone to figure out a government position on any social issue. Though there is seldom anything new in this article I like the way he theortises his take on the subject with which i agree in its entirety.

On the need for differentiating the goals of a political party as opposed to the functions of a Government
"The government.. (has its)..unique ways of solving issues, it also ha(s) its limits and restraints. He [Nehru] warned that mere power of the government was not enough. The government cannot, by its very nature, raise fundamental issues facing a society and a nation. The role of the Congress was, he said, to remain within politics — not necessarily within government — and raise and confront fundamental issues. Because, in politics one looks to the advantage of the moment. But an action that was informed by deeper understanding of the political realm would be framed differently. The action must be right in itself, whether it leads to an immediate advantage or not".

"The ability of the Congress to discern the difference between forms of governance, political action and the larger role of occupying the political space has frayed. It sees itself as a body whose role should be to occupy the position of governance. It is true that one of the moving forces for a political party is the will to power. But to consider governmental power as an end in itself can be dangerous for a political organisation. It gives primacy to governance over the political thereby restricting the role of the political organisation. The party thus becomes an instrument of governance and not of confronting fundamental issues and setting the terms of political debate".

Critiquing the tendency to look at politics as something that has to be 'managed'
"The party is seen as a bureaucratic organisation. It sees politics and even elections essentially as a managerial problem, or worse a technocratic problem. Politics as a management exercise gives centrality to the ‘expert’ and not to the polis. It, in fact, shuts out the voice of the people or the ordinary, primary member of the party as ‘noise’ in the system. A managerial exercise is also an affirmation of the hierarchy. It also validates back-room politics as real politics. It thinks of acquisitions and mergers as robust forms of political alignment. Gujarat is a classic case in point. The Congress believed that by aligning itself with the rebels within the BJP it could defeat Modi. It surrendered to the new allies, allowing them to dictate even the choice of party candidates".

Our CJ's blabbering!!

2008-03-07T18:26:00.000-08:00

There are many reasons to dislike our Chief Justice: For example his disconnected jurisprudence intervening in cases where he thinks fit without giving us reasons why he did it in this case and not the other one. His judgment finding the need for removal of permanent check points which is no lesser a national security issue than the Muttur High Security Zone case wherein he warned the petitioners not to bring politically charged matters of that nature to court is a classic example. Wasn't the issue of permanent check point also a politically charged case involving an issue of National Security? He has converted the court to a mediation board or a Panchayat sort of where he tries to bring cases that come to him to a 'settlement'. In the interests of speedier justice we are told.

But what propelled me to write this post is the speech that he delivered at the opening of the Consumer Court. The Chief Justice is quoted to have made the following 'observation':

“Now teachers are on sick leave. During our school days we were given six cuts for malingering. Now I am waiting for those teachers to come before me. I will give them a suitable punishment”

While it is wrong i believe for a Chief Justice to comment out of court in such a degrading manner the action being taken by the Teacher's union (The merits or demerits of the teachers action is irrelevant here) what is worrying is the Chief Justice's comment that he is 'waiting fr the matter to come to court'. Now a judge is supposed to hear a case and based on the arguments placed before him arrive at a judgment taking into consideration the interests of the parties and the society as a whole. Here is a Chief Justice (not some low court judge) who has already formed an opinion and is waiting to deliver that opinion on the parties involved in the case. What kind of justice is this? He has to the teachers effectively shut the doors of the supreme court not only on this issue but possible on any other issue they might bring. In legal academic jargon this is known as 'ex post facto rationalisation'.

As far as i know Judges of Superior courts all around the world usually tend to have a prepared speech (This is to avoid any 'slip of the tongue' mistakes) when they accept invitations to speak out of court. They go for selected occasions usually to deliver memorial orations. This is i would argue in the interests of the impartiality of the position they hold and a matter of public confidence in the duties that they carry out. Our Chief Justice like a politician is known to go for all sorts of functions for the stage and the garland. (there are those who seriously think that he might run for public office after he steps down :-). He is known to make very populist speeches. In this speech he condemns the privatisation of gas, argues for protectionism (wants to stop foreign imports. He's worried about tinned fish) all populist matters that you will expect politicians and not a Chief Justice to take on. (I am also a critique of him appearing on Buddhist TV. Agreed this is not a secular country. But shouldn't we expect that the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice at least be secular as a matter of tradition.)

Dayan's Politico-Academic Veneer

2008-02-13T18:33:00.001-08:00

The Hon Dayan Jayatilleke is quite a well known academic / politician turned diplomat - our Ambassador to the UN in Geneva. Mr.Jayatilleke's past is diverse to say the least: Among other roles he was a former supporter of the EPRLF and the Tamil Self Determination movement (The Late Kethesh Loganathan i understand had taken him in the 80s to Jaffna to lecture to the EPRLF cadres probably on Marxism) , a former Minister of Fisheries in Varadharajah Perumal's short lived North East Provincial Government, a former Advisor to President Premadasa and a former academic at the University of Colombo. The British Foreign Secretary David Milband released a message on the eve of Sri Lanka's 60th Independence day celebrations in which the Foreign Secretary called for an end to violence and regretted the abrogation of the CFA. Mr. Jayatilleke has responded to this statement in an article appearing in yesterday's (13 February) Island. You can read the article here http://www.island.lk/2008/02/13/features6.html. Let me give you some extracts from this article and leave it to to you to judge their content.

Dayan's description of the war being waged by the Mahinda regime as a bourgeois democratic revolution (Wonder when Marxists started supporting and being an agent of bourgeois democratic revolutions!!):

Sri Lanka is fighting a war to prevent separation, to unite the country, to maintain it as a single territory, to make the writ of the state run from West to East, North to South of our little island. This is a struggle undertaken by many societies at an earlier stage of their history. It is part of what is known as the bourgeois democratic revolution, i.e. those tasks undertaken or completed by the rising bourgeois class of those nations. In the global South, this task of national unification often comes up against the opposition of the Western powers (as it did in China). This seems to be the case in present day Sri Lanka too. In such historical situations, the tasks of national unification combine with the struggle to win or defend national independence and sovereignty

Justification for a majoritarian nationalist project:

Sometimes the task of national unification takes a particularly enlightened ultilingual, multi-religious character, but in many, even most cases, the struggle requires the mobilization of the peasantry and the nationalist intelligentsia and therefore takes a majoritarian nationalist, even religio-nationalist, character.

Warning to the West similar To Bush's "Either you are with us or with the enemey" comment.

If any country takes a stand that is tilted against us or is ambivalent in this most fundamental of struggles, then we must recognize that there exists an incompatibility of interests between those countries and ours. Such states are not firm friends or staunch allies. It should be made clear to them that their stand today directly influences the role they will or will not have in influencing the post-war, post-conflict order in Sri Lanka. Those who stand against us, who threaten or attempt to intimidate us; those who vacillate and temporize during this war, have forfeited the chance to play a role in the peace. They must be limited to a strictly diplomatic presence. There are on the other hand, states that have uncritically supported us during this war, or have voiced their misgivings and advice in private. They are the ones with whom we have a basic identity of interests. These are our friends, allies and partners. They are the extended family to which we truly belong.

Local Government Elections in the Eastern Province: Empowering the people?

2008-02-06T10:11:00.001-08:00

This is reproduced from a comment i made to Sanjana's article on groundviews: http://www.groundviews.org/2008/02/05/eastern-elections/

For whom are these elections being held? Can Local Government of Provincial Council Elections empower the people of the East to usher in the development that the region requires? The answer is a plain no. Both the Local Government and the Provincial Council systems do not have the legal competency (powers) or the finances to undertake development work leave alone taking care of basic or local needs. The public administration system (GA's and AGA's) managed by the Central Government run the show when it comes to the basic day to day needs of the people. The ‘Big’ Ministries and the ‘Big’ Ministers at the Centre and in this case the Ministry of Nation Building (one of those five which comes under the President) are responsible for the so far announced development projects for the East. These are being done (if at all if they are being implemented) with almost zero consultation with the elected representatives from the East. Mr. Basil Rajapaksha is in full control. DBS Jeyeraj in a post on his website dated Oct 20, 2007, candidly explains how these projects could be used and are being used to promote Sinhala colonisation in the East. So are the LG representatives going to be of use? Are we naive to think that democratic elections should not be questioned for their purpose? That’s the first question – would the Local Government representatives be used or would they be of use within the present framework of governance? The second is the one that a lot of people are raising will it be of value balanced with the blood that is being and going to be shed in electing these representatives?

The UPFA is teaming up with TMVP for the polls. Without Govt support the TMVP cannot exist. So the TMVP has no choice but to accept UPFA as an electoral partner to gain legitimacy. So even there given that TMVP will sweep the polls the govt is going to have full control. A self-serving election for the Government this will be.

Stonic silence over arrest of Tamils

2007-12-01T20:49:00.000-08:00

The English print media today (Sunday, Dec 02) maintained a disgusting silence over the arrest of more than 800 Tamils, with the exception of the Nation which carries the story as its main headline. Neither the Sunday Times or the Island had no space to carry the item. Lakbima refers only to the operation and how it was executed (referring it to as a 'combing out operation') and does not talk of the plight of those arrested and that of the parents. The Tamil papers carry them as headlines. The website http://www.puthinam.com/ has a detailed piece on the incident including the parents of the arrested attempt at staging a protest march to Temple Trees and UNP MP Maheswaran's and Dy Minister Radhakrishnan's futile attempt at trying to get an appointment with the President. Mano Ganeshan also has come out with a strong statement and has called Tamil MPs irrespective of whether they are in the Govt or the opposition and irrespective of the fact that it will be passed despite their vote, to vote against extending Emergency Regulations when it comes up for extension next time. This he has urged will send a strong message to the current administration. Puthinam also noted that most Tamils who were arrested hail from the Upcountry Tamil community.

My disgust with the English media continues to grow. Why this silence? Was it because it was not an important enough issue that was worth carrying in their esteemed newspapers? Or is it because they thought the Tamils deserved such treatment? Or is it because they think its a necessary 'action' to curb terrorism and preserve national security and 'some people' unfortunately will have to continue to be treated in this manner for the 'greater' good or rather the welfare of the majority?

Unintended comedy - Dayan on VoT attack and Rajiva on Karuna

2007-11-29T17:47:00.001-08:00

yes Its not just our politicians but also our public officials and diplomats who continue to make unintelligent, incomprehensible statements on matters of vital importance to the Government. Consider these for instance:

Dayan Jayatilleke (our Permanent Rep to UN in Geneva) responding to Reporters Without Borders condemning the attack on Voice of Tigers as quoted in Today's (30 Nov) Island:

"The radio station concerned is neither an independent media organization nor located in an independent country. In short, it was neither legal nor legitimate. It was not, for instance Al Jazeera or the Serbian TV." (http://www.island.lk/2007/11/30/news14.html)

Is it that the government will attack all 'non-independent media' organisations? There goes all our media organisations!! And not located in an independent country? Is he conceding that Killinochi is no more part of the independent country of Sri Lanka?

And this is our Prof Rajiva Wijesinghe. An extract from an interview that he gave to BBC Asia today. He himself has taken pride in what he has said in the interview that he has got it posted on the Peace Secretariat website.

Presenter: But it is rather unlikely that you have taken out one of their chief egotiators on the very same day we saw colonel Karuna arrested here in London and the charge that’s put is that it was the Sri Lankan government that enabled him to travel – to get him out of the way – on a diplomatic passport.

Dr.Rajiva Wijesinha: That charge I have certainly read and it is conceivable but when I first saw he was in London I thought that this was a wonderful British way of removing a problem and agreeing to have him...I think certainly the fact that Karuna is no longer in the East would help in reducing
some of the tension.

Prof Wijesinghe is known for his almost daily reports on the SCOPP webiste using the space to mud sling on a wide variety of people - Prof. Uyangoda (for calling the secretariat a war secretariat - I am full in agreement with the Professor), Bradman Weerakoon, Rohan Edrisinha, Dr. Saravanamuttu, Sunila Abeyesekera and others who resigned from the advisory committee to the Ministry of Human Rights, the International Commission of Jurists etc etc, and of course the UNP and its leader.

There used to be a time when our public officials though controlled by politicians were careful in showing themselves as apolitical. Nowadays this is not the case. And Dayan an Rajiva are of course political appointees and people who were involved in politics. Rajiva was President of the Liberal Party and Dayan's political credentials are very diverse to elaborate, including his short stint as Minister of Fisheries in the Varadaharaja Perumal North East Provincial Government.

Post Script - 02 December 2007

Todays Sunday Island in its editorail commends Dayan's remarks:

Ambassador Dayan Jayatillake in Geneva competently handled criticism by various organization, including the local Free Media Movement, of the bombing of the Voice of Tigers radio station in Kilinochchi shortly before Prabhakaran’s annual birthday speech by pointing out that VoT was neither an independent media organization nor located in an independent country. It was a propaganda organ of an armed separatist organization designated as terrorist by many countries. The employment of civilians in that facility, if indeed there were any, was a choice made by the LTTE. The target was a legitimate one.

So the message is: "If the LTTE employs civilians then we cant help it. Its unfortunate. LTTE should be blamed. We are helpless"

To support or not to support Pakistan and our media

2007-11-24T18:00:00.000-08:00

The Sri Lankan media's reporting on the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister's 'blunder' in supporting the decision to support Pakistan makes an interesting study. Today's Sunday Times, in the political editor's column has the following to say:

Pakistan has been our steadfast supporter during our battle with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) for nearly twenty five years now. Through military dictators and democratic leaders, Pakistan has not wavered. Bogollagama has been at sea on these matters. He first issued a statement asking that Pakistan be given time to restore democracy in that country. Then, the CMAG (Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group) of which Sri Lanka is a member Bogollagama gave Sri Lanka's assent to suspend Pakistan. The Commonwealth 'whites' viz., Britain, Australia, Canada and the New Zealand Secretary General Don McKinnon had prevailed upon Bogollagama, or so it seemed. (http://www.sundaytimes.lk/071125/Columns/political.html)

I am not sure why Bogallagoma made a change in stance wheras he speaking at an adjournment motion in Parliament on November 14th had stated,

I have just returned from London where I attended the extraordinary meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) convened by the Commonwealth Secretary General on Monday to primarily decide on “Developments in Pakistan”. Foreign Ministers from Lesotho, Malaysia, Malta, Sri Lanka and the UK and representatives of Canada, Papua New Guinea, St. Lucia and Tanzania participated in the session. I must say that Sri Lanka was able to play a pivotal role in ensuring that no precipitous action was taken with regard to Pakistan. (http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/8262)

(The ST reports that CMAG decidednot to ban Pakistan)

Now coming to the issue that i seek to highlight: While our media hastens to condemn action against the suppression of the freedom of expression in this country (sometimes selectively as it does) should it not express solidarity with its Pakistani counterparts when they are being silenced and subjugated? Our media in general private or govt are no different on ceratin matters. They are highly 'nationalistic' at the core and dont take moral and value based positions on ceratin matters. I havent seen a single newspaper that has had the guts to say that democarcay is important for Pakistani people and that Sri Lanka should take a firm stand on this against Pakistan. As evidenced by the Sunday Times reference to the support that the govt gets support for our 'war on terror', that is the only defining line based on which we will take decisions in this country. If its bad for the LTTE its good for us. If its good for the LTTE then its bad for us.

P.S. The implication that 'whites' are the only ones who are bothered about democarcy in Pakistan and that our leaders do not have the guts to stand up to them is 'cheap reporting'. Again evoking national sentiments; the whites reference shows how we still are affected by the 'negative colonial hangover'.

The JHU and eviction of Tamils from Colombo

2007-06-09T09:48:00.000-07:00

One of the first things that i noted in JHU's proposals to the APRC was the following 'concern' of the party for which they have given prominence in the very first page of their proposals about the number of Tamils living in Colombo:

"Since 1983 Tamils have been migrating from the so called ‘Tamil homeland’ to regions where the Sinhala people form the vast majority. In fact, Tamil migration has significantly changed the demography in these areas. Today, Tamils constitute the majority community in the most important Divisional Secretariat Division in the country, namely, Colombo"

I am not suggesting that the JHU had a direct role in what happened on the 7th of June and earlier in Pettah. But i am wondering the sort of influence that the JHU has on the police establishment and the armed forces. Its not my attempt here to make an assessment about how much of a political impact and reach the party has. But my suspicion is that a good number of people within the top hierarchy of the police establishment while holding similar views that the JHU holds on the ethnic conflict and towards minorities in general, might have indirect contact with the party. The fact that a former DIG is a central committee member of the JHU is one indicator. (who is now an advisor to the ministry of defence as well). I was also shocked to find a photograph of a Senior DIG receiving an award at the recently held JHU National Convention on JHU's www.sinhala.net a couple of weeks back. God save this country!!

The fancy with the Indian 'Panchayat Raj' and our own 'Grama Raj'

2007-04-28T03:33:00.000-07:00

This is an excerpt of an assignment that i wrote on the topic "Should Local Government be recognized as a third tier of government?", as part of the evaluation process for my Bachelor of Laws Year II examinations. There is a lot more that can be said on the topic but as i had limited space and time to do my assignment i couldn't be as detailed as i would have loved to. But most of the basics i hope are covered in the excerpt. The topic becomes even more relevant as the SLFP proposals to the APRC due on the 1st of May are said to propose nothing else but the setting up of 'Grama Sabhas' and Districts Councils as its suggestions for a political settlement!! Footnote 1 and 3 provide additional information.

Fashioning the strengthening of local government as a solution to the ethnic conflict: A mockery of the minorities’ claim for devolution of powers

The setting up of an All Party Representatives Conference and the appointment of an Experts Panel to guide the APRC in formulating a constitutional proposal to find a political settlement to the ethnic conflict by President Mahinda Rajapaksha has yet again revived the discussion on the appropriate state structure to manage ethnic relations in the country. One of the interesting things that came out of this process was the fancy that some sections of the government including the President and a section of the Expert Panel took to the idea of the Panchayat Raj system in India as an appropriate model (subject to certain variations) to devolve powers to. In September 2006 the Union (central) Minister in charge of the subject of Panchayat Raj in India Mr. Mani Shankar Aiyar was invited to speak to the APRC and the experts panel. During this meeting the minister is said to have noted that “the Indian experiment on devolution of powers through Panchayat Raj model could be useful for Sri Lanka in dealing with its ethnic strife”[1]. On the invitation of the Indian Minister some of the Expert Panel members also undertook a study tour of India specifically looking at the workings of the Panchayat Raj system. President Rajapaksha also during his visit to India for the New Delhi Summit of the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation in March 2006 met with Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar at which the possibility of finding a solution to the ethnic conflict through the Panchayat Raj system was discussed.

Both the Expert Panel’s committee ‘A’ Interim report and the Committee ‘B’ Interim report[2] refer to the Panchayat Raj system. The Expert Committee ‘B’ in its report provides a lot of space to the subject of Local Government and Panchayat Raj. The substance of these reports relation to Local Government will be referred to in some detail in the next section but a comparison of attitudes is attempted with regards to both the reports handling of the question of devolution of powers and to illustrate how the genuine demand for devolution of powers can be sidelined, circumvented and be a made a mockery of in the name of strengthening local government.

A cursory assessment of committee ‘A’ report will indicate that the report makes fair inroads in identifying a viable mode for devolution of powers. Inter alia, the report suggests for the elimination of the concurrent list, strengthens the provincial list, providing for substantial powers for the second tier of government and suggests for innovative and progressive provisions in handling controversial subjects such as land and the question of merger of the North and East provinces. It also contains some salutary provisions for shared rule at the centre and deals progressively with the problems of the Muslim community and the Up Country Tamils. Hence there is nothing to ‘suspect’ when the Committee report states that they have no problems in introducing a system comparable to the Panchayat raj system or providing constitutional status to and enhancing powers of the Local Government. The committee report ‘B’ on the other hand is unambiguous in its drafter’s intention that they do not believe in devolution as a viable tool for conflict resolution. (In a section titled end notes which contain two sub-sections titled “relevant considerations” and “relevant principles” the drafters of the report place arguments as to why substantial devolution of powers would be unsuitable for Sri Lanka. While unashamedly denying that the minority communities have been denied their due share of state power, the report with regard to the unit of devolution states that “the case for establishing a mosaic of small units of devolution is persuasive and further states “a sub national tier of units of government coterminous with the present electoral districts has more comparative advantages than any other”. It recognizes provinces as the primary unit of devolution of power only for the reason that “it has been existence over most parts of the country for almost twenty years”. It appears that along with the concept of capital territories the call for strengthening of the local government, allocating a fourth list titled ‘local list’ and projecting local government as an ‘adequate protection for provincial minorities’ is primarily put forward to discredit any ‘decent’ devolution to the provinces[3]. (the issue of protection for provincial minorities in the report has been used as an excuse for central government domination within a weak scheme of devolution of powers). In fact a study of the powers recommended for the provincial councils in the ‘B’ report would reveal that it is less than what has been offered to the provinces under the 13^th amendment.

It should be noted that this is not the first time that local government structures have been fancied as appropriate units for ‘devolution’ (?) of power. The District Development Councils initiative of President J.R. Jayawardena in the early 1980s and the proposal of devolving the powers assigned to the provincial councils to the Pradeshiya Sabhas and the establishing of divisional secretariats during President Premadasa’s regime may be cited as examples. Kethesh Loganathan in an article that he wrote in 1992[4] crisply criticizes this approach with words couched in anger and frustration:

“The haste in which Divisional Secretariats are being established by the Presidential Secretariat and open declarations that the powers of the provincial councils shall be further devolved to the Pradeshiya Sabhas, is not only an act of deceit, but makes a mockery of devolution. As a matter of fact, the Government has ceased even thinking about devolution – the populist rhetoric now is “taking the Government to the people”. But we wish to emphasize that devolution as a solution to the Tamil question should not be confused with decentralization. What our people (ie the Ealam Tamils) seek is not the proximity of the Central Government through administrative decentralization, but provincial or regional autonomy that would ensure to them security, identity and social progress. Decentralization of administration is a matter that each provincial government will have to decide, depending on its need and compulsions.”

The central issues relating to the minorities in this country that Loganathan indicates - security, identity and social progress - especially security and law and order cannot be provided through a local government structure. Hence it will not be healthy to approach local governments as the base for devolution of powers for conflict management. Strengthening local governments is an act of decentralization and not of devolution of powers.

[1] Muralidhar Reddy. B, “Panchayat Raj useful to Sri Lanka: Aiyar”, The Hindu, International page, September 29 2006. Kuldip Nayar, a Senior Indian Journalist writing in the April 4^th edition of the Asian Age (a newspaper published in India) wrote as follows regarding Mani Shankar’s involvement with the APRC: “In fact, India’s Minister for Panchayati Raj, Mani Shankar Aiyar has been so voluminous in his praise for the Panchayat system that the Sri Lankan government seriously believes it has found an answer to its plans for the devolution of power. Most Lankan ministers I have talked to, including Opposition leaders, are sold to the Panchayat raj system which they say will evolve into a federal structure. This, in a way, indicates that Sri Lanka does not want to part with real power. But the much-vaunted provincial councils cannot even have any legislation passed. It is for Parliament to do so. Something as trivial as a culvert or an electricity pole is decided by the minister in charge because every such thing is announced to the humiliation of the provincial council members”.

[2] There was a split in the expert panel on the basis of ideology. The committee ‘A’ report consisted of 11 members of the panel who took a pro-devolution stand. Committee ‘B’ consisted of four of the panelists who took an anti-devolution stand. Two other members wrote separate reports.

[3] Comparative experiences in countries which have a strong centralized system of federalism narrate similar attempts by those in the Central Government to provide for more powers to the Local Government to under cut the provinces. In South Africa because of the historical hostility that the ruling African National Congress had towards Federalism they disliked the idea of devolving more powers to the provinces but instead were happy to delegate more powers to the Local Government institutions. Simeon and Murray see these developments as foreshadowing an "hourglass" system in which the national and local spheres become the dynamic elements, and the role of provincial governments is reduced, if not eliminated. See, Richard Simeon and Christina Murray, “Multiple Sphere Governance in South Africa: An interim assessment’, Publius, Vol.31, No.4 (Autumn 2001) p. 88. In India when the Rajiv Gandhi Government tried to bring in a constitutional amendment to vest more powers in the Panchayat systems it was widely seen as a move to under cut the states most of which were controlled by the oppositions parties. The attempt failed and the effort to constitutionalise the panchayat system materialized three years later in the Narasimha Rao administration. For a detailed discussion see, Krishna K. Tummala, ‘India’s Federalism under stress’, Asian Survey, Vol.32, No. 6, (June 1992) pp. 550, 551. The Indian experience with Panchayat raj generally speaks of state government's reluctance to give panchayats more power as they themselves have very few powers within the quasi- federal system which they do not want to 'lose' to the panchayats.

[4] Kethesh Loganathan in ‘Provincial Councils and Local Government: Their role in Strengthening Liberal Democracy’ ed by Rohan Edrisinha, The Council for Liberal Democracy (1992)

Paul Brass at ICES on Collective Violence & the Role of Civil Society: Some Notes, Thoughts & Questions

2007-03-20T22:30:00.000-07:00

I was at the ICES on Monday (19th March) evening for a lecture by Prof. Paul. R. Brass on ‘Forms of Collective Violence’. I was at an ICES event almost after a year. (I think the last time I was there when they screened “Hotel Rwanda’).

My interest in Paul Brass was stimulated when I came across his book “Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison” when I was doing some research on pluralism. I have maintained an interest in Indian Politics for a very long time and I was naturally attracted to Brass’s work, Brass having spent almost 40 years of research work in India, specifically in Northern and Western India. (My colleagues at the Faculty of Law find American Politics more interesting and sometimes exhibit more involvement in it than local politics in Sri Lanka. To me this is a fall out of the Americanisation of the Global Communications world. At the same time I am also aware that their shift in interest towards American politics is largely because of their frustration with local politics). My interest in Indian politics is because of the fact that I had spent a fair amount of my very early years in Southern Tamil Nadu, the fact that I am a Tamil and because I admire the complex working of the Indian democratic set up with its vastness in population, area and diversity.)

To get back to the lecture, Paul Brass talked about his new book, “Forms of Violence: Riots, Pogroms and Genocide in Modern India” and set out to provide a summary of the arguments in his book. I make note in this post some aspects of his talk that attracted my attention.

The metaphor of a play and collective violence
Brass identifies him with the Instrumentalist school of understanding ethnography and hence rejects primordialism. He said that he does not believe in riots and other forms of violence as spontaneous and passionate responses emanating from people but as orchestrated by ‘institutionalised riot systems’ where violence is instigated, promoted and planned. He stressed on the organizational aspect of communal violence in India. While acknowledging humbly that his arguments would mean nothing new to the ordinary man he set out to use the metaphor of a play when talking about his work on the forms of violence such as riots, pogroms, massacres and violence. He identifies three phases in an organized working system of a riot:

1. The rehearsal phase: This Brass argues, goes on all the time and identifies this as the ‘quite period’, the ‘peaceful period’ or ‘the flat stable part of a graph in a statistician’s worksheet’ where one is unaware that the ‘work is going on all the time’.
2. The activation and enactment phase: This takes place when the time is ripe and has the necessary political context.
3. The Explanation and the interpretation phase: Most of the time Brass noted the explanations that are provided during this phase are false.

He identified the different ‘specialist’ roles played by different people in the different phases of this play. In the rehearsal stage the role of whom he calls ‘fire tenders’ to keep the cultural differences ripe, is key. The politicians are the key actors in all stages of the play but different types of politicians assume importance during the different stages of the play. He also said that the blame is usually cast on hooligans and criminals but said that equally and more importantly people like university professors take part and are equally to blame as well. Also is the role of whom he called ‘locators for sites for the riots to be staged’.

In the activation and enactment stage again politicians, speech makers, college students, lawyers (to release and defend perpetrators), senior politicians (to provide political cover to the perpetrators) are important. He identified in specific with a lot of importance the role of whom he called ‘communication specialists’ (poster plasters, vernacular media etc) at this stage. (Our local ‘communication specialists’ would be the NMAT and the PNM likes). In India the role of the partial, prejudiced anti-Muslim police force also is an important player at this stage. The ‘conversion specialists’, who for example convert processions and demonstrations into stages for violence, are also crucial to the success of this stage of activity.

At the explanation stage things like the commissions of inquiries sprout. (I couldn’t help identifying the recent commission of inquiry that has been set up by the GOSL with this explanation stage though this one doesn’t technically follow a riot). Social scientists are important for what he called the ‘blame displacement’ game.

Brass noted that he hasn’t done any significant work on civil war. But the relevance of his research in Sri Lanka is perhaps is in developing an understanding to the 58, 77 and especially the 83 riots.

Paul Brass’s approach to social analysis was refreshing and his arguments persuasive. There was perhaps nothing in his presentation that was ‘surprisingly’ and ‘astonishingly’ new, but gave a good conceptual framework from which one could think about the problem of collective violence. The arrogance that he displayed when commenting about people whom he disagreed with, amused me. He said that ‘wise’ people always critiqued him about not ‘defining’ terms such as riots and pogroms. He was against defining and labeling and said that this was not natural science for you to name and define objects and substance, but an area of study where you deal with people who constantly think and change. He noted that one man’s riot is one man’s pogrom and perhaps to another a massacre.

Critique of civil society and the ‘civic engagement theory’
What was very interesting was Brass’s highly critical counter to the ‘civic engagement theory’ floated by people like Prof. Varshney. Though he mentioned this in passing without referring to Varshney during his presentation, during the question time he was asked to elaborate.

He had some very valid points which make a contribution to the debate on the question as to how much civil society work can help in preventing and managing conflicts. He made it explicit that he hates the term ‘civil society’ (so does he hate the word ‘democracy’!!). He was of the opinion that theories like civic engagement might be relevant for countries like the US where big bar associations, big interest groups have some consistent and continued influence on the political system. In countries like India there are big associations that do involve the Hindus and Muslims where exchanging greetings between Id and Diwali is made possible. These are not enough to prevent conflict and all the good work that you do can be all undone in a minute or two by politics accompanied by power. These ties and relationships are broken when political movements arise with ferocity, he explained. He criticized the work of Varshney as having no reliable evidence through ethnographical research or democracy.

Brass also mentioned in passing, things that I had read about on India, about how the hierarchy in the political system in India dominated at the top by the high castes is being replaced with by people from the middle castes. He attributed the reasoning to neo liberalism as practiced in India for the past 10-15 years in which the higher castes are increasingly seeking positions in the new power systems dominated by Global Corporations moving away from the traditional spaces of power. He also noted as to how the Communist party led Governments in West Bengal and Kerala have been largely successful in keeping away religious riots from their states. But he was careful and repeated himself when he tried to clarify that he was not a Communist!! But one also needs to keep in mind, reminded by the developments in West Bengal in the past week or so, where local villagers in Nadigram are resisting the (West Bengal) Government’s plan to take away their lands under the guise of the ‘Special Economic Zones for development’ plan and the subsequent violent clashes between the ‘Communist’ Govt and the villagers. I feel that ‘economic riots’ will see the rise in India (with the upsurge in neo-liberal policies) already being manifested through the growing Naxalite movement in the country. Though this was lightly touched upon it would have been interesting to know more of Brass’s response to this development.

‘Grey’ gatherings; where are the young?
I will end this rather lengthy post with this note that I was concerned to see the amount of grey on most of the participants’ hair and wondered where the young intellects in the country are? I also wonder why people like Brass can’t be invited to speak to our students at our universities. In my faculty we hardly have guest lectures. We hear in the newspapers through the hyperactive work of our NGOs the visit of many reputed scholars to the country. Why can’t they be brought into contact with the intellectuals, decision and policy makers of our future? If such academic activities are not possible in our universities how better are they than our secondary schools? At the same time are our youth really interested in these sorts of activities? I have heard very brilliant colleagues of mine expressing with disgust how fed up they are with these type of activities because of the frustration they have with the local civil society groups’ very limited capacity to impact on our political process, culture and system. The question they ask is: “What do you want us to do by getting involved in these activities? Write papers and get invited for conferences?!!” We are definitely in a rather complex vicious circle.

www.paulbrass.com Some of his work is available on this website of his.

GOSL 'Sympathisers' and their response to attributions of Human Rights Violations on the GOSL

2007-03-17T00:09:00.000-07:00

This post is in response to the debate on Groundviews based on a post by Indi. (http://www.groundviews.org/2007/03/13/significant-other/#more-311) Indi’s post is in response to an article by Bandula Jayasekera’s in the Daily News titled "Go Tell the LTTE" (http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/03/12/news05.asp)

The "Govt sympathizers'" response to allegations of human rights violations is to attack the identity of the persons and say that you are no better. So when the US or the UK Governments talk about the deteriorating human rights standards in the country the Govt sympathizers' response is: "You are no better. You have no right to talk. Look at what you are doing in Iraq". The objective is the elevation sought to be morally superior to these countries. This is their way of responding to HR allegations. To me this type of argument is very much the same as "if you can do it, we also can do it". Tacitly they are agreeing that we are no better than the UK or the US as with regards to these countries handling of the human rights situation in Iraq. They would even say “Your war on terror has some unfortunate consequences. Our war on terror also has some unfortunate consequences”. But I do agree that countries like the US and the UK have long lost their credibility to talk about other countries’ human rights records.

The response that the GOSL sympathizers provide to the civil society groups is by linking them to the LTTE. (Again, as I see it, seeking to elevate them to this ‘morally superior level’). The new terminology 'Sinhala Kottiya' is devastating. “All those criticizing the GOSL of human rights violations are against the war and hence supporters of the LTTE” – This is the Governments and their sympathizers’ very simple logic.

Similarly, “You don’t criticize the LTTE enough and hence you must be an LTTE sympathizer”. Without answering appropriately allegations of HR violations that are being attributed to them, the GOSL and its sympathizers by engaging in this mud slinging, inadvertently are saying that the Govt is no better than the LTTE when it comes to human rights violations. These arguments appear to me that these people are willing to give ‘parity of status’ to the LTTE with the GOSL when it comes to human rights violations!!

The “Go to Killinochchi” and “Tell Killinochchi” argument does have some substance in it. It poses the difficult question of how civil society groups can independently work within an environment where non state armed actors prevail.

That we have the best combination in the form of the President, Gottabayah and the Army commander is a comment that infuriates me. Best combination for whom? For those who have been 'liberated' from Vaharai? For those who have been displaced? For those who have been abducted and disappeared? Bandula dismisses the problem of abductions as a negligible problem that shouldn’t attract our attention given the exuberant patriotism that is manifested in this trio. How low will the state media bend to please people whom they consider their 'bosses'? (Bandula Jayasekera is by the way the Editor of Daily News)

Battle to 'clear' the East

2007-02-09T02:23:00.000-08:00

The official position is that the Sri Lankan Government is still committed to the MoU (ceasefire agreement). But the Government seems to have no problems in undertaking 'clearing activities' such as in Vaharai despite the ceasefire being in place. Why this hypocrisy? Tearing up the Ceasefire MoU will not be easy like tearing up the MoU with the UNP I suppose. Having a ceasefire agreement 'officially' in place and uttering the verbal mantra now and then that 'the Government is committed to a peaceful solution to the ethnic conflict'; that 'the Government renews its call for peace talks' is enough to appease the donor and international community. Plus if you say that the war that you are waging is 'a war against terrorism' then countries like the USA and its ambassador cannot say anything much after that. This is what happened in the Galle development Forum.

I do not here any more about the SLMM in the news. About their opinion on whether a particular incident has violated the MoU or not and the rest! The best that Norway can do i suppose at this moment, to save its reputation (if there's anything left of it), is to pull out from the 'Peace' process and to pull out the SLMM as well. Any logical person/entity would do that. Without doing this the SLMM has forced itself to listen to the hate speech from the Government and its peace secretariat that it is not properly doing its job, that it is not working in the North East and so on. I'm sure the LTTE is also blowing hot and cold on the SLMM.

The East is being 'cleared' and people are being 'liberated' from the hands of terrorists using a former terrorist - 'Karuna', now a 'democrat' of reputation who has joined 'mainstream democracy' with a political office even in the capital city. There was no pre-condition that he had to 'lay down arms' before joining mainstream democracy. The Government has taken it as practice to defend Karuna where and when possible as was seen in its response to the Rock report and the Human Rights Watch report. If my memory serves me right i remember seeing a posting of the Karuna group's press release denying involvement in child conscription on the Government peace secretariat website sometime recently.

The concern about politics in the East has traditionally been with regard to accommodating Muslim and Sinhala Minorities living in this province, especially the fear of excessive Tamil domination in the case of a merged North and East province. But now nobody seems to be bothered about this. The talk is about giving Karuna control in the East to neutralise Prabah in the North. The fate of the Muslims and Sinhalese is not much talked about. (Afterall the Muslim MPs are busy organising hartals in Amparai complaining that they have not been offered a ministerial post*). Such are the dictates of so called 'military reality' on the politics of this country. I have painfully in the recent past read articles written by Dayan Jayatilleke suggesting that its time that Karuna be fully be used to confront Prabah and that the conflict in the country be shifted to be one between the Eastren Tamils and the Northern Tamils so as to take way the focus on the conflict between the Sinhala and Tamil communities.

Let the 'liberation' and 'clearing' continue!!

*(My referrence is to MP Nijamudheen. Following the hartal H.E. has promised him a ministerial portfolio as well. One more Nation Building Ministry it can be. That will make it 5!)

North East de-merger petitioners support the ‘de-merger’ of the Tamil nation from the Sri Lankan state?

2006-11-01T21:00:00.000-08:00

I am one among many Tamils if not all Tamils who have been angered by the judgment in the de-merger case. It is my opinion as a law student that the judgment is flawed in many respects and as a Sri Lankan Tamil consider it to be the last nail in the coffin with regards to the minorities’ confidence in the impartiality and neutrality of our judicial system especially the Supreme Court 's capability to deal with politically sensitive issues relating to the conflict.

Here on this post I would like to comment on just one argument that was brought forward by the distinguished lawyers HL De Silva and Gomin Dayasri in their submissions to the court.

The lawyers in their petition submitted that ‘the merger (of the North and East) would result in the Muslim and Sinhala communities in the Eastern Province being permanently subjugated to a minority, which situation would be exacerbated by the process of ethnic cleansing carried out by the Tamil militants’.

If this was the reason for the need for the de-merger it may also be argued with the same logical reference that, given that the Tamils constitute a nation of their own and that they are minority in the Sri Lankan state and using the same dicta used by the petitioners, they have been ‘permanently subjugated to a minority’ within the Sri Lankan state, the Tamil nation should be de-merged from the Sri Lankan state. The petitioners who are contended in using the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ to the injustice meted out to the Muslims in the Eastern province I urge should be willing to accept that the Tamils were also subject to ethnic cleansing by the Sri Lankan armed forces in the past and one is tempted to ask whether the same argument can be used to argue for a ‘de-merger’ of the Tamil Nation from the Sri Lankan state? Hence to follow the same argument of the JVP lawyers in the case would lead us to justify a separate state for the Sri Lankan Tamils.

My contention is that the argument for a united Sri Lanka stems from emotional political reasoning from the majority community. Those who emphasise the need to stick to a united country should also remember that the argument for a traditional homeland from the Tamil people is one that stems from a history of marginalization through ethnic colonization in areas that Tamil people historically habitate. All Tamil parties in 1985 enunciated this principle without any reservations in a univocal voice at the Thimpu talks. This politically sensitive issue dear to the political aspirations of the Tamil people has been unilaterally set aside by the Supreme Court in this case.

I still believe that humans are inherently good and hence that coexistence and cohabitation of the different communities is possible. The judgment adds one more episode in contemporary history which continues to negate this belief that I hold.

2006-10-11T04:58:00.000-07:00

A Politicised Human Rights Commission ?

Today's Daily News (11 October 2006) has an article on a report by the Human Rights Commission on the Sencholai attack by the SLAF. (the full text of the article follows this post).

According to the article the report has found that 'Sencholai' was actually a military training base and that all inmates of the centre were LTTE child brigade members being trained. The last sentence of the Daily News article is also interesting - reporting that SLMM has indicated that its findings may not be the same as the HRC's findings. It is not my intention to argue that Sencholai was not a military training base. I am also strongly opposed to the recruitment of child soldiers by the LTTE. What I am concerned of is whether the present Human Rights Commission is an apolitical body that can do justice to its purpose of existence. If the report contains nothing else but only the 'finding' that Sencholai was a military base and if it does not even condemn the killings for the fact that those killed were children, then one is forced to question the objectivity of HRC. (this judgment of mine is anyway based on what the Daily News has chosen to report on). Given that the issue is highly politicised I do not know whether it is the HRC which should be mandated to investigate the matter in terms of identification of the place of attack - ‘Sencholai’.

By way of comparision to the earlier Human Rights Commission headed by Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy i would claim that under Dr. Coomaraswamy HRC was largely apolitical and was able to keep political influence out of the workings of the commission.

The President appointed the Human Rights Commission surpassing the Constitutional Council. All those who claimed and supported the argument that the appointments by the President were done in good spirit so that important public bodies do not become defunct and that was in exercise based on a positivist understanding of law, should now answer the question as to whether this was the actual motive behind these extra constitutional appointments. (There are many other arguments as to why this was not that actual objective that MR entertained when he made these appointments)

The main objective of establishing the Constitutional Council was to depoliticise some of the important public institutions and also through that to increase the confidence of the minorities in their functioning.

For all those who are in favour of a constitutional reforms based political solution to the ethnic conflict this comes as a terrible blow. You might have constitutional safeguards but they nevertheless may be violated and our judiciary will stand to witness it silently. The predicament of the country is such!!

The Daily News Article as found at http://www.dailynews.lk/.
LTTE exploiting education system to recruit children - HRC
Manjula Fernando
COLOMBO: Following an in-depth inquiry, the Human Rights Commission (HRC) in their report has ruled that the Sencholai Camp was in fact an LTTE recruitment station and the 500 children and young adults had been receiving motivation training on the day of aerial attacks.
Based on their findings the HRC calls for a zero tolerance approach to child recruitment while setting demobilisation of child combatants as a pre-condition in the peace process.
The HRC report pointed out that their evidence proves the State supported education system is exploited by the LTTE for child recruitment and combatant training as it provides a ready made 'pool' of vulnerable children.
Children and young adults in their teens had been forced to attend the camp by the LTTE, threatening deprivation of certain 'training cards' which permit them to move freely to attend tuition classes.
The report maintained that the participants had also received basic weapons training.
Based on evidence of education authorities, First Aid Training organisations present in the area and the statements of the three injured girls from the camp, the HRC's regional office has come to this conclusion.
In response to the HRC's inquiries the St.John Ambulance Association has related that they were unaware of any first aid training on the particular dates at the site, contrary to the LTTE claims.
The regional education authorities and the Examinations Commissioner has confirmed that such a large gathering would not have been permitted by them for Advanced Level students who are required to fulfil 80 per cent attendance to sit for exam.
Meanwhile, SLMM spokesman Thorffinur Omarsson said their report on the Sencholai camp, which is to be released 'very soon', will not be on the same line as the HRC findings.

2006-09-13T07:29:00.000-07:00

An Attempt to guess the LTTE’s new strategy for peace..

Why has the LTTE called for unconditional peace talks so suddenly whereas they were demanding that the Govt should withdraw its forces from Sampur for any peace talks, just a week back? It is not a difficult theory to understand that it is not easy for a rebel movement waging war against a state to call for peace talks when it is in a weak position.

To me it seems to be part of a larger plan to weaken the international community’s confidence on the Government as a genuine party to the peace process. The govt is confused and is struggling to respond to this unexpected call for peace talks. At a moment where the President has left the country to attend two important international meetings and with the Co-Chairs meeting around the corner it perhaps is/was the most appropriate time for the LTTE to call for the Govt to peace talks. The Govt seems to be in a militarily stronger position and it is difficult obviously for any warring party which has just tasted victory to say immediately ‘yes’ to peace talks. That’s why Rambukkuwela has responded strongly that there will be conditions on the govts part. The govts confusion is made evident in the recent press release that the peace secretariat put out on the matter saying that they are ready for peace but will have to negotiate the modalities and logistics of the peace talks. This is victory for the LTTE, as the international community is likely to ‘understand’ this as the govt’s unpreparedness for a negotiated settlement to the conflict. It is also positive propaganda for the LTTE which is largely portrayed as the party not interested in the peace talks. A very clever way to bring international pressure on the Government indeed.

2006-09-06T03:16:00.000-07:00

On 'Check Point'

(Reproduction of a comment that i made at at http://stagestheatregroup.wordpress.com/2006/09/05/comments/)

A good concept forum theatre is… Have been part of one and have also discussed with a few in the field about the uses of this form of theatre. I do not claim to know the in and out of the theatre and must concede that I have very minimal exposure. But one question that bothers me after seeing ‘checkpoint’ yesterday was about taking and discussing issues to an ‘appropriate’ audience. The question always remains about what an appropriate audience is. But I was disheartened to see many members of the audience being insensitive to issues, issues which are for most of our people of direct relevance to their existence. I was frustrated by the insensitive applauses and laughter that erupted from some quarters of the audience when some very sensitive issues were portrayed and depicted. The type of audience ‘Check point’ was able to attract were not possibly a group who are very much affected by these issues or probably to better word it people who do not care much even if affected. Though the issue was a general one, there hovers a question as to whether forum theatres can be for people who are not necessarily the people who are involved in the issue in some way or the other? Is it not that forum theatres are for particular ‘target groups’? I acknowledge that forum theatres are at the same time (though I felt that Adam did not adequately stress this) for people not to find resolutions but to provoke thinking and to leave at a heightened state of emotion so that they would be provoked to take action.. Was this achieved?

The forum theatre was also a good opportunity to adequately understand the different mood and temperament of our society and may be that was the objective of the forum theatre and its organisers. I thought the audience was a good sample of the larger Colombo elite and of course our expats. (All people who spoke during the forum theatre except for a few had accents!!)And it is this elite society which is active in our social, political and communication sphere not to mention that they are the cream of our so called ‘civil society’. (I also need to do justice to all those who remained silent ..May be they did the right thing.. may be they didn’t want to get ‘identified’.. I don’t know why i was silent .. May be some of us didn’t because it wasn’t worthy of us contributing

I wish to echo what someone else has already said. To take the theatre out of Colombo in the vernacular languages. I liked it where the organisers had somewhere mentioned that they are exploring opportunities to work with the vernacular theatres.
I liked Gehan de Chickera’s acting .. a beautiful mono acting performance.. Hats off to Gehan.. 24 hours.. hmmm. Nothing newly learnt through both of them but was able to witness an artistic expression of what I have been personally reflecting on. In that sense I really appreciate the performances. Must also mention that Dylan’s acting was marvellous.. He definitely did realistically portray an average Colombo based Tamil. Niran’s wit was excellent as well. The character that he played and some of the comments he made are ones that I have heard from him and do a lot of justice to who as a person he is.
Overall it was a thought provoking evening and I salute the organisers for the effort, time and intellect that they had put in for the purpose.

2006-08-26T06:08:00.000-07:00

Prepare to pay for five more ministers!!

Two more ministries to the ever swelling number of ministries of the Sri Lankan Government. Arumugam Thondaman and Chandrasekeran and three of their followers have been given ministerial and deputy ministerial portfolios. It is very difficult to digest the public face the President wishes to portray by showing off that he is against unnecessary governmental expenditure (for example the restriction the president has placed on the number of foreign travels that a Govt minister can undertake) but the same smiling face giving oaths to at least two new ministers every month. All his hoo hah is negated when it comes to satisfying political parties who accept the offer to join the govt for strengthening the numerical strength of the Govt. He is no different to his predecessors in this and many other regards. There are number of negative repercussions of this approach that one can point out, other than the cost factor. I make mention of two of them here. One is the argument that the excessive number of ministers and deputy ministers would mean that a significant portion of the legislature is drawn within the executive system and that this affects the separation and balance of powers between the legislature and the executive. The already eroded status of the legislature in the 1978 constitutional system is further degraded. I will not elaborate on this here.

The second effect that I want to deal with more detail here is about how multiple ministries dealing with one subject of governance can undermine the effectiveness of policy formulation, programming and implementation. This is something that I have experienced first hand through my involvement with the National Task Force on Youth Employment as a member of the task force, representing youth interests. At these meetings I have seen how more than half a dozen number of ministries to do with Youth Employment make the task of cohesive policy formulation difficult. At one such meeting of this taskforce the secretary of a ministry proposed the need for taking entrepreneurship to the school curriculum. In response the ILO Director present there responded that such a proposal had already been given effect to and that ILO had supported a proposal of another ministry in this regard and trained the National Institute of Education staff on the same matter. The subject is being included as part of the revision to be effected to the National school curriculum next year. Such is the level of confusion and resulting duplication of work within our government ministries. A great deal of time and money is being spent and has to be spent on brain storming and working a coordinating mechanism between these ministries. What also is affected is uniformity in policy making and working on a common agenda on important issues such as youth employment.

The Ministries that have been given to Mr. Arumugam Thondaman has been titled Youth Empowerment and Socio-Economic Development. Chandrasekeran’s Ministry is the Socio-Development and Development of Socio-Equality. One wonders what these mean. What difference in work is there going to be between the Youth Affairs ministry and the Youth Empowerment Ministry. The youth affairs and sports ministry is more of a sports ministry than a youth affairs ministry and does very little on the youth affairs subject area. They have been working on a National Youth Policy for the past several years. What is this new ministry going to do then? One just feels that they just come up with random names when they induct new ministers. This is a country which has multiple ministries for railways with a separate ministry even for rail track development!! When will our political leaders take bold decisions for the sake of this country?

2006-08-01T07:05:00.000-07:00

On the All Party Conference and Panel of Experts appointed by the President

What this Panel of Experts will manage to produce, which would less likely to be endorsed by an ‘all’ party conference, will merely add to the existing 1997 and 2000 proposals: of value only to legal academics and political historians. Have the panel of experts been mandated to work on a policy document or on a new draft constitution? Will they be able to surpass and go beyond what has been stated in the Mahinda Chinthana, given that their mandate has been solemnized under the latter? Much will depend on the integrity and independence of the members of this panel. One also wonders whether this effort is initiated under the ‘Southern Consensus’ process? If so is it the Southern parties’ views that will be given prominence in the process? Can a government representing the state ever seek to produce a document that will be reflective of only one side of the divide? According to Minister Rambukkuella there is no time line for the panel of experts to finish their work. Again one is naturally inclined to ask the question what the strategy or the road map that the government has for the peace process?

One note about the debate on the label – federal or unitary? The argument to retain the unitary label is based on the theory that the majority community is afraid that any solution other than one based on a unitary Sri Lanka will lead to the division of the country. But we have heard the Mahinda camp say that the government is prepared for maximum devolution within a unitary form of government. Is this the people’s understanding of ‘unitary’, based on which Mahinda was voted into power? What is this maximum devolution? Can it go beyond what has been given through the 13th amendment within a unitary form of govt? The Hela Urumayas even cited the Banda Ache agreement as a successful example where power was shared within a unitary model of government. One constitutional expert actually said that if the Hela Urumayas had actually taken the time to read through the agreement then they would have found that the power sharing was extensive enough to compare it with a federal model of government or even more! I recollect CBK claiming that 70% of the country is prepared for a federal solution! Just that Mahinda won the elections on a ‘unitary position’ we are now told that the people are for a solution based on a unitary system. This leads us to certain fundamental questions about our democratic systems. What is the value that our politicians give to public opinions? Who makes these decisions on what the public opinion is on the question or for the matter on any question? How much does the common man give thought to questions of this nature? And how informed is he to make well informed decisions? Do we allow politicians who are victorious at elections to decide on what the public opinion on a matter is? Any average Sri Lankan will tell us that we cannot leave it to our democratic process to produce the ‘ideal’ leader. We have well witnessed after the 1970and 1977 elections. With a sweeping majority the parties in power interpreted the ‘mandate’ from the people to suit their own whims and fancies. What Neelan Thiruchelvan termed, using constitution making for ‘instrumental’ purposes. All these questions might sound like undergraduate political science exam questions but for me they are very valid ones to our discourse. This is the exact problem that we face in our democracies. Self-declared political pragmatists might suggest that this is a deficiency that comes with democracy and we cannot really do anything about it.

The only check and balances that can apply here is strong people based civil society based initiatives which will keep the people informed and the politicians on their toes. But the usual lamenting has to be recorded here one more time: How effective and people-based is our civil society to play this role?

2005-10-22T00:59:00.000-07:00

More on the Trincomalee visit
The Transitional Shelter Phase of Tsunami Reconstruction
The transitional shelter phase of tsunami reconstruction is almost over, but not without issues. Poor site selection is hampering efforts to upgrade water and sanitation facilities that are presently underway in the transitional shelters. According to an INGO representative in Trincomalee it is feared that the transitional shelters will be flooded during the monsoon season again as a result of poor site selection. She further said that nobody has taken into account the need for a proper drainage system in the transitional shelters. Furthermore she lamented that when it comes to sanitation related facilities for the people, it is generally limited to an understanding that it only involves building toilets.

Water container vehicles are providing water to the families living in the transitional shelters, funded by various NGOs. But most of them work under a very strict financial time restriction and one wonders as to whether these NGOs will continue providing this service, say in one years time. If this is going to be the same manner in which water is going to be supplied to the permanent housing schemes one can assess the quality of thought and planning that is being given to these vital issues affecting the Tsunami hit people.

Permanent housing phase
Finding lands for permanent housing has been a problem in many of the Tsunami hit districts, where there are not enough state lands to provide to the people. Even where lands are being found there has been complaint of proper consultation with the people not being done resulting in poor site selection. The Urban Development authority (UDA) functioning from Colombo has no local knowledge of the situation in the districts and makes arbitrary decisions with regard to all these issues. The GAs in the district have a better understanding of the situation, but mostly they are voiceless in the dominating presence of the UDA backed by the Government in Colombo.

During the early days of the Post-tsunami period the government and the UDA did a lot of ‘fancy’ planning, producing colourful handbooks and power point presentations at conferences and seminars. But no proper assessment was done before these plans were formulated and one wonders where these plans are lying now. According to people involved in Tsunami reconstruction efforts there is very little planning that has gone into as to how the Government should respond to these issues.

Tsunami Politics
In Trincomalee a Task Force on Tsunami Reconstruction was set up soon after the Tsunami, the same way it happened in all the tsunami affected districts. But the taskforce was shifted to Colombo soon after the first (or the first couple of meetings). The Secretary of the SLFP (Mr. Maithripla Srisena) was appointed Chairman of this task force. The task force was obviously, because of its lack of presence in the district, very slow in responding to the Post-Tsunami issues which needed immediate attention and needless to say it cut-off or made any kind of consultation that the Govt had with the people worthless. Even for the civil society groups or NGOs to get permission to work with the tsunami affected people they had to go to Colombo to get permission. Some of the local Community Based Organisations (CBOs) found this entirely impossible to comply with because of the bureaucracy that was involved in getting the permission.

One local NGO that we met in Tricomalee said that they had problems with the SL Army in transporting construction materials to LTTE controlled - Tsunami affected areas. The Army did not directly ban them from taking the materials but made it difficult for them and prolonged the process of taking it to the affected areas. The general procedure is that the GA when giving permission for these NGO’s to carry out relief work in LTTE controlled areas gives them a letter which is copied to six people including the NGO and the Brigadier of the Army in charge of that area. When this particular NGO took this letter that was copied to them to the army check point along with the construction materials they were turned back for not bringing the original copy of the letter. It took that NGO two more weeks to sort this issue and get the materials across for work to start in those LTTE controlled areas.

2005-10-22T00:54:00.000-07:00

Press release on the Peace Walk, held on 22 October 2005 organized by Voice for Peace (A Youth led National Peace Movement) and the Interact Club of St. Thomas College, Mt.Lavinia.

Voice for Peace

The dilemma of nation building has been something that we have been struggling with, since independence.

Efforts to resolve the ethnic conflict in this country have failed time and again mainly because of lack of political commitment and because of a non-concentrated civil society effort with poor people’s participation in the peace processes that this country has experimented with.

The youth have been both used as fodder for the war and have suffered immensely from the consequences of the war, many of us loosing our childhood, youth life and education in the process.

Today we organize this walk asking for an end to the war and requesting all stakeholders to initiate a more concentrated effort towards resolving the ethnic conflict through an inclusive, pluralistic peace process.

Politics of convergence on the national issue, across the wide spectrum of our polity is vital in achieving lasting peace.

Hence, we send out a message on behalf of the youth in this country to the presidential candidates, to engage in a constructive national debate on how to resolve the ethnic conflict and to unite in vision and commitment to find an answer to the national question.

To the civil society in this country we request for a more focused and coordinated effort in involving the people in the process, in achieving durable peace.
As youth we are committed in working for peace. We believe in working for peace rather than just hoping for peace.

2005-10-11T04:18:00.000-07:00

OUR FUTURE LAWYERS
I was pulled by one of my friends into a batch meeting at the Faculty (Law faculty, University of Colombo) today after classes. I was reluctant in attending primarily because of my non-familiarity with the language of the meeting and secondly because of my disinterest in the topic of the meeting - Elections to the Student Union Council. What brought to me into the meeting was my friend's insistence and secondly my inquisitiveness.

As i walked into the meeting the first thing that stuck me was that the meeting was closed to girls. First years are offered three positions in the council. and here we are to decide who should file nominations to represent us in the council without the girls who formed 70% of the student population. Talk about gender represenataion...and these people are going to be the future generation of lawyers....some of them also might get into politics... I was shattered. When i asked one of the organisers for the reason i was told that this is how the seniors did it and that we are merely following their footsteps..Nothing but herd instinct...

Another aspect that i noted was that none of the Tamil medium students were in attanedance at the meeting. When i raised this with one of the organisers he didnt provide me with a proper response.. he seemed to mumble something to the effect that...' we have only three positions...we dont have enough fo the tamil medium students' I was rudely taken back.
When i asked one of my friends he told me that they will be coming a bit late. They never turned up. At the meeting, though i couldnt follow the proceedings properly, i managed to understand that they were talking about unity, despite the medium divides that we have.This opinion would have been appreciated if it had come from a meeting where all the medium students had been present. ...

I am not a pessimist but if my colleagues happen to represent in general the attitude that our generation has towards issues of representation...the future does not offer much for us. The silence into which we are deeply embossed should be broken!!! If not the destruction of the essence of our societal existence will continue to take place.

2005-10-06T23:10:00.000-07:00

The name of my Blog - 'Aachcharya', is the Sanskrit translation of the word 'Guru', which forms part of my name. The URL Title of my blog- 'Guruchethra' is the name of the famous battlefield in the Hindu epic 'Mahabharatha'

2005-10-06T22:19:00.000-07:00

Trincomalee visit - Religion, Politics, Issue of Religious Conversion etc.
I was in Trincomalee recently on a field research mission as part of a civil society group research team. I was able to witness heavy military presence in the city, with security personnel deployed almost at every junction in the city. The presence is much stronger than what it was in 2004 when I was at Trincomalee the last time. This signifies, perhaps the political developments in the district, which nevertheless has been a high conflict density zone, through out the history of the ethnic conflict.
The Buddha statue and the surrounding barbed wire has taken a lot of space of the Bus stand and one wonders with the heavily barbed wire around the place whether one can actually enter the premises and even atleast offer flowers to Lord Buddha. It is a sorry state of affairs in this country that religion has been pulled in to the whim of political arrogance that our politicians are famous for. The same can be said of how the Anti-conversion Bill is being dealt with. Whilst agreeing to the fact that there are certain religious groups in this country that take advantage of the economic status of people to convert them to their religions (only God knows why they do this.. And I wonder whether any religion actually thinks that by increasing the number of followers in their religion, the objectives of the religion being practiced can be met!!!). But these are matters that society should deal with and should not be pulled into politics thus violating the individual autonomous space of decision making that any person has entitlement to. As President Kumaratunge once noted (one of her sensible comments, I must say!) if Buddhism and Hinduism are to prosper the people who profess the religion should take the religious to the laymen and assist them in their social and economic development. I cannot but agree with her on this.