A Preface To Peace In Sri Lanka:
Tamil Self-Rule? Part IIBy BJ Alexander
27 February, 2007
Countercurrents.org
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" George Orwell
There are always two sides to a story they say. Perhaps there is more than two sides. In a conflict truth is always the first casualty and prior to that innocence is killed. People often have their own axes to grind. And it is inevitably the poor and the vulnerable who bore the brunt of the pain and suffering as a consequence of war. Since the independence of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) in 1948 one must be mindful of the fact that the State has been institutionally racist and biased. Tamil homelands have been secretly colonized and the politico-Buddhism has vehemently played its overt part to be professed as “Sinhala religion” and often seen as the symbol of hegemonic power.
‘Scrap the Truce’ Protest
Buddhist monks in general, exceptions are very few, instead of working towards holistic intercommunity relations, they have tragically aided the State in its racist agenda. Their vision of Sri Lanka is tragically myopic and ethno-centric. To the majority of the Sinhala nation Sri Lanka is the Sinhala Buddhist Land and hence concepts such as pluralistic society is just a fiction. The Tamils judging by half a century of Sinhala hegemony had every reason to view the State as “native colonisers”. In such a context of lethal aggression, the Tamils moving towards the cry for secession could hardly be interpreted as extremism. It was indeed a necessity for honourable survival [1]. Why should this cry for freedom take the shape it did, as an armed resistance or “terrorism” is a question often asked by Western friends. One can give the short answer to that, it is an action of self-defence and résistance against one’s own state aggression. However, often it is misunderstood. When the State and its State forces have a systemic bias against you and refuse to protect your fundamental rights then what else can you do? This is the reply you get from people who have seen and experienced the lethal brute force of the Sinhala state. One is reminded here the words of Father Trevor Huddleston. Speaking to a spellbound black audience in February 1953 he said “ It has been the teaching of the Church through the centuries that when government degenerates into tyranny, laws cease to be binding on its subjects” [2]. So, any future peace-broker who is working towards the goal of genuine peace first ought to deal with the institutional racism of the state and all its apparatus. Of course, over night fixes won’t work. There requires a sea change of mind sets. The state have to unlearn its habits of the heart in order to gain the trust of the Tamil people.Self-Defence
When the Tamil Tigers speak of self-defence it is generally understood that they are referring to the struggle for the defence of the Tamil people and also to protect their homeland. It is not always easy when they are fighting against such a large state armed force to keep the balance right. Liberation struggle, we are reminded, is not a tea-party. However, Makkal - the lives of Tamils have to be protected. That should be the pre-eminent cause. Munn - the soil or the land needs to be protected from violent encroachment. In the process however, lives of innocent civilians (Makkal) cannot be compromised. Accidents may be unavoidable but moral lapses in this regard have to be avoided at all cost.
Chomsky
It is the general view of the international community (IC) US and UK in particular that they are supportive of the self-determination only in principle in so far as the Tamils agree against secession - because that trend is no longer acceptable…The difficulty one faces, I commented to Prof Chomsky [3], is that it defeats the purpose of SELF-determination. It is the others - the IC who are determining against their [Tamil’s] best wishes, in the name of international trends and systems!
I wonder what you would say...should the Tamils risk against the global systems?Chomsky responded by saying: “It's a good question. There are complex issues involving the right of secession, and no simple principles that mechanically apply.”
But any comments on the armed struggle?
“I don't feel that there is any general answer to the question whether armed struggle is legitimate.” Chomsky continued, “Sometimes, as a last resort, but any resort to violence has a very heavy burden of proof to bear.”
I drove the question further about the UN declared universal principle of self-determination touching on the Wilsonian principle [4]. His response was penetrating:
“Self-determination is a principle to be valued (but for historical accuracy, Wilson's concept was very limited). But as we all know, we constantly face choices with conflicting principles. We live in broader communities, and the community has rights, which might be violated by our secession. And there are questions of human rights that may override the right to secession. There were just these conflicting principles during the US civil war, for example, when one of the principles involved was the right to own slaves. There are many such issues everywhere.”
Chomsky suggested to look at the plight of Bolivia. And he added:
“In Bolivia, for example, most of the wealth happens to be concentrated in the Europeanized mostly white Eastern regions, who don't want to be part of a country governed by a poor Indian majority. Do they have the right to secede, effectively destroying the country and the majority of its population? Not so simple, in my opinion.”
”Life is full of conflicts between principles,” he pointed out, “and they rarely have abstract solutions.”
The Plight of the Palestinians?
“Palestinians, in my opinion” he put to me, “they are living under harsh foreign military occupation, sustained only by US refusal to agree to the international consensus on a two-state settlement. I don't think any serious issue of conflict of rights arises in this case.”
But what about all the historical claims of the Tamils? Being an ancient indigenous inhabitants of Ceylon; their inalienable right to live with honour and dignity in their traditional homelands; why should they be denied the right to determine their political future?
“Going back to historical claims is a hopeless endeavour.” Chomsky reminded me…
“Since 1945, there has been a system of (more or less) established rules, which did not exist before, so for practical purposes, we pretty much have to start with that. That puts Israel in an ambiguous position: the colonization began long before 1945, based on alleged "historic rights" and continuity of desire to return (though orthodox Jews strongly oppose claims to pre-Messianic return, and have been vigorously anti-Zionist). But the real reason for Zionist success is Christian-Western support, in part for imperial reasons (an outpost of the West among the "barbarians") and in part for religious reasons: Christians were the earliest Zionists.”
So, the case of the Tamils is in some ways not similar to the Palestinians.
“The Tamil case is different because it is appealing to pre-1945 demands. There's no justice in any of this, just recognition of how power relations work themselves out.” [ Emphases mine]
ChoiceIn the end, of course, it is the Tamil people’s independent choice (as opposed to the cajoling of external forces) that truly matters. They must choose and decide what is best for them in alignment with the international laws. There are times however established rules may prove to be part of oppressive global systems. The international community may have to be convinced to re-think the international configuration by skills of persuasion under girded by primacy of reason. There aren’t any imperative to submit to established rules provided the struggle holds firmly to a moral high ground. Sometimes it is appropriate to overthrow oppressive systems and rules as had been done throughout history. It is the dispossessed people who have endured the brunt of the brutality of war for over 25 years; they should be given the privilege to choose and granted the right to determine their political destiny.
It is generally an accepted fact that there is no military solution to this conflict.
The current ground reality however is that violence has escalated exponentially. The State is using as tools of war - food, medicine and blockade on other goods necessary for human basic needs to the Tamils in general but particularly to the Northerners. Over a telephone call for instance, some weeks ago, a person in the Northern town Yarlpanam (Jaffna) told me that food items are very scarce and even when they scrape up to cook a meagre meal they have no matchsticks and kerosene. The latter two items have sky-rocketed in price owing to the scarcity ONLY in the North. This is no doubt just a tiny example. The cost of human tragedy is appalling. Any form of talks thus far has been just a dialogue of the deaf. Fresh creative approaches have to be implemented in order for a lasting solution to be found.Another error of judgment that is being currently made by the state armed forces including their paramilitaries is that they are thinking what the Tamil Tigers want them to think. The state is made to think that they are at the brink of winning the war and the Tamil Tigers have gone all quiet (giving the impression of losing). In the mean time however, increasingly the state treasury is becoming bankrupt, war budget has gone through the roof; investments are pulling out and the country is becoming ungovernable. Bombs, landmines are all over the place. Radicalisation of the extremist elements among the Sinhalas (The pseudo-Marxists and the Buddhist Monks party]and Moslems in the eastern province is also deeply worrying.
Future talks have to directly deal with the causes of war. There is no mistake, I think, for the Tamils to be asking for self-rule within their territories. A viable structure of democratic governance could be found, no doubt, with the help of the international community. These are urgent matters that the future peace-broker must explore with the parties at conflict. It cannot be dragged on forever but proceed with a pragmatic time frame within which a lasting and a more humane solution could be achieved. Freedom and liberty should be guaranteed to ALL because realistic peace is interdependent: The emancipation of the Tamils would be an unshackling of the Sinhalas too – a true recovery of the meaning of common humanity.
In Conclusion… Its been a long while since I played a Beatles record from my vinyl collection. As I was working on this piece last night, my turntable was churning out from a track appropriately titled Revolution. The lyrics aptly came to me as a revelation. The penny begins to drop…
“You say you got a real solution…
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don’t you know its going to be alright
Al right, Al right.” [5]
*Revd BJ Alexander is a Methodist Minister based in London, England.
Notes:
1] Subramaniyan Sivanayagam, Sri Lanka: Witness To History(1930 – 2004), January 2005, Sivayogam, UK.2] Anthony Sampson, Mandela – The Authorised Biography,1999, HaperCollins, UK; p.83.
3] My sincere gratitude to Noam Chomsky for his generosity with his precious time in order to engage with me in this helpful discussion.
Also see: Conscience of a Nation by Maya Jaggi, January20,2001;The Guardian: http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20010120.htm
4] An ideology of the US President Woodrow Wilson which he believed if implemented would create global peace. Its main principles are: a) Advocacy of self-determination to ethnic people b) Advocacy of the spread of democracy c) Anti-isolationism – intervention to create peace and/or spread of freedom.
5] Revolution, Lennon/McCartney, 1968, Northern songs Ltd.
Get CC HeadlinesOn your Desk Top