A distinction between individual and group is also relevant in analysing the need for liberation. Humans at some stage in their lives face problems that compel them to seek ways to surmount or escape from their woes. These are caused by others in their families or society. For example the husband or wife after prolonged or profound discord may be forced to seek liberation through divorce. This decision depends on several factors depending on their personality, family circumstances and the prospects for better life after separation. The poorer they are lesser the chance for separation because the sufferer thinks there is no choice. From a spiritual angle, the suffering may be attributed to karma. In the male dominated society, it is usually the ill-fated wife who finds her dependence on the husband inescapable. When conditions become extremely unbearable, she seeks liberation by committing suicide. Abject poverty has driven some to this point. Mental depression that induces one to take his or her life is due to variety of reasons. The intentional slaying of civilians as in Sri Lanka cannot be attributed to this illness. Tens of thousands have died in the communal riots and later in the secessionist war that intensified after the July 1983 anti-Tamil pogrom. No definite estimate of total casualties is available. The unofficial estimate of 70, 000 deaths in the ongoing conflict has remained static for a long time, despite the continued killings during recent months!

Plight of children and the aged

The victims include children, women and the elderly. Age plays a key role in the ways human beings react to their miseries. Children are not old enough to understand the real reasons for the sufferings of their families. They are also not in any position to liberate their families from the hardships. ‘Child labour’ and ‘child soldiers’ do not prevail because of the own decisions of the children. The elderly too find themselves in a similar position. However, some seek solace through religious or social activities. Those who live with their grandchildren find some satisfaction in caring and watching them grow.

The protracted ethnic conflict that turned into a bloody war 25 years ago has fragmented many Tamil families. In some cases, even the husband and wife live in different districts in Sri Lanka, while the children reside abroad in different countries. Some hapless seniors have reconciled themselves to the fact that liberation will come soon with their demise. Their wish is it should be free from prolonged suffering. The plight of those left alone in the troubled areas is terrible. They suffer from not only loneliness but also without basic facilities and adequate food. Recently, the night curfew in Jaffna was extended by one hour.

Liberators’ aims and claims

The East is said to be liberated after driving out the Liberation Tigers. Do the people feel liberated from fear and the hardships endured before and after the ‘liberation’? Do they feel they have gained the freedom and peace denied since the emergence of the ethnic conflict? Although the newly elected council met and the Chief Minister delivered his policy statement, the situation there is far from normal. Two policemen were shot dead in Kattankudy on June 15. Besides civilians, seven policemen were killed in Batticaloa in five separate incidents after the May 10 Provincial Council elections. Now the focus is on the North, where the people in the Kilinochchi, Mannar and Mullaithivu districts need to be ‘liberated’ likewise.

In a recent interview (Daily Mirror 13 June 2008) Balasingham Nadesan, the head of the political wing of the LTTE said: “We are a liberation movement and our main objective is to liberate the Tamil people from the brutal oppression of the Sri Lankan regime. As a liberation movement we care about the oppressed people all over the world and that includes the Sinhala people. The Sri Lankan regime is presently oppressing all dissenting voices in this island that include Sinhala journalists and the political opposition.” To another question he replied: “The people in the areas under our administration give full support to our armed struggle. These Tamils live without any fear or intimidation. Our goal is to free the Tamil people caught up in the brutal oppression of the Sri Lankan regime like that in Jaffna and other parts of the Tamil homeland occupied by the Sri Lankan Government”. He also said: “We do not target individuals or innocent civilians. Our struggle is about freedom, security, peace and development of our Tamil nation. Our armed resistance and political objectives are based on these core principles.” The government was accused of abrogating unilaterally the ceasefire agreement (CFA), starting the war and to be intransigent. It is amazing the aggressive ‘liberators’ of the Tamil people in the North and South (headed by the President) are accusing each other of the same charges and also claim the same objectives – “freedom, security, peace and development”.

There are similarities not only in the twists and untruths in the statements of the ‘liberators’ but also in their ways to achieve their objectives. The targeting of newspaper editors and journalists in their violent campaign did not help the LTTE in winning wide support for their cause. Now the government is being accused of suppressing media freedom which it denies vigorously. The actions of both sides in the ‘liberation’ war have escalated ethnic tensions which according to some observers can flare up with dire consequences. Ironically, the way of counteracting terrorism has elements of terrorism. In many cases their behaviour is irresponsible with no consideration for human rights and social well-being. The recent events in the East show the rise in the ethnic tension between the Tamils and Muslims. The campaigns of the two factions within the government coalition competing for the Chief Minister’s post sowed the seeds of tension between the two communities. It started with the promises given by the government before the election that there would be a Muslim or Tamil Chief Minister depending on the performances of each (ethnic) party in the coalition. Now the Muslim civil society leaders are saying Rajapaksa administration is responsible for igniting the animosity.

A key strategy of the separatists has been to exacerbate further the ethnic division that resulted from official policies and actions to justify the case for secession. The main difference between the two ‘liberators’ is in the emphasis given to democracy. The government keeps on reiterating its commitment to this system (though many decisions and actions are undemocratic), while the LTTE leaders never mentions this word in their statements and talks. In contrast, the liberation sought by the people is sincere without any hidden motive. Their motto is ‘live and let live’ with dignity and equality.

Another sort of liberation

It is interesting that the leftist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) - literally ‘People’s Liberation Front’- ignoring totally the political problems, particularly those afflicting the ethnic minorities is advocating a different kind of national liberation for pulling the country out of the present mess. The party has come to the conclusion that a mere change of government will not liberate the people from their economic hardships. The General Secretary of the JVP, Tilvin Silva at a public lecture held at the Maharagama Youth Centre on June 12 announced that only a broad socialist alliance of all socialist and nationalist forces capable of introducing a socialist economy and social reform where all would have equal opportunities can liberate the people from the miseries they are enduring under the open economy. As expected, the capitalist class has no place in the socialist alliance being formed for liberating the people. “Building such a broad alliance is our challenge and we have already embarked on it and will surely succeed,” he is reported to have told the applauding crowd. He also accused the present government of working according to an agenda of external forces. This would make it to be a main opponent of this new socialist movement. Since he also blamed the UNP for the current economic crisis because of the open economy it introduced in 1977, the UNP too has no place in the JVP’s ‘broad’ alliance. Isn’t this another idealistic approach to liberation? Why blame only the Tamil Tigers?

On the other hand, the breakaway faction Jathika Nidahas Peramuna (JNP) – literally ‘National Freedom Front’ - led by Wimal Weerawansa, former JVP propaganda secretary and Parliamentary group leader has placed greater emphasis on nationalism than socialism to achieve its goal of ‘true’ national freedom. Both factions are strident defenders of the unitary system that for all intents and purposes is synonymous with Sinhala majority rule. S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike the founder of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party resigned from the UNP in 1951 to work specially for the uplift of the Sinhalese peasants and other underprivileged groups. A Buddhist monk assassinated him in 1959.

Liberation methods of JVP and LTTE

The similarities and the differences between the liberation methods of JVP and LTTE can be seen to some extent in Prof. G. H. Peiris’s article on ‘Youth Unrest and Inter-group Conflict’ in the Sri Lanka Guardian – 10 June 2008. According to him the Sinhalese youths who joined the JVP uprising in 1971 were overwhelmingly from the age group of 15 to 34 years. In the case of the Tamil youth uprising in the North-East (the rebels were then called the ‘boys’), the conscription of Tamil children intensified when the demand for warriors increased and the mobilization of youth became increasingly difficult for social and demographic reasons. Sri Lankan Tamils constituted 12.6 per cent as against 74 per cent Sinhalese and many were residing outside the Northern and Eastern Provinces. Hence the recruitment was from a limited pool in the North-East and that too from the low class families whose children were unable to migrate to foreign countries or move to ethnically mixed areas in the South – Colombo and its suburbs.

“The origin of insurrectionary politics among both communities took place in the late 1960s, when several small groups espousing ‘liberation’ through armed confrontation of the existing political order came to be formed. The significance of this temporal correspondence should be appreciated in the context of the aggravating economic problems of that time, which affected all ethnic groups – notably soaring unemployment among the youth entering the job market, the large majority among them having had their formal education in the medium of their mother-tongue – Sinhala or Thamil – and possessing no communication skills in English. In both communities, moreover, the formation of militant groups at this point of time also represented the earliest manifestations of rejection of the English-educated first generation of the post-independence political leadership that had been drawn overwhelmingly from the land-owning and professional classes. The pioneers of militant politics at the nascent stages of their liberation campaigns, and the majority of their rank-and-file during subsequent growth, consisted of young men and women from the lower-middle social strata in rural areas, and, typically, from what could be referred to as ‘subordinate’ caste groups, and not from the ‘dominant’ castes of the two communities (Sinhala and Tamil) – the Goigama and the Vellala – that are believed to constitute more than 60 per cent of their respective totals”. The Tamil youth suffered not only because of the general economic problems but also because of the media-wise standardization of marks for admission to universities and discrimination in the recruitment of employees to the public sector.

Prof. Peiris has also said: “The secessionist insurrection which began in earnest in the mid-1980s did represent the culmination of a long drawn out process of estrangement of relations between two of the main ethnic groups – Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils. The process was characterised perpetually by confrontational politics at the leadership levels of the two communities, and sporadically by outbursts of communal clashes in areas of mixed ethnicity when, more often than not, Tamils became the target of violence perpetrated by rampaging Sinhalese mobs”. JVP’s attachment to ‘Marxist-Leninist ideology’ and the appeal socialism had with some Tamil militant leaders did not help to forge a link because “the insurrections have been multi-dimensional in their causes and effects.” However, as in national politics here too the trust needed for a joint effort was lacking.

Sadly, the Professor has failed to mention that the ethnic division heightened mainly because of state policies and its exploitation by political leaders in their contest for power. It is the confrontational politics of the two main parties the UNP and the SLFP that obstructed the early resolution of the ethnic problem. This does not deny the confrontational politics of the Tamil parties that emerged and intensified after 1956. Divisive policies and actions, ignoring the long-term consequences to the country and the people exacerbated the distrust and the divide. One could confidently say that it is this political culture that obstructed every crucial move the sovereign country needed for unity, peace, progress and prosperity. Even in the limited development that occurred, parochial considerations influenced the utilization of the country’s resources and the intended beneficiaries. This is how the country failed to develop nationally using all available resources and skills optimally. The need for liberation also arose from this bias in economic development.

The liberation struggle of Tamil youth, which initially had wide sympathy not only in India but also in many other countries and the support of many Tamils took a different turn when the LTTE began the violent campaign to be the sole liberator and ‘sole representative’ of the Tamil people. The killing of Tamil leaders considered to be impediments to their cause was considered essential to the success of the liberation struggle. For the same reason some Sinhalese leaders were also eliminated. The killing of former Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi was another colossal blunder. In the case of the JVP they too killed many civilians but later opted to seek liberation via the democratic process. Their violent struggle proved too costly and futile. The Sinhala people also detested their violent methods.

Liberation via devolution?

President Rajapaksa during his visit to London for a Commonwealth meeting told ‘The Times’ (June 13, 2008) that “he would not resume peace talks with the Tamil Tigers until the organization agreed to disarm”. At the present time, no foreign government pressing for early settlement of the conflict through devolution and power sharing arrangement is asking for disarmament as a precondition. The international community is aware of the history of broken promises and pledges given to Tamil leaders and the non-implementation of various Acts approved by Parliament. The IRA was compelled to surrender arms as there was confidence no party would backtrack after decommissioning.

The Daily Mirror editorial June 16 stated. “The LTTE and those supporting it, of course, submit various reasons for the Tigers to cling on to their weapons. The main reason they give is the unreliability of the government’s sincerity in reaching a just and reasonable solution to the national problem. They fear that they would be left in the lurch in the event of the government going back on its policy of power devolution”. There are numerous instances since independence for the Tamils to be hesitant about promises and even constitutional amendments and approved legislations. This does not justify the killing of civilians and other ruthless acts which have resulted in labeling the ‘liberation’ Tigers as terrorists. Real liberation can never be achieved through this kind of violence committed in the name of ‘liberation’ by both sides. The present situation is a real dilemma for all peace seekers.

The rebels' political head, B. Nadesan in an email interview with Reuters June 17 said - laying down arms could weaken the rebels' bargaining power during any talks. He said: "The balance of power and the parity of status are very crucial for any meaningful negotiations." One plausible reason for this stance is the lack of trust in the Sinhala polity. Because if its importance to conflict resolution, it is discussed in some detail here. One can even say the intransigence of the LTTE leader is due to the lack of trust.

There are many reasons to doubt whether the promised devolution will be the definite way forward towards the liberation sought by the Tamil people. The government’s recent decision to dissolve prematurely the North Central and Sabaragamuwa Provincial Councils has been cited as another instance of giving the wrong message by Kingsley Rodrigo the head of the independent Peoples Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) He said: “If the Provincial Councils could be so easily dissolved mid-term according to the whims of the ruling party instead of providing minority groups a wider participation in governance by devolving power to the PCs formed as a solution to the ethnic conflict, the projected message will not be all that positive.” The legality of the dissolution without the relevant motion approved by the councils has also been challenged. Despite repeated calls for more than two years, the 17th Amendment still remains dormant as the leadership has no interest in setting up the independent commissions that will thwart political interference in public administration; law and order; and the holding of free and fair elections.

Back to the root

Lal Wijenayake has gone back to the time of the Donoughmore Reforms and the introduction of universal franchise to pinpoint the root of the problem that grew over decades of neglect of the causes for the outbreak of the war for a separate state (The Island 12 June 2008 - The 13th amendment ‘farce’). The question arose then regarding the mechanism for protecting the rights of the minority communities. The risk of the majority community ruling the country disregarding the rights of the minority communities was of great concern to the Tamil leaders. The same question arose again when the Soulbury Commission was considering a constitution for the island that was to become an independent State. Lal Wijenayake has recalled the promises given then that led to the acceptance of the unitary system by all ethnic communities. “At the discussions D. S. Senanayake as the leader of the Sinhala community agreed to a ratio of two to one representation for the majority and minority communities in the proposed Parliament modelled on the British parliamentary system, with the guarantee of equal rights for all citizens with a firm assurance of non-discrimination. It is significant that the Tamil leadership and not even the radical Tamil groups which were Left-inclined and politically powerful in Jaffna, did not advocate a federal system or even some form of devolution of power”. How the assurances given then were shattered by subsequent events and the escalation of mistrust are now history. Nevertheless, no concerted effort has been made since then to build trust. The passing of legislations like the one for granting equal language rights to the Tamil speaking people has been of no practical value. There is also no sign yet that the full implementation of the 13th Amendment introduced following the 1987 Indo-Lanka Accor will proceed in earnest.

The apprehension of Tamils is not baseless as seen from the firm determination of Sinhala nationalists to ensure that the ‘Sinhala majority rule’ prevails throughout the island. This is the reason for them to steadfastly insist on retaining the unitary structure and rejecting any modification that tends to undermine the notion that Sri Lanka is one indivisible Sinhala majority State. Recently the powerful Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa also openly stressed the significance of the ‘Sinhala majority’ factor.

Some other factors that led to the clamour for liberation from Sinhala hegemony have also been mentioned by the open-minded analyst. “The defeat of S J. V. Chelvanayakam, the leader of the Federal Party, at the parliamentary elections in 1952 and the fact that the Federal Party was able to win only three seats (out of possible 12 seats), showed that even at that point of time the Tamil community was not demanding a federal system and that the demand was for equal treatment and nondiscrimination. The emergence of Sinhala nationalism based on the demand for more opportunities for the Sinhala community in the field of education, employment and distribution of state land and the demand for special status for the Sinhala language, Sinhala culture and Buddhism in this period based on the notion that the Sinhala community (specially Sinhala Buddhists) was discriminated against under colonial rule, and the need to correct this historical injustice brought out the Federal Party and the demand for federalism to the forefront of Tamil politics, as revealed at the parliamentary elections in 1956, where the Federal Party won all but three seat in the Tamil dominated areas in the North and East. The Sinhala leadership was insensitive towards the fears of the minority communities and this polarized the society on an ethnic basis. Further the unimaginative and irresponsible manner in which the Southern leadership reacted by physically and verbally attacking the Tamil people living in the South and the use of the armed forces to suppress protest movements of the Tamil people in the North and East led by Tamil leaders, led to the emergence of a radical movement fighting for a Tamil identity”.

Distrust and deception have been the hallmarks of national politics since independence. This is clear from the fact that “the Soulbury report and the 1947 constitution (Soulbury constitution) was no doubt a let down for the minority communities. The constitution did not contain adequate provisions for safeguarding the rights of the minorities. There was no provision for weighted representation for minority communities in Parliament. What was envisaged was the protection of minority rights through Section 29 of the constitution which later turned out to be misconceived”. Wijenayake’s enlightening analysis has also drawn attention to the indifference of the architects of the present (1978) and the previous (1972) Republican constitutions to the concerns and aspirations of Tamils.

Conclusion

The future of the island nation lies crucially on ending the usual power contest, where the winner takes all (the system is fashioned to help the power holder) and making a concerted effort to build mutual trust and unite the divided communities by resolving satisfactorily the overdue national problem. There are many challenges to overcome for preventing further deterioration in the living conditions of the people. The global food and energy crises have hit even the people in the affluent countries. This is not the time to indulge in deceptive politics that is utterly useless for the welfare of the country and the people. The Sinhalese leaders, if they are really concerned about the people and the future of the country must accept the fact that Sri Lanka is a multi-ethnic with two different languages, multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-regional country with diverse demographic features. The notion that the dominance of the ethnic Sinhala majority must hold sway in the entire island is in conflict with this reality. Without the needed attitudinal change, there is little hope of liberating the nation from pervasive poverty and internal conflicts. No sensible person can expect stability and peace in this scenario.

[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]