The LTTE fighters withdrew from the East last year unable to resist the military onslaught. The security forces had the support of the breakaway Karuna group. The armed struggle for the liberation of the North-East region in Sri Lanka, largely inhabited by ethnic Tamils from the centralized Sinhala majority rule was launched by the LTTE more than 25 years ago. The Provincial Council system with some devolved powers introduced by the UNP government following the intervention of New Delhi in 1987 was rejected by the rebels. The Sinhala nationalists also opposed it very strongly. Subsequent ‘peace talks’ between Sri Lankan governments and the LTTE failed to progress towards a settlement. Civil society leaders and donor governments, including India have been continuously urging the parties to stop fighting and seek a political settlement. Their calls fell on deaf ears. The war resumed in 2006 after provocative attacks by the LTTE.

The intransigence of the LTTE leader is widely believed to be the main reason for the failure of ‘peace talks’. However, the lack of mutual trust, confidence in implementing agreements reached with the government leaders, bipartisanship or consensual politics, courage to resist Sinhala nationalistic forces and concern for the suffering civilians has also contributed to the prolongation of the war. The LTTE supreme leader remained confident of achieving his ‘Tamil Eelam’ goal, since no concerted efforts were made to remove the underlying causes of the ethnic problem and weaken the case for secession. Although the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) as instructed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa submitted the full implementation of the 13th Amendment as its recommendation for an interim solution, no serious effort is being made towards full implementation. Now a military solution to the ethnic issue is being sought surreptitiously under the cover of defeating terrorism. There is now growing doubt about the seriousness of the government in seeking a permanent political solution through the APRC process.

Democracy sans minority rights

The majority-minority division in the democratic system is not solely because of different political beliefs but due to differences in language, culture, aspirations and concerns of the citizens. This permanent division has been ignored in the Constitution which is structured to support Sinhala majority rule. The assumption for whatever reason is that the majority decision on all matters including those concerning the rights, welfare and security of ethnic minorities should prevail. The ethnic Tamils have settled in the island long before the arrival of Portuguese in 1505 AD. At the time of independence the North-East region was inhabited mainly by Tamils (mostly Hindus) and Tamil-speaking Muslims. They cannot be regarded like the ethnic minority groups elsewhere with no historical links to their present resident countries. .

Supreme Court judge Saleem Marsoof PC, in his inaugural K. C. Kamalasabayson PC Memorial Oration acclaimed that the present Constitution of Sri Lanka has bestowed “a form of direct participation by the people in the legislative process” and also made them “the ultimate guardians of the Constitution”. It has given primacy to the ‘Sovereignty of the People.’ In this regard, he cited Articles 85(1) and 85(2).

The elected President of Sri Lanka may in accordance with Article 85(2) of the Constitution submit to the people by referendum any bill (not being a bill for the repeal, replacement or amendment of the Constitution or any part thereof or which is inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution), which has been rejected by parliament. In terms of Article 85(1) of the Constitution any bill which has been certified by the cabinet of ministers as being intended to be submitted to the people at a referendum, or which the Supreme Court has determined as requiring the approval of the people at a referendum, necessarily have to be approved by the people to be enacted into law. What appears in the document in practice loses its significance, because of the sharp division between the politically powerful ethnic majority and powerless ethnic minority communities. This division distorts the meaning of ‘Sovereignty of the People’.

The word ‘people’ has only a conceptual meaning as in practice it is the majority ethnic community that decides on national matters. The point is that majority decision does not always mean the widespread decision of cross section of the society as it exists in the entire island. The sovereign right of one ethnic community dominates over the rights of other minority communities. This is because of the monopoly of powers usurped by the ethnic Sinhalese. The Constitution has no provision to safeguard the rights and to give due consideration to the concerns and interests of ethnic minorities. The concept of democracy assumed by the architects of the Constitution has ignored the diverse demographic features of the society. Their main concern was to preserve the Sinhala majority rule. The Sinhala nationalists are now overly concerned about this than solving the ethnic problem.

Majoritarian nationalism

The concept of nationalism that is influencing national politics is also at odds with democracy in multi-ethnic society. Existence of two kinds of nationalism was pointed out by Izeth Hussain in his recent commemorative article on the dedicated contribution made by the late Dick Hensman (a Tamil from Jaffna) to the Sri Lankan society. One derives “from the French conceptualization of the citizen as a full participant in the nation, and as such entitled to equal treatment irrespective of ethnic or social origin”. The other is “the blood and soil kind of majoritarian nationalism that has led to crypto-fascist racism”. The quotations are from Shanie’s column in The Island of 20th September. All sensible persons will agree that the first ‘emancipatory nationalism’ must prevail over ‘majoritarian nationalism’ for unity and real peace in Sri Lanka. The country’s future depends on such fundamentals. At present political decisions are largely influenced by the ‘majoritarian nationalism’ of the Sinhalese.

The blood and soil kind of nationalism need not be in conflict with the liberal emancipatory nationalism, if the former does not encroach on the rights and freedom of other communities and importantly influence national policy decisions. The attachment to particular community and region is not a threat to country’s future as long as the limits are recognized and observed faithfully. This was indeed the case before independence. Soon after independence the culprits were the irresponsible opportunistic political leaders whose greed for power made them blind to the future.

The younger generation may not know the kind of dual attachment, the Tamils of previous generations had to both their native places and the island-nation. Whatever development that happened earlier in the Tamil villages was the hard work and sacrifices of our parents and grand parents. I still remember my father telling me about the arduous tasks he performed for the family when he was a student at the village school. He had to wake up around 3 o’clock in the morning (there were no clocks and it was the crowing calls of domestic cocks that indicated the wake up time) and irrigate the crops in the family field. The water had to be drawn manually using the lever mechanism (the trunk of a chopped down palmyra or coconut tree was used for leverage) from deep well and return home in time to attend school. After sunset, students studied with the aid of kerosene lamp (hurricane lantern). Some studied under street lamps.

Co-operation of the villagers including members of the extended family and other relatives was readily available during harvesting time and social or religious functions. Temples, churches and mosques had a role in fostering this attachment to the native place. Although caste differences influenced social life, the sense of belonging to their local village or town was equally strong among all residents. The point here is this kind of attachment to the soil was confined to a particular area and was not a threat to other communities or regions. The Kandyan Sinhalese proudly maintained their distinct identity and they had no problem in embracing the Sri Lankan identity after independence, because they did not feel the discrimination and humiliation faced by the Tamils. In fact, their past high-class status was recognized by the low-country Sinhalese.

Behind the impetuous decisions

Political leaders were victims of the forces championing majoritarian nationalism. In many instances this was used for political gain by forcing governments to abandon decisions that would have helped to build a robust unified nation. It was first used by the SLFP leader S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike to defeat the UNP in the general election. The enactment of the Sinhala only legislation in 1956, following the pre election pledge to make Sinhala the sole official language was influenced by the thinking that this was the quick and effective way of defeating the UNP government that had the support of the Tamil and Muslim representatives. The 1957 Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact was abrogated after few Buddhist monks staged a sit-down protest outside Bandaranaike’s Rosmead Place residence, followed by the protest march to Kandy staged by the then opposition party the UNP led by J R Jayawardene. The terms of the agreement were marginal compared with what subsequent leaders were willing to grant. Similarly, the Dudley Senanayake - Chelvanayakam Agreement of 1965 had to be abrogated due to the then objection of the SLFP that had the unprincipled backing of the two left parties, the LSSP and CP. Again it was the majoritarian nationalism that propped up the popularity of the SLFP-LSSP- CP coalition in the 1970s. The 1972 Constitution adopted by this government strengthened majoritarian rule recognizing the supremacy of Sinhala Buddhists. Significant changes made to the parliamentary and administrative systems soon undermined democracy and good governance. This was also the beginning of the politicization of the administration that failed to function in the public/national interest.

In 1977, the UNP acknowledged the distinct problems facing the Tamil-speaking people in its election manifesto. It pledged, when it came to power would take steps to resolve their problems in education, colonization, use of language in dealing with government authorities and employment in the public sector. The Party won the election with an unprecedented five-sixth majority. The UNP government had ample strength to implement these promises but majoritarian nationalism stood in the way.

The opportunity that came with the 2000 devolution package of former President Chandrika Kumaratunga was squandered as a result of opportunistic politics of the UNP led by Ranil Wickremesinghe, who had his mind focused on the forthcoming general election. The Sinhala nationalists were happy that the proposed constitutional reform was abandoned and so were the LTTE and their supporters, who were against anything short of full autonomy.

The present leaders seem to have learnt nothing from the nationally damaging politics dictated by majoritarian nationalism. It has inflicted enormous damage to the integrity and development of the country. As an illustration let us recall the decision to abandon the use of English letters in the number plates of motor vehicles and use instead the Sinhala ‘Sri’. It was greeted with great emotional enthusiasm by the Sinhala nationalists. There were riots and damage to property owned by Tamils in the South. The letter ‘Sri’ was later replaced by a neutral hyphen ‘-‘. In what way the earlier decision helped the country to progress socially, economically or even politically? This question is equally relevant to other impetuous decisions taken for immediate political benefit.

Deception in national politics

The APRC project which gave a glimmer of hope to those looking for a political settlement is now serving to deceive the foreigners not familiar with the covert forces driving party politics in Sri Lanka. The concept of consensual politics is not in the mindset of the party leaders. The main opposition party, the UNP as well as the JVP, JHU and the TNA (known earlier to be the proxy of the LTTE in the Parliament and therefore was excluded) are no longer represented in the Committee. In accordance with government’s strategic plan, it served to proceed vigorously with the military campaign, while misleading those urging a political settlement. Since the Committee still exists, though stuck with no headway towards a consensus on the constitutional changes needed to share power equitably among all ethnic communities, it is continuing to serve the intended political purpose.

During the recent meeting with the Foreign Correspondents’ Association at Temple Trees, President Mahinda Rajapaksa said that a final solution to the ethnic conflict has to evolve through the APRC and “so we will have to await their report”. To the query how soon he thought a consensus might emerge, he did not give a definite reply. Since the rise of power politics, no leader wants to take risk with their political future and lead the country from the forefront along the right path to a promising future for the whole nation. National politics lacks will, courage and vision. It is also manipulative avoiding the bold decisions that need to be made for the future of the country, focusing on excuses for the inability to solve major problems. Internal dissension within the UNP is helping those messing with the country’s future.

The TNA Parliamentary Group Leader R. Sampanthan in his speech in Parliament on 10 September 2008 on the motion to extend the state of Emergency drew attention to the forces within the government that are opposed to political solution to the ethnic problem.

He quoted verbatim the reply given by JHU minister Champika Ranawake to Shakuntala Perera, when asked to clarify his earlier statement “any call now for a political solution would affect the path of the government”. The minister responded: “This Government’s path is based on a three dimensional approach towards a solution - demilitarization, democratization and development. It is the old paradigms that believed in the political solutions. This vocabulary even exists only within the NGO, INGO and embassy officials of western nations.” (“Hard Talk” column in the “Daily Mirror” of 11th August, 2008) The emphasis on democracy has been made repeatedly by the President with regard to the next move in the North after the end of the military offensive in Wanni. Will the crooked democracy that even failed to elect honourable members to Parliament solve the problems of the Tamil people caused by the inapt system of government?

The controversy over the undue delay in constituting the Constitutional Council (CC) reveals the aforementioned weakness in national politics. The 17th Amendment that provided for the CC was approved by the Parliament in 2001 with the support of all the main parties in the opposition. The excuse given earlier for not implementing the 17th Amendment introduced for ensuring good governance, law and order through independent police and judiciary and free and fair elections was that it has many weaknesses and the parliamentary committee appointed to look into them has not completed the task. However, recent revelations indicate the reluctance to forego the wide ranging powers the President has over the executive including appointments to key positions is the real reason.

The Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), the political party led by Buddhist monks has openly conveyed its reason for opposing the constitution of the Constitutional Council. “It will place restrictions on the Executive President’s ability to function independently in pursuing the military offensive against the LTTE”. According to the party’s media secretary Nishantha Sri Wanasinghe, President Rajapaksa should be free to make the necessary appointments and “there should be no differences between the Executive and the Constitutional Council, if he were to take the country from an era of war to peace”. He also said there are many shortcomings in the way the CC is designed to be constituted on ethnic lines! Apparently the JHU wants ‘majoritarian nationalism’ to prevail at all times in national decision-making process.

Kishali Pinto Jayawardene in her column in ‘The Sunday Times’ 21 September 2008 has exposed the “flamboyant untruths regarding the 17th Amendment”. The authorities have been accused of duplicity. While talking on reform of the current Constitution's chapter on fundamental rights, existing constitutional provisions stipulating good constitutional governance are undermined. Regarding the allegation that the independent commissions set up on the recommendations of the CC are not responsible to the Executive, Judiciary or the Legislature and their rulings cannot be challenged in any of these forums she has pointed out: “The 17th Amendment, as it presently stands, does most definitely permit judicial scrutiny of decisions of the independent Commissions on the public service and the police, through the lodging of fundamental rights petitions in the Supreme Court.” It is relevant here to mention many SC rulings have not been favourable to the Government.

According to the veteran legal analyst, “the problem now is not that the decisions of the Commissions are all powerful but the fact that the members to these Commissions have been appointed unconstitutionally by President Rajapaksa resulting in their being deprived of public legitimacy”. It is obvious the excuses to stall actions are not advanced in the national interest but for immediate political advantage.

Future of Tamil people

Two articles in ‘The Sunday Island’ 7 September 2008 on the future of the Tamils in Sri Lanka after the war reflect optimism on the premise the greater repressive force that caused immense losses and suffering to Tamil civilians will vanish when the war against the LTTE ends with victory for the government forces and skepticism for different reasons. The question as to who is right or wrong does not arise. Both analysts are right on the basis of their perceived assumptions, which reflect their own sincere concerns about the future of Tamils after the war. Victor Ivan and Kumar David have no hidden political motives or ambitions. Both do not want Sri Lanka to continue to remain in the same volatile hopeless state that benefitted only the power-wielding politicians and war merchants. In the national tragedy, the Tamil civilians have endured the most terrible suffering and they need to recover from their tribulations as soon as possible.

Victor Ivan’s prognosis is that “the Tamil people may suffer to some extent at the defeat of LTTE due to the wrongful esteem inculcated in them by the LTTE. But on a long term basis, when the LTTE domination over the Tamil society is demolished, there will be a greater benefit to the Tamil people and not a loss to them. Even if they do get anything new from Mahinda Rajapaksa government after the victory at war, they will be sure to get many concessions indirectly due to the elimination of domination of LTTE”.

He has also opined: “Those who lost their lands and property due to high security zones will get the right to be resident in their lands. When there was a struggle to crush the JVP insurrection, the Sinhala people in the South had to bear the burden of that struggle. Once the insurrection was defeated, the Sinhala people in the South were able to live freely. In the same manner, once the war by Prabhakaran is defeated, the Tamil people in the North will be able to have a new life with freedom”. This assumption is credible, if the regime is not under the influence of ‘majoritarian nationalism’. But unfortunately this is not the case now and there is no sign of change in post-war Sri Lanka. The Sinhala people in the South and the Tamil people in the North have so far not been placed on the same level, because of the political value of the former. On the contrary, deprivation of equal rights and freedom to the Tamils was considered helpful for gaining political support in the South. This was the nature of politics that evolved after independence.

Kumar David’s disagreement with Victor’s assertion that the Tamil people will be better off after the defeat of the LTTE is also logical, if there are no changes in the present governing system and the interest of political parties is as in the past on parochial matters and on the contest for power. His doubt shared by this writer too is with regard to the present Constitution. It is not only the willingness to change but also the commitment to honour the changes both in letter and spirit by the Sinhala polity that is critical here. To quote Kumar David: “My most forceful assertion is on constitutional matters - to be fair, Victor does not claim that federalism or substantial devolution will follow. If the LTTE is wiped out, let us forget about federalism, deep devolution, autonomy and such pie in the sky. All of this came on the agenda only because of the military balance; remove the military threat and it will disappear from the radar screen. The victorious Sinhala mood, the hard-line character of the regime, the enhanced power of extremists in society and government, and Mr. Rajapaksa’s own non-pluralist penchant, will ensure this outcome”.

Conclusion

The distinction between winning the battle and winning the hearts and minds of the affected people has been emphasized by many leaders. Some of the statements of the nationalistic elements in the Government and actions of the security forces are unhelpful for winning hearts and minds. The attempt last year to expel North-Eastern Tamils from Colombo lodges and now compelling all who have come to the Western Province, including Colombo from the North to register in the local Police stations are just two examples. The elimination of the root causes of the conflict is vital for achieving real peace. Without stability, unity and peace, progress in the social, economic, cultural and political fields will be difficult as it has been in the past several decades.

Given the fact, it is the lack of political will to act in the larger interest of all communities, regardless of ethnic and regional differences that has brought the country to the present tragic state, the challenge ahead for uniting the divided nation is quite formidable. There are no common national goals, only short-term political aims of the parties competing for power. The lack of balanced economic development, despite the availability of useful natural resources is also the hallmark of the failed system. Political stability and balanced regional development that provides employment opportunities for rural educated youth are sine qua non for sustaining the peace in hand.

The senior journalist R. S. Karunaratne PhD (The Island 11 September 2008) has ventured to predict what will happen to Sri Lanka in 2050. No one can imagine anything different, if the present system and practices continue for another few years. There is no need to extend the horizon to 2050. His prognosis is based on the dictum, “coming events cast their shadows before”. Extrapolating the present trend, he predicts “politicians will try to grab your vote by force. They will roam the electorate surrounded by armed thugs and the law enforcement authorities will look the other way. They will kill or maim one another to get into Parliament. Bribery, thuggery and other forms of corruption will be the order of the day”. The base is in the finding of the quality of men active in politics; “majority are bent on amassing wealth at the expense of the tax payer. Some politicians have earned money even for the next four generations”. The expected population growth has also been taken into consideration in the forecast.

Regarding the education system, given the present messy state with school principals having beaten the police officers as bribe-takers, the future is bleak. At present, “Instead of teaching the students, teachers go on wildcat strikes asking for higher salaries and various other facilities. They do not cover the syllabus which is subject to changes every now and then and allow the students to sit examinations. The teachers who are appointed as examiners refuse to mark the answer scripts holding the poor candidates to ransom. When schools do not provide a good education, parents begin to send their children to private tuition classes. Sometimes, teachers who do not teach in schools cover the syllabus effectively in private classes. Meanwhile, some of the private tutors have questionable academic qualifications. Sometimes, those who have failed the GCE O/L examination start giving private tuition in English and various other subjects”. And “the ultimate goal of school education appears to be gaining admission to one of the state universities which have become hot beds of politics. Most undergraduates invariably become stooges of various political parties. Then they forget why they sought these facilities”. Sadly, even the importance of education to the future of the country has been ignored by the political leaders. Given that the education system also bolstered division along ethnic lines and mistrust between communities, reform was long over due.

On terrorism a very convincing forecast is made. “In 2050, the government will have no problem with terrorists demanding a separate state. But the newly passed out graduates will pose a bigger problem to rulers. They will demand government jobs as no private sector organization will absorb them. There will be daily demonstrations at the ‘Lipton circus’ and opposite the Fort Railway station in Colombo”.

Commenting on the ongoing war in Sri Lanka, the London weekly ‘Economist’ (4 September 2008) observed: “President Rajapaksa's war up north may soon be won, and a flag planted in Kilinochchi. But an end to the broader conflict will be elusive until his government tackles the economic, cultural and political grudges that have long fuelled Tamil nationalism”. Secretary General, International Alert, Dan Smith in an interview while in Sri Lanka also stressed the need for early action on the political front after the current phase of the military campaign has been concluded. He warned: “Even on those few occasions where conflicts of the kind in Sri Lanka seem to have been resolved militarily, the ‘armed conflicts have come back a couple of years on’, thereby underscoring the need for peace agreements”. Will the Sri Lankan leaders take these concerns seriously?

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