federalidea.com

by D.B.S. Jeyaraj

The launching of “Operation Riviresa” in 1995 – 96 saw the Jaffna district in its entirety coming under the Government of Sri Lanka’s (GOSL) writ. It was regarded then as a magnificient military victory . The USA after conducting a fact – finding mission of the Northern peninsula urged the Government headed by Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga to consolidate the military gains by converting it into a political victory. Kumaratunga was advised to make Jaffna a “showpiece” of development and prosperity. Colombo was also requested to advance a political process.

But the Kumaratunga regime did not heed that advice. Lured by the mirage of military conquest the Govt plunged the armed forces into war in the Northern mainland known as Wanni. An ambitious military project titled “Operation Jayasikurui” was set in motion. The political quest was put on hold. Jaffna was held as a military “prize” without much attention being paid to the “hearts and minds” of the Jaffna people. The consequences were disastrous in the Peninsula as well as the mainland.

A decade later Kumaratunga’s successor is in a similiar position. After a protracted 15 month military campaign the armed forces commanded by President Mahinda Rajapakse have brought the entire Eastern province under GOSL domination. The Government is praised and also praises itself for this victory. All sorts of shakes and moves are on to bring about a new political sunrise for the East. In the midst of euphoria the USA has offered words of caution and advice.

US envoy Robert O. Blake Jr in his address at the seminar “Sri Lanka:the Way Forward” on September 21st made some pertinent and illuminating comments about the East. The seminar held at the Galle Face Hotel was sponsored by the US – Sri Lanka Fulbright Commission and the Fulbright Alumni Association of Sri Lanka. Ambassador Blake had this to say about Eastern Sri Lanka.

” Let me a say a word about the stabilization and reconstruction process in the East, which also is an important part of the way forward. ”

“Now that conflict has subsided in the East, the Government has a significant opportunity to stabilize and develop the East in a manner that would demonstrate to all Sri Lankans, but particularly Tamils and Muslims, that they have a bright future within a united Sri Lanka and that the Government is serious about ensuring their rights and providing opportunities equitably within a pluralistic state. In short, a successful transition in the East can be an important confidence builder and a building block for a future negotiation process. ”

“Conversely, the government faces significant risks if it fails to seize its opportunity in the East. Specifically, a failure to effect an orderly transition from military to civilian control, a failure to consult elected representatives of the Tamil, Muslim and Sinhalese communities on the development and other programs now being devised for the East, and a failure to rein in paramilitaries are all likely to destabilize the East and harden minority attitudes about prospects for negotiated settlement. Likewise, resettlement and development plans that change the ethnic composition of eastern districts, restrictions on access to means of livelihood, and slow economic development will produce similar negative effects. ”

What prompted Ambassador Blake to make these well – intentioned observations? Obviously the US envoy like some of his diplomatic colleagues is well aware of what is going on now. The news that comes out of the East is not good. The armed forces may have won the East militarily. But Colombo has not got its act together politically. 75 % of the Province consists of Tamils and Muslims.Territory may have been captured but the hearts and minds of these Tamil – speaking people are yet to be won over. If current trends are any indication the GOSL seems headed for a political defeat there.

There is a lot of news about the East going to “rise” and “re- awaken” and “renew”. But none of this is in Tamil spoken by three- fourths of the Province’s people. In fact the Province is being constantly referred to as “Nagenahira” now. The Tamil language term “Kizhakku”is missing.

This is a province where the ethnic ratio in 1921 was 55% Tamil, 40 % Muslim and 4 % Sinhala. In 1981 when the last official census was taken the ratio was 42 % Tamil, 33% Muslim and 25% Sinhala.

One would expect therefore that the Tamil language be given its due place but the failure of this Govt to accommodate Tamil in the grandiose plans for the East is not only insensitive but a symtom of a deep – seated malaise namely a Sinhala supremacist mindset.

The emphasis on “Nagenahira” to the exclusion of “Kizhakku” is symbolic of this regime’s disdain and contempt for the Tamil and Muslim people of the East. This act of omission and a number of other acts of commission are making many Tamils feel that they are a “conquered” people.

The Tamils and Muslims of the East are being treated as second class citizens. The GOSL thinks that altering the demographic structure of the East through deliberately colonising Sinhala people will help stabilise control. The Tamils and Muslims are being undermined and marginalised. The long term goal is to make the Sinhala community the dominant numerical entity in the East.

What is usually necessary after military operations is to provide relief, rehabilitation and re- construction to the affected people. Displaced people and other victims of war need to be given urgent priority. Re- settlement, restoring basic infra- structural facilities,housing, health care, education, transport, etc are the need of the hour. The revival of lost livelihood is of utmost importance.

These concerns and needs are not being addessed in the way they ought to be. Instead of focussing on bringing back civilian normalcy the region is being excessively militarised. The humanitarian dimension with deep political ramifications is being ignored or overlooked.

It is against this backdrop that Ambassador Blake’s comments need to noted. What the US envoy is talking about is the imperative need to move away from military to civilian control. If the region is to be stabilised and developed then there must be a speedy and orderly transition from military to civilian control. The Tamils and Muslims need to be convinced of a bright future. For this an enlightened approach is necessary. Failure to address this requirement can create conditions for future de – stabilisation

The existential reality today is that the East is being run in a militarised manner.National security has become an all – powerful “manthra”that justifies the diminishing of civilian control and enhancement of military power. The elected Tamil MP’s from the province are sidelined as tiger mouthpieces. The elected Provincial body has been defunct for nearly 17 years.

The local authorities are dysfunctional in many cases and in some, function powerlessly. The civilian bureaucracy goes through the motions of civil administration but real power lies with the security force officials.The military is concerned mostly with security matters. Civil governance is not their primary concern

There is an urgent need therefore to restore civilian control and expedite rehabilitation and development. This is necessary not merely from a humanitarian perspective but also from a politico – military viewpoint. How this is to be done is the question. Delay or failure in this respect would have dire consequences.As Ambassador Blake said the government faces significant risks if it fails to seize its opportunity in the East.

This government heavily influenced by the ideology of “Sinhala Buddhist supremacy” has both a covert and overt Eastern agenda.

Covertly it seeks to “Sinhalaise” the East at the expense of Tamils and Muslims.Sinister plans are being set in motion but more of that on another occasion.

Overtly the GOSL talks of holding elections on the one hand and on the other , setting up a special agency and/or ministry to implement rehabilitation and development for the East.

The Rajapakse regime has been ignoring the Tamil National Allliance MP’s in their plans for the East. They are not invited for most official meetings. Security is not provided for the seven elected and one appointed Eastern TNA Parliamentarians to visit their province. The Eastern “eight” lodge routine protests at this treatment but to no avail. So it seems unlikely that the Tamil MP’s of the East will be called upon to play a role in restoring normalcy.

Currently what the Govt has in mind is the staging of elections for the Eastern Provincial Council and other local authorities. The regime has an ulterior motive in holding provincial council elections. One is that by holding PC elections in the East the de- merger can be made permanent.

The other reason is that it wants to ensure that the para – military groups collaborating with the state are ensconced in power. The current favourite is “Col” Karuna’s Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Puligal (TMVP) because it is the only Tamil entity supporting the de – merger.

Imposing a ” political leadership” from above like the TMVP or Devananda’s outfit cannot be of great help. These elements are not seen as independent but as being “in dependence ” of the Govt. Just as the TNA is a tiger lackey these groups are GOSL puppets. Their imposition through electoral malpracice cannot provide the answer. They will be resented by people of all communities. Also they will simply expand their shady activities and continue with things like extortions, abductions etc.

Trying to replace the LTTE with these elements is like substituting hyenas for the tiger. Besides there will be a lot of violence. The various factions of the TMVP will engage in intra – group violence. There will also be inter – group violence. It must be noted that several TNA members of local authorities and former candidates have been killed. Elections at provincial or local level can aggravate such assassinations. Also the LTTE pistol groups will have a field day killing candidates.

Under these circumstances whatever election held will have no credibility. The election will be fraudulent. The “winning” candidates will be members of para – military groups. Democratic norms will be violated. The winners will be given extra – security and would very likely live as security force appendages. The new Councils will be a joke. In the eyes of the people these new “representatives” will be perceived as Govt stooges and security force minions. They will not inspire confidence nationally and internationally.

The other option pursued by this regime is to set up a special authority or ministry for Eastern development. There is speculation that the nation building ministry would be in charge with a special Eastern development authority set up. There could be a special project ministry for Eastern development too. Basil Rajapakse is tipped to head the ministry or ministries and already he is in charge of some envisaged Eastern resurgence projects.

President Rajapakse announced in Los Angeles that 20 billion rupees will be allocated for the East. It would be a model for post – conflict reconstruction. The crunch however is lack of funds. The regime expects generous foreign assistance for re-generating the East. But there is little chance of Colombo getting all the money it wants for this

For one thing any project under Basil Rajapakse will be viewed with suspicion. If twenty billion is allocated cynics will say 10 % of that is two billion.

Even without Basil, foreign entities will be reluctant to give money to a project or ministry administered by the central government. Apart from doubts on the hidden “Sinhalaisation” agenda the international community would prefer these tasks to be planned and implemented at the provincial level because that would facilitate greater participaation by people from the region. The Tamils and Muslims too would prefer the Provincial level.

It becomes necessary then to transform military control to civilian control as speedily as possible for expediting foreign assistance and restoration of civilian normalcy. Given the prevailing constraints and difficulties of resurrecting an electoral body the only way out seems an enlightened approach of “benevolent” Presidential rule. While the Province is under direct Presidential rule the administration could be planned, coordinated and implemented by the Governor acting on the advice of an interim advisory council.

The President can invoke Constitutional provisions – 154 A and 154 T – to set up a Provincial Council for the East and then establish a special advisory council through Gazette proclamation for a specified period.Powers vested in the Provincial Council chief minister will be transferred to the Governor who in turn will delegate it to the advisory council. It would not be a case of the Governor “consulting” the advisory council but clearly acting “on the advice” of the advisory council.

In India when a state government is dissolved and Presidential rule is imposed the powers of the chief minister will be in the hands of the Governor who is the President’s representative. An Advisory council is appointed to “advise” the Governor. This advisory council becomes the de – facto administration till fresh elections are called. The advisory council comprises experienced and capable persons with administrative ability and expertise.

Likewise the envisaged special advisory council for the East could have persons possessing commitment and competence with knowledge and experience of the region and/or the erstwhile North – East Provincial administration. The important thing is not to have security forces or para- military representatives on this council. The composition should conform to the ethnic ratio of the province. Since Tamils are the single largest ethnicity in the province and also because the Governor is a Sinhalese the advisory council head could be a Tamil.

The advsory council’s term could be for two years.Its immediate priority would be provide adequate relief to people victimised by the war and to re- settle and rehabilitate displaced persons speedily. Urgent steps should be taken to revive agriculture, fisheries, small industry and animal husbandry. Repairing and re – building of houses, schools, hospitals, roads and sanitary facilities , restoring electricity and improving transport etc should be the immediate priority. Recruiting Policemen and public service officials is also a must.

Most of these functions come under the Provincial list in terms of the 13th amendment. There may be a need however to utilise powers devolved under the concurrent list or those given to the centre to expedite or enhance activity for humanitarian reasons.In that case statutes have to be drafted for each function specifically and passed by Parliament. In effect Parliament will be giving powers to the President who in turn will delegate it to the Governor and advisory council.

While the special advisory council functions like a virtual interim administration the political process seeking Constitutional reform should not be abandoned. If the APRC and APC finalise matters the quantum of devolution (sans concurrent list) agreed upon could be given the Provincial Council without two -thirds majority or a referendum. This requires under 154 G a bill to be passed by Parliament and endorsed by all the Provincial Councils.If this can be done then the PC’s will have greater devolution.

Setting up an advisory council will facilitate transfer of control to the civil from military. Though the elected council will not be there the Provincial administration will be in “force” through the Advisory Council. This province – oriented administration will inspire greater trust and confidence among the people of the Province than a Central government structure or fraudulently elected body. The International Community will have no qualms about providing finances to uplift the Eastern province and the people through this structure.

The special advisory council will not be an end unto itself but only means to an end. The ultimate objective should be the setting up of a democratically elected body to be the political executive for the province. Law and order should be the responsibility of the Police. The armed forces should only be in charge of security. The para – militaries should be absorbed into the regular army and subjected to military discipline.

For all this to happen President Rajapakse must display enlightened statesmanship. The need of the hour is to facilitate transition of military control to civilian administration. The best option seems to be that of Presidential rule of the Province through the Governor and a special advisory council. Arguably that seems the best way to convert a military success into a political victory.It is only then that the East will truly have a new sunrise.

DBS Jeyaraj can be reached at djeyaraj@federalidea.com

by D.B.S. Jeyaraj

The United National Party (UNP) and its leader Ranil Wickremasinghe have been at the receiving end of negative publicity for the past week or more. The UNP is accused of doing a flip – flop on its commitment to federalism. There are charges that the party has now embraced the concept of a unitary state as opposed to its earlier position. There is much confusion about the issue.

In a bid to clarify it’s stance the UNP issued a special statement on Friday September 28th. The statement was silemt on the question of whether it supports federalism or not. This apparently was deliberate.. What has been left unsaid conveys a clearer message of where the UNP stands today. Taken together with other aspects of the statement the UNP does not seem to be guilty of accusations levelled against it.

What the UNP seems to have done is to distance itself from the usage of emotive, divisive labels to describe the envisaged new Constitution for Sri Lanka. The party does not support the federal idea explicitly.It has not substitured unitary for federal either but dropped both descriptions in re-stating its position.

By doing so the UNP is now in line with the earlier direction of the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) and also the current approach of the United States of America. The onus is now on President Mahinda Rajapakse and the Sri Lanka Freedom party (SLFP) to jettison its adherence to the unitary label.What Wickremasinghe has succeeded in doing through his adroit re- positioning is the placing of Rajapakse in a tricky position.

Ranil Wickremasinghe re-assessed the UNP position and revealed his “new” thinking on September 17th during his address at the 101st birth anniversary of his uncle and former UNP president Junius Richard Jayewardena. But those involved in media coverage of the event missed its significance. The perceived UNP shift went largely unreported.

Subsequently Ravi Karunanayake came out with some details at a press conference. Karunanayake was not the best person to articulate Wickremasinghe’s simplistically complex political thoughts. His use of the word “re- positioning” was unfortunate.He also did not maintain the equidistance required between the concepts of unitary and federal when referring to them

As a result of this and a certain amount of spin by sections of the media the UNP message got obfuscated. Additional comments on different occasions by Tissa Attanayake, SB Dissanayake and Lakshman Kiriella did not help either.The best thing would have been for Wickremasinghe himself to articulate the UNP viewpoint clearly to scribes.

But Ranil in recent times has no patience with members of the fourth estate. He maintained his “katey pittu” approach. Soon non – journalist commentators also began criticising Wickremasinghe for the alleged flip – flop.

It was then that the UNP came out with a special statement. The statement explicitly referred to Ranil’s JR Jayewardena commemoration lecture. This is what the statement’s preamble said -

” The United National Party believes that long lasting peace is possible only through a negotiated political solution based on a credible power sharing proposal acceptable to all communities. The Party’s Annual Conventions of 2004 and 2006 reiterated this position. These policies were set out and further developed by Hon. Ranil Wickremesinghe – the Leader of the Party and Leader of the Opposition, when he delivered the J R Jayewardene commemoration lecture. He made the following observations:” The statement then outlines these observations crisply.

An examination of the UNP statement about its stance reveals that it possesses many positive and progressive features.
Contrary to charges raised in some quarters the UNP has not radically shifted its position. What it did was to re – formulate its stance.

For instance the UNP was always opposed to separatism and terrorism but in a bid to preserve the ceasefire Wickremasinghe exercised extra – ordinary patience with the LTTE. This enhanced its stature with the International community but lowered its image in Sri Lanka. Ranil was seen as soft on the LTTE. Now the UNP seeks to remedy this by reiterating its opposition to separatism and emphasising that a military response is required for terrorism.

Another charge is that it has flip – flopped on federalism. In the special statement there is no reference to federalism but neither is there reference to unitary. What the UNP has done is to move away from the politics of Constitutional labelling. It talks of a negotiated political solution based on a credible power sharing proposal acceptable to all communities.

Though the UNP omits explicit reference to the federal concept its position on some issues strengthen the federal idea. The following are relevant excerpts from the UNP statement

” There must be credible power sharing between the national government Regional/Provincial Councils and Local Authorities. The Centre must retain the powers needed for the effective functioning of the national government. The other powers must be vested in the other two levels. ”
“People living in the North have expressed fears that powers vested in the Region/Province may be taken away by a future Parliament. People in the South have a concern that the Party in power at the Centre will take away the powers of the Regional/Provincial Councils controlled by Opposition Parties. Similarly, Local Authorities are worried that the Party in power in the Region/Centre will take away their powers. ”
“Therefore, it is necessary to have a system to safeguard the devolved powers. We have to give our attention not only to legal principles but also to practical problems.”
“These proposals must make provision for sharing of power at the Centre between the national government and the Regional/Provincial administrations.”

Most of the other points like rights of minorities, democracy, human rights, structured talks,role of the LTTE, amending the ceasefire, Muslim participation etc are all commendable. So too are those addressing Sinhala concerns. Wickremasinghe has learnt his lesson. The new UNP approach is not to sacrifice principle for expediency. It will not ignore Sinhala sentiments in a bid to maintain a ceasefire. The UNP will be amenable for talks with the LTTE but structure it better. It will not be with the tigers alone.

There are two matters in the statement that are not clear.. One is this – ” The present system (the 13th Amendment) is based on the Provinces. Therefore we have to determine whether Provinces will be the unit of devolution for the future. If new units of devolution are being demarcated, it should be based on political, social and economic criteria.”

What does this mean? Is the UNP wanting to reduce the unit from Province to district like Rajapakse ? Does it want two provinces to merge like the North and East? Does it want to create new units on the basis of ethnicity like a territorially non – contiguous Muslim majority Council? A lot of ambiguity here.

The other is about holding a referendum not once but twice. This is what the statement says – “A political solution must be acceptable to all communities. Thereafter, it must be accepted by the people at a Referendum. Once a negotiated political solution is accepted at a Referendum, a Constitutional amendment incorporating a political solution will be passed by Parliament. This Constitutional amendment will have to be approved by the people at a second Referendum.

What is unclear is why the UNP wants a referendum twice.Certain Constitutional amendments or a new Constitution require two – thirds majority in Parliament and ratification by nation – wide referendum. Why does the UNP want a referendum before submission to Parliament? What sort of referendum does it have in mind? A non – binding one? Why cant one referendum suffice? Confusing!

Despite these reservations this writer is quite happy with the UNP position. It has not substituted unitary for federal. While not labouring under labels the UNP has strengthened the federal idea implicitly. Also most other points are eminently acceptable and praiseworthy.

Why then did the UNP receive so much flak for its perceived flip – flop on federalism ? The fault was not in the message but in the medium. The opening batsman Karunanayake gave the team a bad start and the others followed suit. Where the UNP went wrong was in saying the party never endorsed federalism. That rang hollow.

Let me quote from the different official communiques issued after the Oslo and Tokyo summits

Oslo – “Responding to a proposal by the leadership of the LTTE, the parties agreed to explore a solution founded on the principle of internal self-determination in areas of historical habitation of the Tamil-speaking peoples based on a federal structure within a United Sri Lanka. The parties acknowledged that the solution has to be acceptable to all communities”.
Tokyo – “The Tokyo Conference on Reconstruction and Development of Sri Lanka was held on June 9th and 10th in Tokyo with the participation of 51 countries and 22 International Organisations. The Opening session chaired by Hon. Yasushi Akashi was addressed by the Prime Ministers of Japan and Sri Lanka. Hon. M.Junichiro Koizumi and Hon. Ranil Wickremasinghe respectively.”
“At this conference, participants expressed the view that “a negotiated settlement in Sri Lanka will be a landmark achievement with regard to peaceful resolution of an armed conflict. The Conference commends both parties for the commitment to a lasting and negotiated peace, based on a federal structure, within a United Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the Conference stresses the importance of bringing tangible dividends of peace to all the People of Sri Lanka”.

It is true that Wickremasinghe has never committed explicitly to federalism. But the UNP position earlier was to re-iterate its commitment to Oslo and Tokyo resolutions. Whenever the media or the International community referred to the Government and LTTE having opted for Federalism in Oslo the UNP never sought to correct it. Instead it basked in the praise showered for supporting federalism.By doing so the UNP implicitly pledged adherence to exploring a federal solution.

What the UNP could have done was to explain the circumstances and be more honest about its present position vis a vis federalism. To say it never supported federal at any time was absurd.If that assertiion was true then the UNP was guilty of deception in Oslo. If the Oslo commitment was genuine the UNP was gulty of terminological inexactitudes now.

What is significant about the UNP stance is that the party is now in line with the general direction of the APRC. The APRC had wanted to drop reference to both the unitary and federal terms in defining the structure of the state or nature of the Constution.The idea was not to get embroiled in semantics and instead concentrate on enhancing the substance of devolution.There was a chance of the Constitution being quasi – federal without being called federal. For this the term unitary had to be excluded.

But Mahinda Rajapakse insisted that the term “unitary” be explicitly included and imposed his will on the other party leaders almost all of whom were members of his cabinet. Now the APRC is on the backburner and the final report is likely to be out only after the budget vote.

The course of the APRC could have been different if the UNP had played a more active and positive role. If the UNP remained in the APRC and worked from within , the other parties supportive of federalism may have rallied around it. The UNP could have provided strength and determination. The UNP did not do so and pulled out which was exactly what President Rajapakse wanted. The Sinhala “hawks” within the APRC were strengthened considerably as a result of the UNP pull – out.

Now the UNP position is aligned to that of the APRC’s earlier direction. It is not too late for the UNP to get back to the APRC and press for dropping of labels. Both the unitary and federal labels should be dropped and enhanced devolution amounting to quasi – fedetralism be worked out. This position should be followed through at the All Party Conference (APC) too. Will the UNP do it or remain aloof wanting the APRC to fail?

Another relevant point is that the UNP is now on the same wavelength as the USA on this matter. The US envoy recently stated his views on the APRC. These are reflective of the general international viewpoint.This is what US Ambassador Robert Blake Jr said at a Colombo seminar themed “Sri Lanka: the Way Forward”.

“While the Government must continue to defend the nation against terrorist attacks, the way forward lies in continuing to lay the basis for a negotiated settlement that will meet the aspirations of all of Sri Lanka’s communities: Tamils, Muslims and Sinhalese. A key part of that equation will be for the All Parties Representative Committee to complete its important work on a power-sharing proposal. From all accounts the APRC has made substantial progress. ”

“But difficult issues remain that will test whether all of Sri Lanka’s parties can work together to arrive at a just and equitable proposal that will receive the support of Tamils, Muslims and Sinhalese. To achieve a compromise that will lead to lasting peace will require statesmanship from all sides and the will to put the national interest above narrow party interests.”

“The governing coalition must demonstrate it represents the interests of all Sri Lankans, not just southern Sinhalese. The opposition UNP, which deserves much credit for the important steps it took to advance peace in 2002-2003, should, for the sake of all Sri Lankans, build on that record of achievement and work responsibly with the Government to ensure a successful APRC outcome. ”

“And we hope that all parties in the APRC will frame the final APRC proposals in a manner that avoids the use of divisive, emotive terms like “federalism” and “unitary.”

So the UNP and Ambassador Blake are of the same mind about avoiding the use of divisive, emotive terms like “federalism” and “unitary”. The important question is whether the UNP will heed the envoy’s request and cooperate more with the APRC. UNP participation at the APRC is necessary to finalise APRC proposals avoiding use of the F – word and U – word.

Another amusing development was the breast – beating by pro – tiger elements about the alleged UNP betrayal. The UNP had gone back on federalism they wailed. Some Tamil newspapers whipped themselves up into frenzied paroxysms and threatened dire consequences for the UNP. The tiger line was that the UNP betrayal had shown the Tamils that only Tamil Eelam under the LTTE was the solution.

This was the height of hypocrisy! It was the LTTE that went back on the quest for federalism when it pulled out of talks in 2003; it was the LTTE that abandoned the search for a federal solution when it demanded an interim self – governing authority outside the Constitution; it was LTTE spokespersons who explicitly stated that they had never accepted federalism and had only agreed to “explore”; it was the LTTE that enforced a boycott of elections helping to defeat the pro – federal Wickremasinghe and usher into power the unitary state proponent Rajapakse.

Against this backdrop the LTTE and its fellow travellers do not have the moral right to criticise Wickremasinghe for having betrayed the federal idea. If there was any betrayal the tigers are more to blame. Besides there has really been no betrayal. The current UNP position is not something to be condemned.

Whatever the criticism against it on this count ,the UNP will not lose its clout with the minorities in general and the Tamils in particular. Is there a real choice between Rajapakse and Wickremasinghe for the average Tamil voter?

Another type of reaction came from the Sinhala hardliners. Initially they thought the UNP had abandoned the federal idea and embraced the unitary state. Some boasted that the mighty military victories of the Govt had made Ranil change his mind. The makoritarian hawks are yet to get it. The LTTE is not for federalism. It is for Tamil Eelam. Only those Tamils desiring to live in a united , undivided Sri Lanka want devolution and power sharing.

Another illusion was that the UNP had reversed its stance to win over the JVP. To humiliate Wickremasinghe the crimson comrades demanded that Ranil state his position on the unitary state. Realisation has dawned now that the question of Wickremasinghe explaining his conversion to a unitarism does not arise simply because it has not happened.

Many supporting a negotiated settlement through power – sharing were also upset by the UNP’s perceived shift. Several persons supportive of a quasi – federal solution have criticised Ranil. But they seem to have relied on media reports alone in making this criticism. the official UNP statement shows things in a different light.Once this is understood the criticism is likely to subside.

There is however the danger of some UNP elements interpreting the UNP position differently to the Sinhala people. The UNP is neither united nor national. There are many who are unhappy with power sharing. Some hardliners within the UNP feel that the party’s support for the federal idea has affected its standing among Sinhala people. These elements will now exploit the new position to their advantage and project the view that federalism has been abandoned. In their desire to combat the JVP, JHU and SLFP these UNP bigwigs may take up an extremist position.

It is however doubtful whether Wickremasinghe will endorse this. Ranil Wickremasinghe knows that the UNP cannot gain votes by supporting the unitary state. Such a shift will expose the party to ridicule. The voters are not likely to be deceived either. They would prefer the original Unitary advocates instead of the UNP converst. This is what happened in 1956 when the UNP reversed its stand on the Official language issue and adopted a position more extreme than the SLFP. The voters were not taken in and dealt the UNP a decisive defeat.

Chandrika Kumaratunga is intellectually and emotionally committed to federalism. Mahinda Rajapakse is emotionally and intellectually committed to a unitary state. Ranil Wickremasinghe would like the Tamil national question to be resolved within a unitary structure if possible. But he is intellectually astute to know that such a solution is impossible. So in a clinically detached tehnocratic mode Wickremasinghe will support quasi – federalism in a non – unitary state.

What the Sinha;a hawks seem to have missed in their confusion and disappointment about Wickremasinghe’s alleged flip – flop is that the UNP leader through deft political manouevring has placed Rajapakse in an unenviable position. The International community and majority opinion in the APRC is for discarding semantics and opting for power sharing proposals without reference to the unitary or federal terms. Now the UNP has aligned itself with this school of thought. It is not possible for the anti – Ranil elements to malign him now as being for separation through federalism.

The onus is now on President Rajapakse. It is he who has compelled the SLFP to reverse its progressive stance of “union of regions” to “unitary”. It is Rajapakse who imposed the uitary concept on the APRC. It is Rajapakse who is insisting on the term “unitary” being included explicitly in Constitutional reform proposals.It is Rajapakse who violated the accord with the UNP by enticing 18 MP’s to cross over from the opposition. It is Rajapakse and not Wickremasighe who is perceived as the single biggest impediment in the South to a Constitutional solution now.

By distancing the UNP from both federalism and unitarism Wickremasinghe has managed to expose Rajapakse as being the spoiler. There is likely to be an escalation of International pressure on Rajapakse to drop his insistence on unitary. Ranil has succeded temporarily in cornering Mahinda and his fellow travellers through the politics of Constitutional labelling. How will the President wriggle out of this trap ? Lets wait and see.

DBS Jeyaraj can be reached at djeyaraj@federalidea.com

This failure of the international community to hold the scales even and the lack of interest shown in expediting APRC proceedings have given President Rajapaksa leeway to do what he wanted with the APRC. Thus, the end result of the APRC seems to be a foregone conclusion

By D.B.S. Jeyaraj

The All Party Representative Committee (APRC) chaired by Prof. Tissa Vitarana is in the doldrums. The recent spurt of activity, aimed at finalising a set of Constitutional reform proposals, has subsided. The energetic zeal displayed by some sections to make the APRC deliver has dissipated. Once again the APRC seems destined for the backburner.

The APRC has, during its existence, undergone different phases of pace caused mainly by external factors. Recently at the tail-end of August it seemed that the APRC was going into inertia. Then the beginning of September saw it being galvanised into action again. Now the APRC is about to hibernate in a state of ‘inactive activity’ until after the budget.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa addressing the 61st session of the UN General Assembly in New York, Sep 2006. AP [Courtesy: DailyNews.lk]

The appointment of the APRC and its panel of experts by President Mahinda Rajapaksa was perceived by many as a time-buying, diversionary tactic. It was felt that full-scale war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was on the cards and the quest for a political solution was only a sideshow.

Daunting task

Indeed, the APRC may have proceeded at a leisured pace but for external pressure by the international community, particularly India. As a result the Experts Committee came out in December last year with four reports comprising a majority, minority and two dissenting ones. Vitarana then took on the daunting task of forging a common set of proposals incorporating views proposed by the divided Experts Panel.

The APRC then began discussions using the Vitarana proposals as a basis. It was on the threshold of formulating a final report backed by a majority of Tamil, Muslim and leftist parties when President Rajapaksa intervened forcefully. Rajapaksa was troubled by the APRC majority opting for a non-unitary state, which he felt was going against his professed partiality for a unitary one.

Rajapaksa’s trump card was the fact that almost all the parties at the APRC were constituents of his government. The party leaders were all cabinet ministers. When the President summoned the party heads and insisted that the structure of the state had to be unitary, these leaders had to fall in line or resign from the government. Predictably, they fell in line.

The ball was then passed on to the Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickremanayake who chaired a formal All Party Conference (APC) attended by party leaders. It was decided there that the unitary character of the state would be retained. Since the President has given a green signal that maximum devolution should be made available within a unitary state, there was no problem about its substance.

Earlier the United National Party (UNP) had threatened to withdraw from the APRC if a report was not finalised before a stipulated date. Vitarana himself was able to increase the APRC’s pace by using the UNP’s deadline to devise a time-boundary. But when the UNP withdrew formally, the rationale for speeding up the APRC’s pace was lost.

More importantly President Rajapaksa was not keen on the APRC or APC finalising a report before the budget. This was because the budget vote was crucial as defeat on a money bill entailed dissolution of government.

Removing threats

Given the new Ranil Wickremesinghe-Mangala Samaraweera-Chandrika Kumaratunga configuration, the President was insecure about defections from government ranks and also about how the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) parties would vote.

The prudent course seemed to be that of removing, as far as possible, the points of disruptive potential threatening Rajapaksa’s Parliamentary majority. In that sense placing constitutional reforms on the backburner seemed essential. Reactivating the APC and deactivating the APRC were courses of action conforming to this design.

But there was a sudden shift into top gear. The President was scheduled to address the United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 24. With the government receiving much criticism from international human rights organisations, the President was expected to defend himself during his UN address.

Given the rising tide of international opposition against the Rajapaksa regime, the President had to make a masterful face-saving presentation at the UN.

Such an address would be incomplete and indeed lack total credibility if he could not demonstrate progress in the quest towards a political solution through constitutional reform.

It was now necessary for the APC and APRC to meet quickly and finalise a report so that the President could refer to it in glowing terms as an achievement during his UN address. It was going to be the mainspring of the state’s counter-propaganda against its international detractors.

So the early part of September saw renewed vigour on the constitutional reforms front. It appeared that an APRC report would be finalised before Rajapaksa’s departure. But this appearance is now proving deceptive.

On the backburner

The APRC is once again on the backburner. The reason for this is that the President has revised the strategy to be adopted at the UN.

‘Medamulane Mahinda’ is a man who reacts strongly and fights back fiercely if he sees himself being pushed to the wall. The President does not intend playing defensively on the back-foot. He intends ‘taking the bull by its horns’ to use a metaphor close to the Medamulane Laird’s heart.

President Rajapaksa’s address to the UN will emphasise more on countering terrorism rather than on peace building. He would tie up the war against the LTTE as being part of the global war on terror. The thrust of the President’s speech would be that of placing the onus on the international community to help him out in his government’s struggle against what he terms as the second most ruthless “terror” force in the world.

President Rajapaksa would outline a roadmap at the UN. It would be a roadmap focussing more on countering terror rather than peace building. This does not mean that he would ignore peace building efforts. He will certainly talk about the efforts at constitutional reform and the role of both the APC and APRC but it will no longer be the pivotal component of his address.
Rajapaksa will also offer the Sri Lankan experience as a model to be emulated globally in the fight against terror. Colombo wants to play a pro-active and not a reactive role at the UN.

“We will present a roadmap to counter terrorism in the world at large during the UN sessions. Through this we would like to show our experience and the drive to counter terrorism. We also want to showcase our agenda to bring about a democratic settlement to the issue,” Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama told a press conference in Colombo.

What the President intends pointing out at the UN is that the efforts of the APRC, however commendable, are of little practical value until and unless terrorism is wiped out or seriously undermined. Speaking from a historical perspective, the President will point out that the LTTE has been the single biggest obstacle to achieving a meaningful and durable political settlement.

Two schools of thought

In broad terms, there are two schools of thought on how the Tamil national question is to be resolved. One school opines that a political solution acceptable to the ‘silent majority’ of moderate Tamils must be evolved to undermine and eventually defeat the LTTE.

The other school of thought argues that the LTTE has to be defeated decisively before any political settlement is achieved. The LTTE has to be weakened if any political solution is to be implemented for the simple reason that the LTTE would not allow any scheme to be worked out.

What the President plans to do now is to come out in the open on this issue. He is likely to argue that no meaningful political solution is possible without defeating or weakening the LTTE significantly. Instead of concentrating on the peace-building process, he will explain his war on terror. On the human rights issues he may ‘admit’ to mistakes, but will emphasise that ways and means of penalising culprits and preventing offences are being pursued.

Against this backdrop of a revised strategy at the UN, the APRC has once against lost its element of urgency. There will be reference to it in New York but will not be given pre-eminence. The finalisation of a report before September 24 is not deemed necessary as before. The situation now is that the APRC report must not be out until after the Budget and Appropriation Bill votes.

The President’s decision to ‘go for broke’ at the UN stems from fresh confidence. There are four reasons for this approach.

Fresh confidence

Firstly, he is confident that his government will survive not only the Budget vote but also in the months thereafter. The JVP will not vote against him if the beneficiary is going to be Ranil Wickremesinghe. There is a danger of the JVP changing track if Mangala Samaraweera is to be the premier and not Wickremesinghe. As for more SLFP defections, such a possibility exists only if Kumaratunga takes a frontal role, which she is unlikely to do at present.

Secondly, the armed forces are performing well on ground. The prospect of minimising, if not totally eradicating, the LTTE threat looms large on the horizon. There is increasing support among the people for pursuing a military option against the Tigers. There is a belief among sections of the government that a snap election in the wake of a major military victory is likely to yield tremendous political gains.

Thirdly, the President is confident that the international community will go along with him in the anti-LTTE war. Despite token censures and reductions, there would be no significant cut back of aid or finance.

In spite of regular diplomatic pronouncements that there can be no military solution and that there can only be a political solution, there will be no powerful attempt by anyone to restrain the armed forces as long as they target the Tigers and not Tamil civilians deliberately.

Fourthly, Rajapaksa feels that the Human Rights Lobby is not powerful enough to enforce resolutions against Sri Lanka at present. Despite the hot air blowing at the HRC sessions and the representations made by organisations such as Human Rights Watch, a resolution condemning Colombo is not likely to materialise.

For one thing, Amnesty International, whose Head Irene Khan has met Rajapaksa thrice, is reportedly not cooperating with others. More importantly, none of the big powers are backing such a move.

It is with this strident confidence that President Rajapaksa is going to take centre-stage tomorrow, September 24, at the UN and deliver a powerful address. It is also with the same streak of confidence that the President is confining the APRC to the backburner.

Going through the motions

Prof. Vitarana will go through the motions and inform the inquiring media that work is in progress and that everything would be wrapped up soon, but there does not seem to be even a remote possibility that the report would be out before the budget. It is likely to be finalised and handed over to the President only after the Budget and related votes.

Even then there are doubts about the date because there is no determined effort by any powerful party to force the pace of the APRC. The President and the SLFP along with parties like the JHU, JVP and MEP will prefer to delay the report until the LTTE is weakened further militarily. It would be easier to dilute the report further and impose a solution.

The UNP is also not interested in making the APRC work. If the UNP had remained in the APRC and cooperated with Vitarana, there could have been a sea change in the final outcome.

The UNP will not like the SLFP to get any credit through the APRC. It will also not want to be put in a tricky position of endorsing or rejecting an APRC report. In addition, the UNP can tell the minority communities that the APRC was an eye-wash to hoodwink them. The elephant would like to be an eel.

The Sinhala hardliners oppose positive measures at the APRC saying it would strengthen the LTTE separatists, but the irony is that the LTTE also does not want the APRC to succeed.

The LTTE’s rationale for Tamil Eelam is that the ‘Sinhala’ polity will never provide a meaningful political settlement. The LTTE ‘mouthpiece,’ the TNA, has 22 seats. It was kept out of the APRC by Rajapaksa. It was really a blessing in disguise for the TNA as the LTTE would not have permitted it to participate even if invited.

Reality

The reality is that a political settlement based on federal or quasi-federal lines is of paramount importance only to the Sri Lankan Tamils desirous of living in an undivided Sri Lanka with equal rights. Their case has not been represented powerfully at the APRC.

The only Sri Lankan Tamil party at the APRC is the Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP). Its representative, S. Thavarajah made a minimal contribution to the proceedings and kept away on many occasions.

After his ’sudden’ departure to Britain, Lawyer Maheswary Velayutham attended meetings. Being well-versed in the Tamil struggle for equal rights, Velayutham spoke up on a number of matters including that of Buddhism being given foremost place. Devananda quickly substituted his docile uncle Sivathasan for Velayutham.

In the absence of an effective Sri Lankan Tamil voice at the APRC, it was left to the up country Tamil and Muslim parties to articulate the need for effective power-sharing.

In that respect, the roles played by the CWC’s R. Yogarajan and the SLMC’s Nizam Kariappar have been constructive and praiseworthy. The CWC and SLMC stances are all the more commendable because certain aspects of power-sharing are not as important to plantation Tamils and Muslims as they are to Sri Lankan Tamils.

There was however a limit beyond which up country Tamil and Muslim parties could not go. This was the case with the left parties also. They opted to lend support to what other parties proposed, rather than initiate proposals. In any case all these parties, being constituents of the government, had ‘lakshmana rekhas’ they could not cross.

Without powerful internal compulsions, only external pressure could have saved the APRC. Initially, India was keen on a faster pace, but eventually that interest waned.

Lip service

The international community has been generally staying aloof and paying lip service to the parrot cry of a “solution acceptable to all sections of the people.” The solution had to be home grown and the international community did not want to be seen as influencing it in any way.

This was a blatant display of double standards as the international community had stated openly that the solution had to be within the unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka.

In a ‘clash’ between Sinhala ‘mono-statists’ and Tamil ’separatists,’ the international community ruled out the separatists. But in the struggle between unitarists and federalists, the international community remained detached. If the international community had emphasised that the envisaged solution should not be unitary, the doves would have been strengthened vis-à-vis the hawks.

This failure of the international community to hold the scales even and the lack of interest shown in expediting APRC proceedings have given President Rajapaksa leeway to do what he wanted with the APRC. Thus, the end result of the APRC seems to be a foregone conclusion. In spite of Vitarana’s indomitable courage and resourcefulness, he is ultimately going to lose face, the extent of which is debatable.

Though the APRC is in the twilight stages, it must be recognised that it has achieved a very great deal. The unitary state may be retained and the Northern and Eastern Provinces may be separate, but there has been significant progress as far as substance of devolution is concerned and also in terms of other power-sharing features. A short account of the salient factors in the proposed APRC report would be of relevance.

Salient factors

Structure of the State: Sri Lanka will be a unitary state.
Buddhism: Buddhism will continue to enjoy a pre-eminent position as provided in the current Constitution.

Parliament: Parliament will consist of a House of Representatives with 225 members, and a Senate with 75 members. The members of the House of Representatives will be elected to territorial constituencies as well as on the Proportional Representation system; 72 senators will be elected by the Provincial legislatures, while three will be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Form of National Government: The government will be on the Westminster Model with the prime minister as the head. The cabinet of ministers will not exceed 30 in number. There could be 30 deputy ministers as well. The president of the country will be elected by Parliament and he will be the nominal head of state. There will be a vice president from a community different to that of the president. The vice president will chair the Senate.

Electoral system: There will be 110 territorial constituencies. An additional 110 MPs will be elected on proportional basis. Five seats will be reserved for the smaller parties. Each elector will be given two ballot papers, one to elect the constituency MP, the other to vote for the party of his choice in order to elect other MPs on proportional basis.

Judiciary: There will be no constitutional court. All constitutional issues will be referred to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal will have divisions in the provinces. Every province will have its high court. The provinces will have no say in the appointment of judges.

Individual and group rights: Section 29(2) of the Soulbury Constitution are included. Most provisions of the South African Constitution and the 2000 Constitution on fundamental rights are included.

Language: Sinhala and Tamil shall be the official languages of Sri Lanka enjoying parity of status for the first time. English will also be a language of administration. Sinhala, Tamil and English will be the media of instruction in educational institutions. Sinhala, Tamil and English will be the languages of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. Any member of the public could correspond with any government official in any of the three languages and will be entitled to receive a response in that language.

Unit of devolution: Unit of devolution will be the province. The districts will be the centres of administration as at present.
Merger of the North and East: This subject is to be discussed and decided at the peace talks between the government and the LTTE. The Muslim concerns are also to be addressed at that time.

Special arrangement for Indian origin Tamils: There will be a cultural and development council to meet the aspirations of the Tamils of Indian origin. The council will have its own budget.

Distribution of powers: The distribution of powers will be given in two lists, one for the provinces and the other for the centre. There will be no concurrent list. There will be no asymmetric devolution of powers. Education, including universities, health, roads, transport, housing, water supply, electricity, industries, agriculture, fisheries, irrigation, etc., have been included in the provincial list.

Provincial executive: Each province will have a governor appointed by the centre with the concurrence of the chief minister of the province. There will be a board of ministers headed by the chief minister as at present. There will be no deputy ministers. The governor will always act on the advice of the chief minister, except when he is required to do otherwise by the Constitution. There will be a public service commission for every province as at present.

Law and order: Law and order will be a devolved subject. All police officers above ASP level will belong to an all island service. The province will be empowered to recruit its police officers, even at the ASP level. The head of the provincial police will be the IGP while the national police will be headed by a director general of police, assisted by IGPs in his own office.
The province will have its own police commission. The power of appointment, transfer and disciplinary control of all police officers in the province will be with the provincial government.

Public service: There will be national public servants, all island public servants, and, provincial public servants. The province will be empowered to recruit all island service officers to fill its cadres at recruitment level. The government agent of a district, the divisional secretary of a division and the grama sevakas will form part of the provincial administration.

Land: A land use commission on utilisation of lands will give policy direction. The commission will be representative of the centre, the provinces and communities. The actual alienation of state land will be by the province.

Fiscal devolution: The province will have the power to borrow locally or internationally and to promote foreign direct investment. It will have powers over specific taxation. The new provisions are an improvement on the provisions in the 13th Amendment and the 2000 Constitution Bill.

Local government: Local government will go one step below the existing pradeshiya sabhas. Powers of the local authorities will be clearly spelt out in the Constitution.

Safeguards against secession: There will be provisions to permit the centre to impose president’s rule in a province if there be any attempts by the government or legislature of that province that could threaten the unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.

Amending procedure: The new amending procedure will be that which is applicable to a unitary constitution. The provinces will have no say in the amendment procedure. However, the requirement for a referendum will be done away with.

The above mentioned features outlining the essence of the consensus achieved at the APRC demonstrate that these proposals are a vast improvement on the 13th Constitutional amendment provisions or the 2000 draft bill. What is essential therefore is to see that these positive gains of the APRC are presented, approved and implemented as soon as is possible. Time is of the essence!

By D.B.S. Jeyaraj

Pazhaniappan Nedumaran the 74 year old leader of India’s “Thamizhar Desiya Iyakkam” (Tamil National Movement) has commenced a fast unto death campaign in the Tamil Nadu capital of Chennai. Nedumaran’s fast is an act of protest against the alleged conduct of both the state government of Chief minister Muthuvel Karunanidhi and the Central govt of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Nedumaran charges the central govt of not responding to his request to grant permission to send food, essential items and medicine through the International Red Cross to the suffering civilians of Jaffna. He accuses the state govt of aborting his envisaged humanitarian mission to Jaffna by preventing their passage across the Palk straits to Jaffna.

Nedumaran began his fast on Wednesday Sep 12th in the coastal town of Nagapattinam. He and his supporters were arrested and detained and later sent back to Chennai. Nedumaran who began his protest fast in Nagapattinam has been continuing it after being forcibly re- located to Chennai. Despite many requests to call off the fast because of the septugenarian’s health condition the doughty fighter for Tamil rights continued with his fast.

Nedumaran is one of the few Tamil Nadu political leaders to consistently express active concern over the Tamil predicament in Sri Lanka unlike many others whose interest waxes and wanes according to political self – interest. Unfortunately Nedumaran has chosen to hitch his wagon to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) star.

He supports the Tamil armed struggle for Tamil Eelam and regards Velupillai Prabakharan as not only the national leader of Eelam Tamils but also of the transnational Tamil nation including Tamils of India.

Nedumaran comes from a rich land owning Vellalar family in Madurai district , Tamil Nadu. Madurai was the seat of the Pandyan dynasty and also of the classical Tamil academy known as “Sangham”.

Young Nedumaran began his political career as a student activist of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagham (DMK) but soon broke away from the DMK with people like EVK Sampath, Kannadasan, MK Subramaniam and formed the Tamil National party.

This faction later merged with the Congress led by chief minister Kumaraswamy Kamaraj. Nedumaran rose rapidly in the Congress and soon became a frontline leader. He remained loyal to Kamaraj after the 1969 split but joined the Congress headed by Indira Gandhi after his death in 1975.

When Indira was out of power and visited Tamil Nadu in 1978 the DMK launched a vicious agitation where a sledge hammer was thrown at her. Nedumaran sprang to her defence and took the full force of it on himself thereby saving Indira from serious injury. Nedumaran was described as “Irumbu manithan” (Iron man) after that.

Yet barely two years later the Congress and DML joined forces and contested as allies. Indira and Karunanidhi appeared on platforms tigether. This alliance was intolerable for people like Nedumaran who broke away and formed a party called the Kamaraj Congress. His party won a handful of seats in 1980 June. Nedumaran himself was re- elected from Madurai west.

It was in the eighties that Nedumaran began concerning himself with the Sri Lankan Tamil issue. He and the CPI’s M. Kalyanasundaram were the only Tamil Nadu leaders to visit Jaffna after the burning of the Jaffna library in 1981. This writer was then the “Virakesari” s Jaffna correspondent and had the opportunity of conversing in depth with Nedumaran both on and off the record .

Deeply affected by the Tamil plight in Sri Lanka he began involving himself with the issue strongly. But this support was not only at an overt political level but also on a covert militancy level. He was generally supportive of Tamil militancy and provided refuge to many young militants fleeing Sri Lanka in his farm. Even Prabakharan stayed at the farm for some time without Nedumaran knowing who he was.

As the militant movement fragmented Nedumaran began showing particular affinity towards the LTTE. In those years the LTTE was greatly dependent on Nedumaran for help and succour. There are many who condemn the man today as being a paid agent of the LTTE. But those who vilify him now forget that he supported the LTTE generously in its fledgling stage when no sign of a bright future was visible.

Nedumaran’s support to the LTTE was more due to his Tamil nationalist feelings rather than monetary considerations. Many Tamil nationalists in Sri Lanka, India and elsewhere have ended up supporting the LTTE because of this nationalist fervour and because they think the tigers are the only counterpoint to Sinhala hegemonism. Nedumaran was one such person

It also must be remembered that Nedumaran lost out politically due to his support for the LTTE. He lost the elections of 1985 and 1989 and has not contested since then. If Nedumaran did not become an Eelamist supporter he had a good chance of becoming a cabinet minister.He was risking his life when he crossed over clandestinely to northern Sri Lanka with the LTTE in 1986. He has also suffered numerous periods of detention and a prolonged jail sentence because of his support to the LTTE.

The reward Nedumaran has got in return for all this is the affection and admiration of ultra – Tamil nationalists in Tamil Nadu and LTTE supporters worldwide. He has travelled around the world addressing many pro – tiger meetings and demonstrations. He has also received cash donations as tokens of gratitude from Sri Lankan Tamils abroad. All of these hardly compensate for the losses he has suffered and the trouble he takes to propagate the Sri Lankan Tamil cause.

This account of Nedumaran’s background and history is related here only to provide an insight into the man and his sense of mission. For the sacrielege of daring to cross the palk straits Nedumaran has been depicted as a joker and charlatan.

Others have sought to make a Himalaya out of a Kudumbimalai and whipped up themselves into a frenzy that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka was going to be irredeemably violated. Some even wanted our navy to blast this invading “armada” to smithereens.

But the Indian powers that be were quite cool about the entire episode. Nedumaran’s so called humanitarian mission was not nipped in the bud as some wanted. Instead he was allowed to proceed to the waterfront as he was democratically and legally entitled to so so.

But he could not violate immigration and customs procedures and embark to Jaffna illegally. So he was stopped at that stage through a deliberate stratagem of making marine vessels inaccessible. When a chagrined Nedumaran and followers demonstrated in protest they were arrested.

The decision to launch a humanitarian mission to northern Sri Lanka was taken at a meeting of the Eelam Tamil solidarity forum convened on August 4th at Vizhuppuram in Tamil Nadu. It was resolved that two groups participate. One group was to begin from Trichy on the 7th and reach Nagapattinam on the 11th. The other was to leave Madurai on the 7th and reach Rameshwaram on the 11th. A series of meetings explaining the Tamil plight in Sri Lanka were to be conducted enroute.

Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) leader Dr. S. Ramadas bade farewell to the group leaving Trichy and Viduthalai Chiruthai organization chief T. Thirumavalavan received it in Nagapattinam. The group proceeding from Madurai was given a send – off by Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra kazhagham (MDMK) leader Vaiko and received in Rameshwaram by Indian national league leader Basheer Ahamad.

Sep 12th was D – day. A group of 328 persons including 16 women led by Nedumaran proceeded on foot to the waterfront but found the boat and trawler owners refusing to let their boats being used despite having agreed earlier. Apparently all the fishermen had been threatened with dire consequences if they allowed the boats to be used.

Apart from threats of arrest, confiscation of boats and revoking of licenses they were also warned that the Sri Lankan navy would be given carte blanche to deal with Tamil Nadu fishermen in the future.

Nedumaran pleaded personally with the fisherfolk but found their fear of possible consequences to be greater than his persuasive powers. Finding his plans going awry Nedumaran commenced a fast unto death campaign.

He requested his fellow volunteers to refrain from joining him on a long fast but to commence only a one day token fast in solidarity. This was acceded to and the impromptu fast began.

Thereafter the Police acted and arrested the persons saying they had no permission to demonstrate in a public place. They were initially detained at a wedding hall but sent back to Chennai and other places by bus in the night.

Nedumaran however continued his fast throughout. After returning to Chennai he continued it at Koyambedu in front of a motor garage owned by a supporter Soundararajan.

Meanwhile the other group of 126 persons led by the Tamil National movement secretary Paranthaman reached Rameshwaram as scheduled and commenced their mission simultaneously on Sep 12th morning. It was the same story as in Nagapattinam. No boats were available.To make matters worse the fishing boats had been taken off – shore by the Indian navy and anchored at mid – sea.

The volunteers then sat on the jetty and shouted slogans in support of Eelam Tamils and condemning the Indian and Sri Lankan authorities. At one point a demonstrator got up and running across jumped aboard a naval dingy and chanted slogans. About 40 others followed this spontaneous gesture and jumped on to naval craft shouting slogans.

Armed naval personnel surrounded the demonstrators and threatened to shoot but the demonstrators remained unflinching. The tense stand – off was brought under control by the Police who asked the navy to move out and then arrested the demonstrators.

All 126 were rounded up and detained for a while at the station. Later they too were released and dropped off in buses.. No charges were pressed.

In Koyambedu a Shamiana had been erected outside the garage in anticipation of large crowds to witness Nedumaran’s fast. The Police however lathi – charged supporters and forcibly dismantled the structure. When the “Sun” TV videoed it the Police assaulted the cameraman.

Ironically the “Sun” TV had been Karunanidhi’s favourite prior to the split with his grand – nephews the Maran brothers. Now the “Sun” was at the receiving end. Journalists however went on strike demanding an apology and received one from a high ranking officer.

The Police also warned Nedumaran that he would be arrested if he continued his fast. Nedumaran refused to call it off. Soon supporters began gathering in lsrge numbers to express solidarity. The Police contingent was also increased. The Police barred the media from speaking to Nedumaram.

Nedumaran then moved into the garage premises and continued with his fast. Several political leaders, film and media personalities visited him to extend support. Many were worried about Nedumaran’s health and urged him to call it off, Nedumaran however adamantly refused and according to his daughter Poonkulali her father was fasting at the time of this article being written on Friday (SEP 14TH ) morning

This writer does not agree with Nedumaran’s politics and disapproves of his blind support to the LTTE but at the same time respects the man as one who sincerely empathises with the Tamil predicament. As stated earlier it is unfortunate that he has chosen to support the LTTE without reservation and sees it as the sole vehicle of Tamil emancipation.

The past week or more has seen Nedumaran being vilified and ridiculed for what is termed as a political stunt. It is certainly a political stunt but it does not deserve the vicious attacks heaped by sections of the media here and abroad.

The issue was not that of his proposed passage to Jaffna but why he chose to do so. In a sense it is not Nedumaran who is in the dock but the Indian government, Tamil Nadu state govt and the Sri Lankan govt..

The Sri Lankan government shut the entry/exit point in Muhamaalai along the A – 9 highway and effectively brought about an economic embargo. In the immediate aftermath there were famine – like conditions in Jaffna. It was at that stage that Nedumaran and his movement started a campaign to collect food,milk powder for infants and medicine to be sent through the Red Cross to Jaffna.

But the Central Government refused to grant permission despite numerous requests. The state government also kept aloof and did not take up the issue with New Delhi. One reason for this was the animosity between Karunanidhi and Nedumaran.

The pro – tiger elements in Tamil Nadu were sharply divided at the elections last year. Vaiko and Thirumavalavan supported Jayalalitha openly while Nedumaran did so quietly. As a result Nedumaran’s highly respected secretary SP Veerapandian split and joined forces with Karunanidhi.

It was against this backdrop of total lack of response that Nedumaran resorted to the political stunt of launching a passage to Jaffna. He had done so with another ex – Congress leader Kumari Anandan in 1983 August but was arrested after getting on to a boat. Everyone expected a re-play of that drama but found the authorities pre- empting even the act of getting into a boat by intimidating the fisherfolk.

It is true that Jaffna is not undergoing a famine now. But there is certainly a shortage of essential items and prices are sky high. This is why there is a long list of more than a 100, 000 people seeking permission to leave the peninsula. The Tamils are leaving their historic habitat in large numbers through persecution and persuasion.

Nedumaran’s political stunt akin to an absurd drama has helped draw attention to this situation. It has also exposed the double standards of the state and central governments in India. In 1987 New Delhi air – dropped food over Jaffna saying there was starvation when it was not so. But now New Delhi was unresponsive.

Likewise Karunanidhi has been shedding tears over his “Eelath Thamizh udanpirappugal” (eelam Tamil siblings) for many , many years. But currently the Tamils in Sri Lanka are undergoing immense suffering but there is a blatant lack of concern by his administrations.

In Sri Lanka there is a sudden spurt of activity to ensure enough supplies are being sent to Jaffna. Colombo has climbed down from its earlier stance of denying there was a shortage in Jaffna. Many fresh measures to send supplies are being proposed.

It seems that the Rajapakse brothers were told in new Delhi that it would be difficult to restrain nationalist elements like Nedumaran in Tamil Nadu if remedial measures were not taken.

As for Nedumaran one does appreciate his efforts to alleviate Tamil suffering here . It is however regrettable that he views the problem only through a pro – tiger prism.

If Nedumaran would widen his prspective and alter his approach he would be doing himself and Sri Lankan Tamils a favour. He needs to move away from a Jaffna – centric, pro – tiger focus and see the larger reality.

What the Tamils need in Sri Lanka is a viable, quasi – federal solution within a united, undivided Sri Lanka. For this greater pressure on Colombo by New Delhi is necessary. People like Nedumaran can explore ways and means of making India engage constructively in Sri Lanka instead of indulging in near farcicial exercises.

It also takes two to tango. The LTTE also must abandon its suicidal course of action. Prolonging this horrible war can only result in the Tamils being weakened and diminished. People like Nedumaran who enjoy some clout with the LTTE should use their influence to transform the tigers instead of encouraging them on a futile march of folly.

Meanwhile chief minister Karunanidhi conveyed a message through SP Veerapandian that he was prepared to meet with Nedumaran and discuss the situation of Sri Lankan Tamils. He reiterated his abiding “love, affection and concern” for them. Nedumaran did not respond to this overture

Subsequently Karunanidhi on a two day tour of Salem and Erode districts wrote a personal letter to Nedumaran from the Erode railway station. He asked Nedumaran to call off the fast in view of deteriorating health and promised to meet him after returning to Chennai. The letter ended on a positive note saying that he as chief minister would like to see the onjectives of Nedumaran’s mssion succeed and wanted to discuss ways and means of to ensure that.

This letter was given by SP Veerapandian to Sri Lankan Tamil poet Kasi Anandan to be given to Bedumaran. It was done on Friday but Nedumaran did not budge saying firmer guarantees were required. Later the Police handed over the same letter written officially under an official letterhead.

At this point Nedumaran said he would not give up his fast but submit Karunanidhi’s letter to the steering committee in charge of the humanitarian mission for discussion on Saturday seo 15th. He would abide by the committee’s decision. Until then he would continue the fast.

The steering committee met and unanimously called on Nedumaran to call off the fast in view of the chief minister’s letter. But Nedumaran declined saying concrete assurances were required.

Finally PMK leader Dr. S. Ramadoss met Karunanindhi personally and elicited some specific assurances. He then journeyed to Koyanbedu and met Nedumaran. By this time Nedumaran’s pulse had dropped to a dangerous low. He had undergone heart surgery a few years ago and was on medication.

The PMK leader persuaded Nedumaran to end his fast on the strength of further assurances given by Karunanidhi that the CM would take steps to transport food and medicine to beleaguered Tamils in Northern Sri Lanka. A meeting was to be held with Karunanidhi where both Nedumaran and Ramadoss would participate,

Nedumaran then relented and ended his fast after sipping fruit juice given by both Ramadoss and Vaiko.

It remains to be seen as to how the proposed meeting between Karunanidhi and Nedumaran goes and whether decisions affecting Sri Lanka would be taken.

By D.B.S. Jeyaraj

The All Party Representatives Committee (APRC) is expected to meet this Monday and Tuesday in what may very well be its swansong. After 42 meetings held over a period of 14 months the APRC chaired by veteran Trotskyite Prof. Tissa Vitharana is likely to wind up either this or next week after releasing its final report.

The APRC was written off by some political parties and sections of the media some weeks ago. That was incorrect. The APRC thanks mainly to the efforts of its indefatigable chairperson Vitharana did not suffer a premature death.

Despite the overwhelming odds against it the APRC did manage to stay on course gamely.Vitharana remained constant as the northern star in spite of mounting opposition.

According to a Sama Samaajist source Tissa Vitharana during his schooldays used to open batting and eventually carry his bat through the innings. Wickets would tumble at the other end but stonewalling Tissa will remain unbeaten at his end but with a low score.

The protracted APRC meetings demonstrated vividly the Science and Technology minister’s tenacity and political stamina. He clung on to the APRC defiantly and with the help of some like – minded persons tried to evolve a worthwhile set of Constitutional Reform proposals.

What went on in the APRC was a “cold” war between the doves and hawks on the Tamil national question. The struggle was to do away with the unitary state and re- place it with a structure embodying the federal idea.

The exciting thing about the whole exercise was that it did not conform to President Rajapakse’s political beliefs as expressed through the Mahinda Chinthana.

A group of small parties representing Muslims, Up Country Tamils, Trotskyites and Communists with partial help from the UNP forged proposals in the teeth of opposition from Sinhala supremacist hardliners, national socialists and ethno – fascists.

Giving tacit and tactful leadership to this project was Prof. Vitharana aided by some official and unofficial advisers.To his credit the APRC chairperson did come very, very close to this goal. But the heavy hand of the Presidency clamped down at the penultimate stage.

By the ides of August the APRC had succeeded in formulating a unified approach as far as the substance of devolution was concerned. It had also achieved consensus on many other aspects of Constitutional Reform.

Among progressive features of the new draft were an upper house, a vice – presidency rotated among three minority communities for a period of two years each, a parliament to be elected on both the first past the post system (110) and Proportionate representation (110) a cultural and development council for the Up Country Tamils, Establishment of province as unit of devolution with removal of concurrent list etc.

The APRC draft proposals are in terms of content a vast improvement on the 13th Constitutional amendment and the draft bill presented to Parliament and later withdrawn by the Kumaratunga regime in August 2000.

The two areas of disagreement were on the structure of the state – unitary, federal or something in between – and the question of merger, de – merger and re- merger of the Northern and Eastern provinces.

Despite Mahinda Rajapakse’s affinity towards the unitary state the “majority” view within the APRC was for federalism. But given prevailing political realities the idea was to describe the state as neither unitary nor federal but maintain a “quasi – federal ” nature in the quality of devolution.

It was at this stage that the Sinhala hawks got alarmed. Since Mahinda Rajapakse had stated on more than one occasion that he would abide by what the APRC decided the President was bound to implement the proposals. So there was frantic “kusu kusu kootams” (secret meetings). The end result of it all was a visible hardening of attitude by Rajapakse.

Apart from Rajapakse’s personal partiality towards the unitary state there was also the opposition of the Jathika Hela Urumaya from within the Government and the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna from outside.

The JHU threatened a pull – out if the unitary state was jettisoned. The JVP warned of voting against the Govt if powers were not devolved within a unitary state.

Rajapakse’s parliamentary majority is in a shaky state. The new configuration of Ranil – Mangala – Chandrika is a serious political threat.

About 20 to 25 SLFP Parliamentarians may cross over at any time. If this happens aeound 12 – 15 UNP crossers over may return to UNP folds. In that case some Up Country Tamil and Muslim parties will also jump.

It was against this backdrop that Rajapakse was constrained to act. He had to stymie the APRC adroitly without any blame overtly attaching to himself.

The Budget in November was crucial as defeat in a money bill vote entailed a collapse of Govt and parliamentary dissolution. It was essential therefore to keep the JHU and JVP happy and also not make the minority community parties unhappy.

The President’s strength lay in the fact that he was in charge of a government where almost all the leaders of political parties involved in the APRC were cabinet ministers.

Their inclusion in Govt meant that nominally they shared Rajapakse’s vision. This vision incorporated devolution within a unitary state.

As such it was doubtful whether these political parties could withstand Presidential pressure. Either they had to relent or resign their portfolios on a matter of principle.

This was unlikely given Dr. Colvin R de Silva’s famous quip about “ministers in India resigning on principle” and ministers in Sri Lanka “resigning themselves to fate”.

This column was fully aware of Rajapakse’s compulsions and constraints and predicted two weeks ago that he would create an impasse at the APRC, woo the JVP, press the party leaders and then let matters drag on till after the budget. These predictions came true to a certain extent last week.

Jeyaraj Fernandopulle fast becoming the Rajapakse “Rotterweiler” stated publicly that the President’s policy was to devolve maximum power within a unitary state. It was unitary state and nothing else.

Then the President summoned some Government party leaders and discussed the APRC report draft. He stated there that an All Party Conference chaired by Premier Ratnasiri Wickremanayake would convene and discuss the APRC draft. Thereafter the APRC could meet again.

The idea was to prolong the discussions till the budget vote was over. The United National Party played into Rajapakse’s hands by quitting the APRC at this critical juncture.

Earlier Vitharana had expedited APRC proceedings to meet the Aug 16th deadline set by the UNP. Now Rajapakse was able to justify a leisured pace saying there was no hurry because the UNP was out of the proceedings.

Rajapakse’s secret agenda or non – agenda of letting matters drag on through protracted APC and APRC discussions underwent a drastic change through changing political dynamics.

The President was all set to address the United Nations General assembly on September 26th. Given the rising tide of international opposition towards the Rajapakse regime the President had to make a masterful face – saving presentation at the UN.

Such an address would be incomplete and indeed lack total credibility if he could not demonstrate progress in the quest towards a political solution through constitutional reform.

The Rajapakse regime’s rationale for war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) rests primarily on this acknowledged political process.

It was imperative for Rajapakse to get his act together in terms of the APRC. Suddenly priorities transformed.

It was now necessary for the APC and APRC to meet quickly and finalise a report so that the President could refer to it in glowing terms as an achievement during his UN address. It was going to be the mainspring of the state’s counter – propaganda against its international deractors.

So the APC met again last week chaired by the Prime Minster. The political party chiefs cum cabinet ministers discusssed the issue and arrived at a pre – determined conclusion that the APRC meet next week and finalise the report.

The APRC is likely to meet on both Sep 3rd and Sep 4th and possibly on other early dates if necessary.

When the APRC comes out with its report the APC will then begin studying it. This writer is of the opinion that such a scrutiny will take a “long, long” time in view of its “importance”. So protracted discussions will continue in fits and starts till the budget vote is over.

Meanwhile the President will proclaim triumphantly to the world on Sep 26th at the UN that his government along with leaders of other political parties is now carefully studying and discussing the commendable report put out by the APRC.

He will re-iterate that he will accept the final findings and implement the recommendations.

What will be left unsaid is the fact that the President personally and through intermediaries pressurised the constituents of his government to accept the unitary state.

The expected APRC decision on a unitary state will not be free and independent but an imposed one by the President.

This column predicted that under Rajapakse’s pressure the party leaders are likely to wilt as they are all cabinet ministers holding office at the president’s pleasure.

After accepting Mahinda Chinthana as the professed raison d’tre of taking up office these ministers cannot go against the Chinthana’s cardinal principle of a unitary state.Thus the cabinet ministers who are also party leaders will fall in line.

Once the Up Country Tamil and Muslim parties do so then there is no reason for the LSSP and CP to hold out. Majority opinion would be then for an “ekeeya” state.

The APRC participants have to obey the party leadership. So the APRC report will most likely endorse a unitary state structure.

Some minority political party circles that this writer spoke to indicated that they would now support a unitary state as that was what the President desired.

Apparently Rajapakse had insisted that the unitary state term must be stated clearly. But he was seemingly amenable to maximum devolution to the provinces under a unitary structure.

Under these circumstances there can be two resultant developments. If some political parties display courageous independence and defy the diktat and hold out for a non – unitary but not necessarily a federal state the final report could reflect it.

What the APRC could then do is to follow the modus operandi of the expert panel majority report .When it came to the North – East merger the eleven multi – ethnic experts who endorsed the majority report were not in total agreement.

So they tabled four options available along with individual notes of reservation. The issue was passed on to the political party heads for finalisation after further discussions with Tamil and Muslim leaders.

This is the position of the APRC even now on the North and East.

Likewise if there is a majority opinion in favour of a unitary state and a minority opinion for a non – unitary state then the APRC could finalse its report on similar lines by incorporating both points of view.

Thereafter it would be the lot of the party leaders to decide conclusively.

Another development could be the wording around the unitary state concept. Instead of bluntly saying “unitary state” the APRC could try amplifying and clarifying what that unitary state would be .

While emphasising its indivisibility the definition could also point out that the state structure could be intergrated, inter – dependent and would share power between centre and province and among provinces.

If the APRC could define the unitary state with non – unitary, quasi – federal characteristics then there could be a situation where the state will be structurally unitary and functionally non – unitary cum quasi – federal.

It would be like calling a bird with all the attributes of a pheasant a turkey or that of a turkey a pheasant.

But it remains to be seen how valid this will be legally. Once unitary is enshrined as the state structure – like in the 1972 and 78 constitutions – it would be difficult to interprete and implement Constitutional provisions in a quasi – federal spirit.

The Supreme Court is most likely to strike down the defining verbiage surrounding the unitary concept. It is also likely to rule in favour of the unitary concept in any future dispute that may arise over unitary structuralism and functional quasi – federalism.

There are many including academics and political leaders who tend to dismiss the nomenclatural importance of the unitary – federal debate.

“What’s in a name ” a rose by any other name would smell as sweet “they say echoing Shakespeare. True! A rose is a rose by any name but can one make any flower a rose by calling it rose? Try calling a dandelion a rose and see whether it would smell as sweet!

Those who say that descriptions do not matter and that power could be doled out effectively within a unitary state have not understood the conceptual importance as well as implementational nitty – gritties involved.

Devolving power is different from sharing power. The experiences of the District Development Councils and the Provincial Councils show these clearly.

It may be possible to share power on quasi – federal lines in a set – up where the state structure is not defined explicitly as unitary but it is virtually impossible to do so in Sri Lanka if the state is unambiguously unitary.

Numerous examples can be cited where extensive devolution is possible under a unitary state like that of Britain. But that “devolution parippu” will not boil in our ” unitary watura”.

In a climate of overall hostility towards power – sharing with the minorities , stronger and clear cut provisions are necessary for ensuring adequate powers to the periphery.

There is also the historic phenomenon of the judiciary being “unfriendly” towards minority aspirations , grievances and protection. Thus all efforts to share power meaningfully while having an expllicitly unitary state are likely to be negated by the courts when challenged by the hardliners.

Let us remind ourselves of Section 28 of the Soulbury Constitution and the fate of the Kodeewaran case. Nowadays there is no resort to the Privy Council to try reversing the Sri Lankan supreme court’s decisions

In such a context the glib explanation that it does not matter whether the state is unitary or not doesn’t carry much weight. It is an issue of crucial importance and those who disdainfully advise Tamils not to be too “bothered” with such concepts are either blissfully ignorant or wilfully malevolent.

The question that this columnist would like to pose to those saying concepts like unitary do not matter is this. If that is true then why not make the Sri Lankan state explicitly federal by name and then make it unitary in nature ? Surely its the same sauce ain’t it for gander and goose?

Which is why some of us have been relentlessly opposed to the unitary state concept. It does not need to be substituted with federal though much desirable.

But the term unitary has to be done away with if meaningful power – sharing is to take place within Sri Lanka.The state must be categorically non – unitary if meaningful power – sharing amounting to quasi – federalism is to be made possible.

Another point of concern is that of the amending procedure relating to powers given to sub – national units.Even if the state is not specifically described as unitary or federal it could evolve either way or strike a middle path through practice in certain respects.

. A very simplistic definition of unitary and non – unitary would be concerning the retention of power by the peripheral units and re – acquisition of such powers by the central government.

If adequate safeguards are available to prevent powers being taken back then the Constitution is quasi – federal in nature. If powers can be taken back easily then it becomes more centralised in nature.

In the case of India the powers given to the 25 states can be taken back by the central government only if two – thirds of the states vote accordingly in addition to two – thirds of Parliament.. That is at least 17 states must do so. This may have been possible in the fifties and sixties when the Congress ruled in New Delhi and most states.

Now this is difficult with different parties of regional, religious, casteist and idelogical hues ruling different centres. The Central Governments are also made up of many different parties.

Also the concepts of more regional autonomy and co-operative federalism have taken root. Thus the Indian Constitution has evolved in practice as federal in this respect.

On the other hand sec 356 of the Indian Constitution also enables the Indian President to dissolve a state government acting on the advice of the Central Government. The centre acts on the recommendation of the state governor who tenders such advice under exceptional circumstances .

This provision has been invoked on many occasions in different states. It has also been abused too in many instances like what happened in Kerala under marxist rule and Tamil Nadu under DMK and ADMK rule.

This provision emphasises the unitary characteristic of the Indian Constitution.Those clamouring for greater regional autonomy demand that this clause be amended.

This then could be the acid test in determiing the status of the envisaged new Constitution for Sri Lanka.. Given the fact that there is a flourishing separatist movement in existence and a protracted armed struggle is on, it would be very difficult for any Constitution not to have some safeguard against division of the Country.

Thus provisions for the Central Government to dissolve a provincial regime if national unity or territorial integrity is threatened is a must. The Varadarajapperumal fiasco of declaring intent of a UDI has only strengthened Sinhala fears.

Tamils must be realistic to accept that any Constitution must necessarily have safeguards against secession.Demanding undiluted federalist safeguards seem inappropriate at this point of time.

But it is a different issue altogether when it comes to protecting powers given to the provinces. Unlike the Indian states , only the Northern and possibly the Eastern Province in Sri Lanka have any real desire and need to share power at the periphery.

It is these provinces who need to guard their powers jealously.The Sinhala majority provinces are not of the same mind.So any provision like that of two – thirds in India will not work in Sri Lanka.

The Sinhala majority provinces can gang up and outnumber the North and East. Since the Sinhala politicians share power at the centre there is no powerful compulsion to retain and protect powers at the provincial level.

In such a situation adequate safeguards are necessary to preserve the powers given to the provinces.

. It has to be stipulated that ALL provinces should vote unanimously if any powers given to the provinces are to be taken back or amended. Thus the North and/or East can prevent usurpation of its powers.

This provision must be further strengthened by the requirement that two – thirds of Parliament and the envisaged Senate must also vote in favour. The APRC envisages a lower house of 225 and upper house of 75. So 201 of 300 must support it.

The Coming week will then see the winding up proceedings of the APRC. The final report could have been a product the APRC participants including Tissa Vitharana were all proud of.

But the intervention of President Rajapakse has seen the imposition of a unitary state . Under such circumstances it is doubtful as to how successful Constitutional reform will be.

It is also a moot point as to whether Prof. Vitharana’s credibility will be affected. When the ethno – fascists and national socialists attacked Vitharana the President defended him saying it was the APRC that helped the Government to stave off International pressure for a political solution.

Now the professor is likely to be attacked by others as a witting or unwitting catspaw in the President’s hands.

It also remains to be seen whether the hawks will be satisfied with the imposition of the unitary state alone. This column opines that the APRC report will be progressive in terms of substance of devolution.

It will be that report on which Rajapakse will base his UN address. It will also be shown to the International Community as proof of the regime’s bona fides in Constitutional reform.

But the pappadam will start crumbling after the Budget. The All Party Conference comprising political party leaders serving as cabinet ministers will be pressured to whittle down or change some of the provisions.

Power sharing provisions may be diluted. Ultimately even the unit could become district instead of province.

Sadly the role of the chief opposition UNP has been far from satisfactory in all this. In a nuanced replay of 2000 the UNP has opted out of the APRC at a critical juncture.

The crux of the matter is that the UNP too does not want the APRC to deliver. It does not want Rajapakse to get any credit for a political settlement though that worthy does not want kudos in that direction.

With the UNP also trying to entice the JVP into votihg against the Government the green elephants also dont want to commit against a unitary state now. The Ranil – Mangala Memorandum of understanding is deliberately vague on an envisaged political solution.

But the UNP also wants to retain International goodwill. It does not want the International community to think that it is against power sharing or quasi – federalism.

So the party says it is backing the expert majority report and the concept of federalism but does not cooperate with the APRC exercise in the way it should have. In fact the UNP has jumped the gun in declaring the APRC dead even while it is living.

If the UNP was really sincere about supporting federalism and the majority expert report it should have remained in the APRC and participated enthusiastically in proceedings. The UNP should have taken the initiative in formulating a viable, credible power sharing scheme and given leadership to the smaller parties.

The UNP could have been the shhet anchor of the progressives within the APRC. The valiant struggle put up by the doves in the APRC cold war against the hawks would have taken a different turn if the green elephants had genuinely tried to put their hearts and soluls and minds into that struggle.

However much the UNP tries to explain its stance the truth is that the UNP does not want to be seen as supporting a non – unitary set up right now. With the UNP tying to break the SLFP and woo the JVP Wickremasinghe like Rajapakse also does not want to upset the uneasy equilbrium till the budget vote or the no confidence motion.

Also the UNP does not want the SLFP (even if it wants to ) to push forward a viable power sharing scheme and gain credit. So it artfully creates conditions for its undermining or collapse while keeping up pretences to satisfy the International Community.

The UNP knows that whatever its stance at the APRC the minority community voters will flock to its symbol in the next election because they are insecure by the SLFP – JHU combines unadulterated Sinhala supremacist agenda. The UNP can always say we wanted to provide a real power sharing sceme but the APRC was trying to foist a sham one on the people at Mahindas behest,

There are reports in the media about the APRC getting into full gear this week. But it does appear that the structure of the state will be unitary. If by a political “miracle” the APRC recommends a non – unitary state then there may be some hope. But the situation is quite dicey.

Two weeks ago amidst media reports that the APRC was no more this column made certain observations. They may serve as a fitting epitaph now -

“No one can be definite about what the APRC will ultimately achieve. It may succeed or fail. But the one sure thing for now is that the APRC has not put up shutters. It has only been adjourned and is very likely to be convened again next week.

The bottom line simply is that the patient – though not in the best of health – is very much alive still . Will there be a terminal relapse or miraculous recovery ? The answer will depend on the course of events in the coming weeks.”

DBS Jeyaraj can be contacted on: djeyaraj@federalidea.com

By D.B.S. Jeyaraj

” There is a concern…about the safety of humanitarian workers themselves and the record here is one of the worst in the world from that point of view,” John Holmes, UN Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, told Reuters in an interview late on Wednesday during a visit to Sri Lanka…”Democratically elected governments are judged by higher standards than other people, so they need to address these concerns, they need to look into them, they need to investigate allegations that are made.”…”It would be good for Sri Lanka’s international image that there is that kind of monitoring to demonstrate, which the government say, they have nothing to hide in this area,” Holmes said.

- Excerpts from Reuters news story filed by Simon Gardner on Aug 8 th 2007

It was the morning of Monday August 20th 2007. Two Tamil youths were going along Kasthuriar road in the heart of Jaffna town on a motor cycle. Both of them were members of the field staff at the Danish De – mining Group , a respected Non – governmental organization doing yeoman service in mine – clearing in the North.

31 year old Sivaswamy Sreetharan , a native of Puliyankoodal in the off – shore Island of Velanai was the rider. Seated on the pillion was 26 year old S. Vijayenthiran a colleague and friend. A motor – cycle with two helmet clad youths that was following the de – mining aid workers suddenly sped up. The person on the pillion sprayed gunfire on the de – miner duo.

Sreetharan was killed on the spot. Vijayenthiran was seriously wounded and admitted to the Intensive care unit at Jaffna Hospital. The assassins had vanished.Despite the close proximity of the high security zone and the vicinity being saturated with sentry posts the killers were not even stopped let alone being apprehended.

The Danish De – mining Group which functions under the purview of the Danish Refugee Council suspended its de – mining activity in Jaffna. Steen Wetlesen, the DDG’s Country manager also issued a brief statement –

“Danish Demining Group in Sri Lanka deeply regrets to announce that a member of its Jaffna Field staff was tragically shot dead this morning, the 20 th August, whilst on his way to work, by unknown gunmen. In the same incident another DDG staff member was also wounded.

All DDG staff are deeply shocked by this terrible incident and DDG, Jaffna has immediately suspended all Demining activities to evaluate the security situation and safety of its staff.

We know that all DDG staff and the whole aid community would want to pass on their deepest sympathies to the family of the killed staff member and are hoping for the speedy recovery of the wounded staff member”

Two days later on Wednesday Aug 22nd a 25 year old youth from Kaithady in the Thenmaratchy sector presented himself at the Human Rights Organization office at Jaffna. He was also an employee at the Danish NGO and a close friend of Sreetharan.Fearing danger to his life the youth surrendered himself to the HRO seeking protection and safety.

The incident turned the spotlight once again on the plight of an endangered species in Sri Lanka – the “Tamil” humanitarian aid worker. The daylight murder at Kasthuriar rd was not the first of its kind. It certainly wont be the last either if recent events are any indication.

It was only on Aug 8th that Sir John Holmes , UN Under – Secretary – General for Humanitarian Affairs told Simon Gardner of Reuters that there was ” concern about the safety of humanitarian workers themselves ” and that the record here in Sri Lanka ” is one of the worst in the world from that point of view,” .

[Sir John Holmes]

All hell broke loose as the Rajapakse regime began its vilification campaign against Holmes. Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake referred to Holmes as a “Yakka” (devil). Prime ministerial aspirant Jeyaraj Fernandopulle called Holmes a “terrorist bribed by the LTTE”.

While these “gentlemen” played to the majoritarian “gallery” two other ministers were engaged in – what is now a familiar scenario – damage control. Rohitha Bogollagama disassociated the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) from the statements made. Mahinda Samarasinghe wrote conciliatory letters seeking to pacify the UN official.

Yet within days of this attempt at damage – control the murderous minions of state terrorism have been at it again. One Humanitarian aid worker is killed and another injured while the Danish De – mining Group suspends work to evaluate the security conditions and safety of its staff.

After Mahinda Rajapakse became president and an undeclared war began, the targetting of certain Tamils became part of the state’s avowed counter – terrorist strategy. The dogs of war were unleashed.

This practice continues and the recent Kasthuriar rd killing is just one more instance. That such incidents could be perpetrated just 12. days after Sir John’s outspoken criticism shows how little this regime cares for International opinion.

State terrorism is now entrenched and the recent incident is but one way of telling the UN and the International Community “Palayang bung yanda”.

An important reason for the venomous anger against Sir John is due to the fact that the UN official placed the targeting of NGO workers in a different perspective.

Instead of viewing the incidents as being done to “Tamils” he looked at the victims as humanitarian aid workers. This altered things drastically and had maximum impact. Hence the unbridled resentment.

The single biggest incident of this type that drew international attention was the killing of 17 aid workers in Moothoor on August 4th last year. It is widely believed that they were killed by army commandoes. The GOSL has vehemently denied this but the clumsy attempts to delay and thwart justice has exposed the truth.

This incident however occurred during a period of intense conflict. There are some who feel that this happened in a tense situation where the LTTE had dominated the place first and the security forces had wrested it back.

This columnist does not subscribe to this view and feels that the “heat of the battle” excuse does not apply here. The brutal massacre was very clearly a cold – blooded , cowardly killing of unarmed innocents by personnel claiming to be “elite” soldiers. It the current war is deemed “legal” it was a war crime. If not it is a crime against humanity

What is of significance here is that a certain pattern exists in this targeting of Tamil humanitarian workers or those connected to aid projects.In most cases the workers were abducted. Some went missing while others were executed ruthlessly after being tortured. Some have also been killed in cold blood. NGO’s like the DDG have been targeted earlier also.

The LTTE has victimised some.The Karuna faction is responsible for some incidents.The EPDP, home guards and para – militaries are also responsible for some acts. The security forces have been implicated in some incidents.

Some of these incidents were reported in these columns earlier. Let me refer to them as far as possible in chronological order.

On January 11th in 2006 two brothers – in – law left their home Odaikkarai lane in Point Pedro at about 5.30 am and proceeded on their motor cycles to work. Narayanamoorthy Kandeepan and his sister’s husband Thambiah Tharmasiri were employed by the Danish de – mining group and were then engaged in mine – clearing at Kuppilan . They were abducted by EPDP operatives at a spot about 150 metres away from the 52 – 4 brigade army camp.

Then came the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (TRO) abduction incidents of Jan 29th and 30th..The London based Amnesty International in one of its conspicuously infrequent releases on Sri Lanka issued an appeal nearly six weeks later in March.

The AI also noted that the ” TRO is seen as being closely affiliated with the LTTE”, but pointed out that the TRO “is a legally registered Sri Lankan charity and its mission is to provide much needed relief, rehabilitation and development for the people of the northeast of Sri Lanka”.

On Jan 29th 2006 a TRO vehicle with two males and three females were hijacked by armed men in a white hi – ace van on the Polonnaruwa road close to an army check point in Welikande.

They were on their way from Batticaloa to the TRO headquarters at Kilinochchi. Two females were released the following day and the third a few days later. The two males were reported missing.

On the next day (Jan 30th) 15 TRO employees were travelling in a vehicle from Batticaloa to Vavuniya to attend a training workshop.The vehicle plying on the Polonnaruwa road was hi- jacked at almost the same spot as the previous vehicle. 10 of the occupants were released but another five comprising four males and one female were taken captive.

Several appeals were issued for the release of the missing TRO employees. The Police did not evince any interest in tracing them and began harassing those eye – witnesses who complained about the incident.

Since the TRO was perceived as an arm of the LTTE the abductions did not receive the attention it deserved. A theory was also floated that the abductions were stage – managed by the LTTE for its own purposes.

After one year it was the sad lot of this writer to uncover and expose in these columns what had happened to these seven TRO employees. They had been abducted by members of the Karuna faction on the orders of senior leader Pillaiyan. All six men had been tortured and killed.

The woman had been gang – raped and murdered. TRO officials from Kilinochchi contacted this writer after the article appeared, confirmed details and closed their files on the incident.

Those killed in this horrible manner were TRO director Kasinathar Ganeshalingam, vehicle driver Kathirkamar Thangarasa, Chief Accountant Thanuskody Premini and four accountants Shanmuganathan Sujendram, Thambiraja Vasantharajan, Kailayapillai Ravindran and Arunesarasa Satheesharan.

The Halo Trust in Jaffna is a non – governmental organization engaged in mine clearing. A large number of youths were recruited during the ceasefire to do this type of work. The LTTE played a dominant role in selecting recruits. Since the mine clearance was basically in areas adjacent to the Palaly high security zone Halo Trust activity was looked upon suspiciously by the security forces.

The Halo Trust in Jaffna is a non – governmental organization engaged in mine clearing. Since the mine clearance was basically in areas adjacent to the Palaly high security zone Halo Trust activity was looked upon suspiciously by the security forces.

On Feb 4th 2006 a 23 year old Halo Trust employee, Gunaratnam Logithas left his home in Kaithady at night and proceeded on his motor cycle towards Chavakachcheri town. He was never seen again and presumed abducted at Nunavil along the Kandy road. Logithas is one among the innumerable “disappeared” now.

On April 10th 2006 an army truck was going along the A – 9 highway in the Thenmaratchy area.It was Monday afternoon. A vehicle belonging to the NGO Human Development Centre (HUDEC) was following the truck. At one point in Mirusuvil the HUDEC vehicle tried to overtake the army truck. At that stage a claymore mine attached to a lamp post was triggered off by the LTTE. The tigers were targetting the army truck but both vehicles were hit.

Five soldiers were killed and two injured. Two Hudec employees were killed and another two staffers injured. Those killed were Pathmanathan Shanmugaratnam (55) and Selvendra Pradeepkumar (29). The injured HUDEC personnel admitted to Chavakachcheri hospital were Mayilvaganam Thatparananthan (48) and Ajanthan Mariyarasa (28).

The HUDEC is the social arm of the Catholic Church of Jaffna, which networks at Parish level across the Jaffna Peninsula and the Wanni working with the disadvantaged for the alleviation of poverty, ignorance and social oppression.

On May 26th 2006 an irrigation engineer Ratnam Ratnarajah (48) was killed in the east. Ratnarajah was the deputy director of irrigation in Batticaloa. He was also the deputy project director of the North East Irrigated Agricultural Project (NEIAP) which receives world bank assistance. Ratnarajah hailing from Natpiddymunai in the Kalmunai area was staying at Kalviyankadu in the B’caloa municipality area.

Ratnarajah was shot near his residence at about 2 . 15 pm in broad daylight. He was returning home after an irrigation related meeting. It is widely believed that the efficient and upright official was killed by Karuna faction cadres. Earlier he had been threatened with death by the Karuna group ’s Markan who wanted two of his relatives appointed as office clerks at the NEIAP office. Ratnarajah had refused and apparently paid the price for such defiance.

The TRO became a target again in the east on July 2nd in 2006. Krishnapillai Kamalanathan a child protection officer at the TRO office in Vaakarai was travelling on his motor cycle to Batticaloa town. He was abducted at 10. 30 am by cadres of the Karuna faction at Vaalaichenai. He was never seen again.

July 8th 2006 saw the discovery of a body in Poligandi in the Vadamaratchy area. The body was that of a 42 year old man named Rasiah Muraleeswaran and bore injuries caused by severe assault. Muraleswaran , a native of Meesalai East was a resident mason at the Nilavan Kudiyiruppu Housing scheme funded by FORUT.

He had earlier worked on an LTTE supervised housing scheme. It was also reported that another construction worker at the site called “Rajini” a 26 year old native of Pukudutheevu had gone missing.

August 4th in 2006 saw the single biggest massacre of aid workers. This well – known incident happened at Moothoor in the Trincomalee district. Fighting had ensued between the security forces and the LTTE after the tigers closed sluice gates at Maavilaaru. The LTTE in a sudden raid had taken control of Moothoor town for a few days. The security forces launched counter attacks and regained their hold.

[A girl with the photo of her sister, slain in an August 2006 attack on the French aid organization Action Contre Faim in Mutur. Seventeen mostly ethnic Tamil employees were forced to lie face down on the ground and were shot dead - Pic: J. Adam Huggins for The New York Times]

Casualty figures in the fighting were difficult to arrive at but one incident that shocked the civilised world was the massacre of 17 aid workers. The victims comprised 15 males and 4 females. 16 were Tamils and one a Muslim. They were attached to the France based Action Contre La Faim (ACF) or Action against Hunger..THE ACF was set up in 1979 to combat global hunger. It had projects running in Sri Lanka from 1997.

The victims were mainly ACF employees from Trincomalee town who had come to the Moothoor branch office and were unable to return as conflict escalated. Fifteen of the victims were found inside office premises while two bodies were outside in a vehicle. They had all been shot dead at point blank range. One of the victims Kavitha was the daughter of another victim Ganesh.The names and designations of the innocent victims are -

1 – Mr. P. Anandarajah (Assistant Promotion Manager)

2 – Mr. M. Ketheeswaran (Superviser)

3 – Mr. G. Sreethraran (Advanced Field-Officer)

4 – Mr. Narmathan (Field officer)

5 – Mr. R. Arulraj (Field officer)

6 – Mr. P.Pratheeban (Field officer)

7 – Mr. M. Rishikeshan (Field officer)

8 – Mr. Y Kodeeswaran (Field officer)

9 – Ms. K.Kovarthani (Hygiene Promotion Officer)

10 – Ms. S.Romila (Hygiene Promotion Officer)

11 – Ms. V.Kokilavathani (Hygiene Promotion Officer)

12 – Ms. G. Kavitha (Hygiene Promotion Officer)

13 – Mr. S. Ganesh (, Driver ),

14. – Mr. K. Koneshwaran (Driver )

15. – Mr. S.Muraleetharan (Driver)

16. – Mr. A.L. Mohamed Jauffer (minor staff)

17. – Mr. A. Jaseelan (minor staff)

The prevalent belief was that personnel from the army special forces who played a major role in driving the LTTE away were responsible for this cold – blooded massacre of innocents.The GOSL of course denied it vehemently.

Interestingly the GOSL that initially denied the LTTE was in control of Moothoor at any time changed its tale after the bodies were discovered. It was now said that the LTTE was responsible for the killings as the army was not present at the time of the massacre. The army came in only later it was said.

The GOSL also made many clumsy attempts to obstruct justice. The Moothoor magistrate was transferred out and the Anuradhapura magistrate brought in. The local JMO was also disallowed to conduct a post – mortem.Family members of the victims were terrorised..The matter was also put in cold storage on the pretext that it would be probed by a special Commission of inquiry under the scrutiny of a body of eminent persons.

The manner in which the inquiry into the Moothoor massacre is being handled by the state has come under severe criticism from several agencies including the ICJ, HRW, SLMM etc. It became increasingly obvious that the regime was not cooperating in a genuine search for justice and was acting like some one trying to conceal the truth.

The ACF’s Director – General Francois Danel summed up the feelings of the International Community when he told the European Parliament on June 5th ” As humanitarian aid workers, we have to remind all those involved in the conflict, the principles on which our action is based: impartiality, neutrality and independence. Today, I sincerely want the culprits and those responsible for this outrageous massacre – whoever and wherever they are – to be identified. Impunity would only increase our indignation”.

August 24th 2006 saw another killing in the East. 20 year old Julian Jestley a native of Komari in the Amparai district was an employee of the UN agency UNOPS office at Thambiluvil. Armed men on motor cycles came to his office at about 9 am and took him away at gun point. His bullet ridden body was found later at Munaiyoorkulam near Thambiluvil. It is believed that the LTTE was responsible for the killing . The cause for killing is unclear.

The next killing of an NGO worker was in Trincomalee. The Seattle – based Workd Concern Development Organisation was active in the district after the Tsunami of 2004. It was involved in providing relief and rehanilitation to the Tsunami affected and also emergency assistance to displaced persons. Ragunathan Ramalingam was a field worker with World Concern from 2005.

The father of five was returning to the world concern office after having lunch at home on September 12 th 2006. His last child was born only a week old. He was riding his motor cycle when unknown armed men shot him. The assassins are suspected of being Sinhala home guards.”The motive for the killing is not clear” said Rhonda Manville, a spokeswoman for World Concern told the media then..

The Jaffna based de – mining organization Halo Trust became a target again on November 15th 2006 .Charles Hudson Ravindran (30) a married employee of Halo Trust was with his family in his house on Old Park road Chundikuli. His house was only 500 metres away from the Halo Trust head office also on Nalloor cross road..A white van drew up at about 11. 00 am and armed men suspected of belonging to the EPDP barged in. Ravindran was taken away at gun point and never seen again.

The targetting of Halo Trust employees continued after the new 2007 year dawned also. 29 year old Subramaniam Parameswaran a de – miner at Halo Trust was a resident of Rakka road in Jaffna town. He was at home on Jan 4th 2007 with wife and children when a white van arrived and armed men jumped out. They held guns to the wife and children while forcibly dragging Parameswaran away. He was never seen again. The abductors are said to be EPDP operatives.

The Halo Trust was again targetted on Tuesday Jan 9th 2007. 36 year old C. Rajendran was a vehicle driver attached to Halo Trust. He left his home on Kilner rd in Nallur with his son. It was routine for him to drop the son at school and go to work.. On that fateful day he dropped his child as usual but failed to turn up at office. He simply went “missing”. Nothing has been heard since and the victim has become one more statistic in the ranks of the disappeared.

Once again a Halo Trust employee went missing exactly a month after Rajendran. did. 27 year old Nagarasa Narenthiran of Temple road left home as usual for work on the Morning of February 9th 2007. He never reached the Halo trust head ofice on Nalloor cross road. His distraught wife Sarojini complained to the HRC but the man is missing still while the disappeared persons total increased once more.

The TRO was in the news again on March 24th 2007 A TRO vehicle was the target of a claymore mine at Periyamadhu in Mannar district which is an LTTE controlled area . The explosion that occurred at about 12.30 pm killed one and injured three other TRO employees.The deceased victim was 30 year old Muthurajah Aruleswaran from Poonagari. This father of a year old child was an emergency assistance worker and driving the vehicle when the incident took place.

The three injured TRO personnel were the Assistant Executive Director , Vadivel Ramachandran (38),International planning director, Seenithamby Parameswaran (41) and Selvarajah Nixon (37) the head of the TRO’s Akkarayan development unit. The TRO people were returning after visiting a displaced persons camp . The Army’s deep penetration Unit (DPU) was accused of the claymore mine attack inside tiger territory.

The next Humanitarian worker victims were from the high profile Red Cross organization.The shocking incident did not take place in the North or East but in Colombo.

Two Tamil workers of Sri Lanka Red Cross from the east, Sinnarajah Shanmuganathan, 38, and Karthigesu Chandramohan, 28, who had come to Colombo for a training program in Tsunami work were abducted by men in civils claiming to be from the Police.

This happened on Friday June 1st 2007..Subsequently their bodies were found on Sunday June 3rd at Kiriella in the Ratnapura district..

Head of Sri Lanka Red Cross in Batticaloa, Mr Vasantharajah told the media then that the the two were part of a group of six aid workers sent from Batticaloa who had come to Colombo for a training programme related to tsunami relief work on the 30th of May ..

After completing the training program the group had gone to the Fort Railway station at 6:30 p.m. on Friday to take the 7:15 p.m. train to Batticaloa. A group of unknown Sinhala speaking men had examined the Identity cards and had taken Shanmuganathan and Chandramohan to a white van for “questioning,”

. The leader of the aid workers group had told the Sinhala speaking men that the two did not know Sinhala and that he could help in the questioning, but the men declined the offer, the leader of the group said. One of the group was smart enough to note the nimber of one of two vehicles involved in the incident. The other was unmarked.

Though the number was noted no action was taken. Media reports stated that the vehicle belonged to the Karuna faction. But no concrete action was taken. Subsequently UNP Parliamentarian Lakshman Seneviratne exposed the sordid details about how Tamils were being abducted.He provided specific details about the Red Cross abductions and divulged details of the masterminds behind it.

Recently the Police has issued a reward for a person belonging to the Karuna group said to be responsible for the killings. But the popular belief is that the Wanted person is a fictitious name publicised to distract attention from the perpetrators who are allegedly linked to the armed forces.

One of the victims Shanmuganathan joined the Red Cross in 1997 and was from Vi’laavettaan in Vavunatheevu. His address at the time of death was 141/5 St . Sebastian Road Batticaloa. The other victim Chandramohan had been working with Red Cross from 1999. He was from Ka’luwankerni and was living at 1/1 Main Road Batticaloa when killed.

The Red Cross murders like the ACF massacre aroused widespread condemnation and indignation internationally. This however failed to make any solid impact on the Rajapakse regime as the IC for some inexplicable reason is reluctant to chastise Colombo by deed. Mere words are not of any consequence to a regime that is not shamed by any feeling of “lajja”.

June 19th 2007 saw another abduction of a NGO worker. This time the target was the Danish de – mining group also referred to as the Danish Humanitarian De – mining organization that is funded by the Denmark Government. 20 year old Sivarasa Vimalarasa a native of Mayliankaadu in Kuppilan was going to work in the morning on his motor cycle when “unknown armed men seized him in Kuppilan itself.

The incident took place in front of several witnesses.Kuppilan is within close proximity to the Palaly high security zone. The De – mining group officials registered complaints with several institutions and also made representations to defence authorities in Colombo. But the man is missing still while the Danish group became a target again and again.

A month later on July 23rd 2007 a 26 year old man named Arumainayagam Aloysius from Chillalai South was shot dead at Anaikottai at about 8.30 am in the morning. Aloysius was a field officer with the Danish de – mining group that came under the purview of the Danish Refugee Council.

Aloysius was on his way to work when he was waylaid and shot. He had earlier been working at Halo Trust but had joined the Danish organization after Halo Trust discontinued employment for Aloysius and 16 others. The victim had been married for only ten months and his wife was pregnant.

The next humanitarian worker victim was a Tamil speaking Muslim from Trincomalee. Mohammed Zavahir Mohammed Rizwi was attached to the United Methodist Community Organization for Refugees (UMCOR) an International Non – Governmental Organization. He was at the UMCOR office on Arunagiru road when “uniidentified ” persons abducted him. Rizwi’s father has lodged a complaint with the Trinco Police but details of the background to the abduction are still hazy.

And then came the Aug 20th killing of one De – mining group worker and the wounding of another. The DDG is engaged in evaluating the security situation for its employees.

It is indeed time to evaluate the security and safety of all NGO workers in the North – East and not only the DDG. . The targeting of HGO humanitarian aid workers in the North – East has been going on for nearly two years.

The fact that such an evaluation has not been done before and that NGO workers have been rendered vulnerable for so long does not reflect creditably on the NGO “big shots” themselves

One reason for this lack of adequate concern may be due to the fact that all the NGO worker victims have been Tamils except for two Tamil speaking Muslims from the East.. If the victims were from the Sinhala community or foreigners the responses may have been different.

The unpleasant reality in Sri Lanka today is that Tamils can be targeted easily with little fear of repercusiions or retribution. A climate of impunity prevails in this respect.

Sir John Holmes sees the victims as humanitarian workers. This is true but the larger reality is that they are victims because they are Tamils.

The NGO’s themselves arouse resentment among majoritarian hawks because they are doing much service in the North and East. They are hated because they are seen as helping Tamils.

If the reality is that of people being targetted because they are humanitarian aid workers then why is it that the victims so far are Tamils and Tamil speaking Muslims alone? How is it that Sinhala or foreign aid workers are not being targets?

It may be that Tamils are targetted because they are the “weak” link in NGO’s and could also be scapegoated as tigers. So messages are being sent to the NGO’s by victmising Tamil NGO employees.

If this is true then the NGO bigwigs in particular and the International community in general can be deemed guilty of collaboration in a crime against a vulnerable section of humanity.

DBS Jeyaraj can be reached at djeyaraj@federalidea.com