federalidea.com

by B. Muralidhar Reddy

It will be worthwhile for the government to consider a “quasi-federal system” for devolution of powers and meeting the aspirations of all sections: N. Ram

“India will continue to encourage Sri Lanka for a solution to the national question”

“Publicity stunt by the likes of Nedumaran will not be tolerated”

Emphasising the urgent need on the part of the Sri Lanka government to follow up the recent military gains in the east with “imaginative and sound political programmes,” the Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu, N. Ram, on Saturday maintained that the apparent weakening of the LTTE gives a major advantage to the government in pushing through a political solution to the ethnic conflict.

Speaking as a chief guest at the annual meeting of the Sri Lanka-India Friendship Society, Mr. Ram said that “democratic governance” was the need of the hour in the east and went on to ask if the government was ready to demonstrate the political will and take “reasonable risks” in its quest to resolve the ethnic question.

He maintained that terms or labels like “federal” or “unitary” were immaterial and said it would be worthwhile for the government to consider a “quasi-federal system” for devolution of powers and meeting the aspirations of all sections of society, including the Tamils.

Indian expectations

On the Indian expectations from the current regime in Sri Lanka, Mr. Ram said: “The expectation is we must overcome the gap between what we hear in private [about the intent of the government on the national question] and what we see on the ground.”

Quoting from the Indian experiences in Jammu and Kashmir and the north-east, Mr. Ram said when the political leadership failed to take advantage from the gains made by the security forces in weakening of the militant groups, the military advances proved to be short-lived.

With LTTE leader V. Prabhakaran as the number one accused in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and the organisation banned, Indians would not stand any legitimacy of the LTTE and could not be expected to be part of any negotiations with the Tigers. At the same time, India has consistently worked and will continue to encourage the Sri Lanka Government for a solution to the national question which would ensure a ‘measure of equality’ for Tamils.

Mr. Ram said that post-1991 India’s policy toward Sri Lanka underwent a ‘course correction’ and despite the change of four governments and six Prime Ministers, the policy ever since has remarkably been continuous and consistent.

“India’s aspirations for Sri Lanka has been to help an equitable, moderate and sound solution to the ethnic/national question within a framework of united Sri Lanka,” Mr. Ram said. He observed that whichever government came to power in New Delhi had no option but to pursue this policy.

He was at pains to emphasise that there was ‘zero support’ for the LTTE in India and characterised the recent attempt by Tamil Nationalist Movement leader P. Nedumaran to cross into Sri Lanka waters with relief goods supposedly for the people of the Jaffna peninsula as no more than a political gimmick. “They never take up these issues during elections. The publicity stunt by the likes of Nedumaran will not be tolerated. It is a clear violation of the norms of good neighbourly relations,” he said.

Tracing the Indian policy toward Sri Lanka prior to 1991, Mr. Ram said the anti-Tamil riots of 1983 had a direct impact on bilateral relations from 1983 to 1991. “Today, the relations are no longer influenced entirely by events of 1983. Following the course correction of 1991, the relations between the two countries have become more independent and stable with greater depth in terms of trade and people-to-people contacts,” he stated.

Ethnic question

He asserted that the Indian engagement with Sri Lanka was ‘real’ and the ‘distortions’ of the earlier period, when India gave sanctuary and provided finance and armed support to some of the Tamil groups, should and would not be brought back. Mr. Ram reminded the audience that in recent years, New Delhi had encouraged every attempt by successive governments in Colombo to move forward on resolution of the ethnic question.

He said though the India-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 was highly controversial and divisive at the time of its conception, it had substantive content and valuable lessons for both countries. “There have been mistakes on both sides in the past but ever since we have moved on and there is a positive paradigm shift in relations between the two countries. In the last 10 to 15 years, not only vis-À-vis Sri Lanka, there has been a sea change in India’s relations with its neighbours beginning with China in 1988 to normalisation of ties with Pakistan and Look East policy. We need to sustain and build on it,” Mr. Ram said.

Big achievement

Talking about India’s success story on the economic and democratic fronts, Mr. Ram said that while the nine per cent growth rate was a big achievement, it would be cut short unless extra efforts were made to abolish mass poverty and bridge the poor-rich divide.

“The India Shining slogan bombed in the last general election because when it was taken to the countryside it misrepresented the reality.”

He hoped that the present government, headed by a scholarly Prime Minister, notwithstanding its difficulties on the civil nuclear energy cooperation with the U.S., would be able to find a way out of the present problems and fulfil commitments made under the Common Minimum Programme.

High Commissioner to Sri Lanka Aloke Prasad, in his brief remarks on the occasion, said that India’s success with democracy has made it a ‘universal norm’ and dwelt on the economic achievements of India since Independence which helped it attain nine per cent annual growth rate. [Courtesy: The Hindu]

B. Muralidhar Reddy

‘It will encourage democracy, promote development and consolidate gains made against the LTTE’

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) is of the firm view that the Mahinda Rajapaksa government in Sri Lanka should hold elections to the provincial council in the east as soon as possible, under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, to consolidate the recent gains made by the military against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

In an interview to The Hindu, JVP leader Somawansa Amarasinghe said that though his party was opposed to the 13th Amendment, made as a follow up to the 1987 India-Sri Lanka Accord, it believed that elections in the east would encourage democracy and promote development.

“Our party has reservations about the India-Sri Lanka accord and the consequent 13th Amendment to the Constitution. However, since it is now part of the statute, we see no difficulty for the Rajapaksa government in holding elections to the local bodies as well as the provincial council in the east. Otherwise, the military advances in the east would not be useful,” Mr. Somawansa argued.

He said elections in the east would not only bring back democracy and equality, but also encourage people in the Wanni under the control of the LTTE to rise against the outfit and send the right signals for economic growth.

The JVP leader maintained that any attempt to impose a ‘federal system’ on Sri Lanka would not resolve the problems in the country as the national question in the island nation was not related to territory, but about democracy and equality.

“We believe efforts to resolve the national question should not violate the mandate of the people. It is the conviction of the JVP that the mandate of the people is to safeguard the status of Sri Lanka as a unitary state,” he said.

Mr. Somawansa conceded that there were certain obstacles in the way of free and fair elections in the east, particularly with the presence of certain armed groups, and maintained that the Government could overcome them by offering a general amnesty to all those who were ready to join the democratic mainstream.

The JVP leader said no government in the country in the last 25 years paid attention to the socio-economic problems of the people and the whole debate about the national question was lop-sided.

“We should not play around with the Constitution. All talk about a federal solution has no meaning. It is often not realised that more than 50 per cent of the Tamils in Sri Lanka live outside the so-called homeland of Tamils. What do they stand to gain by a federal set-up? In our view, it would only create more problems for the Tamils”.

“There are huge gaps in the development status of provinces. For instance, while the western province accounts for 50 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the share of eastern province is mere 2.5 per cent. That is why we say the issue is not federalism but democracy and equality,” the JVP leader said.

Mr. Somawansa said his party chose to walk out of the All Parties Representative Conference, constituted by the President to evolve a national consensus on a resolution of the ethnic conflict, when it began its work without “defining the problem of what constituted national question and came forward with a draft for a federal solution.”

On the Mahinda Rajapaksa government, the JVP leader said that while the military gains in the east were a plus point, inflation, corruption and a jumbo size Cabinet imposed huge burdens on the people.

On India, Mr. Somawansa said that while the JVP believed that New Delhi had a role to play in helping Sri Lanka based on its sovereignty, the statements such as the one made by National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan that Colombo should only look to New Delhi for its defence needs would not be helpful.

[Courtesy: The Hindu]

Guest of Honor Address to the Organization of Professional Associations of Sri Lanka, by Ambassador Robert Blake, on 14th September 2007, 5:30pm at BMICH:

Thank you for the honor of inviting me to this year’s 20th annual session of the Organization of Professional Associations of Sri Lanka.

It is a special pleasure to be able to address an organization that represents 38 Professional Associations, with a combined membership of over 34,000 professionals; an organization that has as its vision to provide leadership and development of Sri Lanka’s professions; and an organization that is guided by high professional and ethical standards.

The OPA exemplifies the critical and positive role civil society can play in a country’s growth and development. For more than three decades, you have advanced Sri Lanka’s economic, social and development policies by bringing business, civil society, and the general public together to ensure the government is accountable, transparent and efficient.

I would especially like to commend the OPA on your current anti-corruption initiatives. Your Bribery and Corruption Monitoring Committee and its anti-corruption plan have brought positive attention and greater transparency to a problem that thrives on apathy and opacity. Indeed I would like to focus my remarks this evening on the importance of good governance to help Sri Lanka reawaken as a paradise isle, the theme of this year’s conference.

Good Governance

In the words of one of America’s greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln, democracy involves government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Good governance provides the mechanism and safeguards for citizens to speak freely and exercise their legal rights. It should be participatory, transparent and accountable. It respects the rule of law. And good governance promotes equality by giving even the poorest and the most vulnerable a voice in a country’s decision-making process.

Just as a government must provide its people with the freedoms they need to live and prosper, the people must also keep the government accountable to them and behave responsibly as empowered citizens. This is what ensures good governance in a democratic society.

America’s System of Checks and Balances

As we know, instances of bad governance and corruption affect all countries, including the United States. The American government and its people do not tolerate corruption and have instituted processes and institutions to ensure that our President and the branches of our government are faithfully serving the public.

Our founding fathers, in the U.S. Constitution, foresaw that the three main branches of government–the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary–should have separate responsibilities, yet be able to balance and limit one another’s authority. For example, the president checks the power of Congress with the ability to veto laws that Congress passes. The Congress limits the power of the President by controlling spending. And the judiciary limits the power of both Congress and the President by determining whether or not laws and executive actions are legal under the Constitution.

To help Congress exercise its oversight responsibilities over the Executive Branch there is the Government Accountability Office. The GAO audits, evaluates and investigates the use of public funds and related federal programs and activities. If you were to check the GAO’s web page today, you would see a wide range of reports that are critical of the Executive Branch, including:

Securing, Stabilizing, and Rebuilding Iraq: Iraqi Government Has Not Met Most Legislative, Security, and Economic Benchmarks

Defense Acquisitions: Department of Defense’s Research and Development Budget Requests to Congress Do Not Provide Consistent, Complete, and Clear Information

Another institution that provides an important oversight function is the Offices of Inspector General. Each office is autonomous and acts as a general auditor for a specific government agency or military organization. OIG offices examine their agencies’ operations to ensure they comply with government policies, including prevention of waste, fraud, and abuse. In my last post in Delhi, an OIG team spent 6 weeks examining all our accounts and management and fortunately for me, gave us good marks or I would not be standing here!

Another check on all senior government officials, including elected officials, is that we must fill out each year a lengthy public disclosure form in which we disclose all our assets and those of our spouses and children, including property, stocks, bank holdings and all gifts above a certain nominal value. Each submission is checked against the previous year to be sure there are no unexplained gains.

Lastly, we cannot forget how the rights to freedom of speech and press serve as an important check on the government. These rights ensure that if the government takes improper or unpopular actions, the media, individual citizens, and civil advocacy groups can bring the actions to public attention and try to effect change.

The U.S. has many nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organizations that protect our citizens by educating them about their rights, encouraging them to participate in civic life, and mobilizing their support for legislative reforms. These groups are often referred to as “public watchdogs” and just like the name suggests, these groups stand guard to protect the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans. They provide a watchful eye and demand that government serve the common good, rather than the special interests of a few.

One of the most active and respected nonprofit organizations working for political change in America is called Common Cause. It is best known for its advocacy to pass a campaign reform bill that bans political parties from raising and spending unlimited money from big donors. Common Cause has also led efforts to ensure accountability in government by helping establish tough ethics standards for elected officials; limiting the practice of elected officials accepting lavish gifts from special interests; and advancing the passage of the Freedom of Information Act.

Freedom of Information Act

This last issue, freedom of information, is one I would like to highlight briefly. The public right to access government information is vital to holding government accountable. The public can better assess its government’s performance if it knows how government decisions were made and what the results of those decisions were. Over seventy countries around the world have implemented some form of freedom of information legislation.

Let me give you one example I witnessed first hand. In 2005, India established its Right to Information Act. Under this law, government agencies are required to disclose information to a petitioner within 30 days of the request. Since the law went into effect, a number of high profile disclosures revealed corruption in various government schemes. A draft Right to Information Law is largely prepared and ready to be voted on in Sri Lanka’s Parliament, but successive governments have lacked the political will to move it forward. Parliamentary passage of this important legislation would mark an important milestone in Sri Lanka’s efforts to increase accountability and reduce graft.

Ensuring Good Governance in Sri Lanka

Indeed, poll after poll shows that corruption and the absence of good governance have become major public issues in Sri Lanka. This is a tribute to the efforts of groups such as OPA and institutions such as the Committee on Public Enterprises to highlight the problems. But it is also an indictment of Sri Lanka’s own system of checks and balances. Many of my Sri Lankan friends attribute that failure to a combination of the following factors:

-First, the growing concentration of power over the last 20 years in the hands of the President, a trend that the current All Parties Representative Committee is seeking to address;

-Second, the failure of Sri Lanka’s Parliament to act as a check on the executive branch by, for example, developing a system of committees or other bodies that could effectively oversee the budgets and activities of the executive branch; and

-Third, the failure of the judiciary, with certain notable recent exceptions, to challenge the actions of the executive.

Let me say a special word about corruption. Corruption slows down economic development and reform, impedes the ability of developing countries to attract foreign investment, hinders the growth of democratic institutions, and concentrates power in the hands of a few.

With significant assistance from the OPA, Sri Lanka has taken several important steps in the fight against corruption. It has enacted a bribery and corruption law and established a Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption. It has also enacted an Assets and Liabilities Declaration Law, put in place a law to control money laundering, and signed the U.N. Convention Against Corruption. You should be proud that many of these initiatives are a result of OPA’s tireless efforts.

U.S. Assistance

There is, however, much more to be done to combat official corruption in Sri Lanka. For the past 18 months, the U.S. and Sri Lanka have been working together to develop strategies to fight corruption. For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development undertook a $2.3 million Anti-Corruption Program, or ACP, in Sri Lanka as part of its $135 million tsunami recovery and reconstruction program on the island. The ACP provided technical support to the Sri Lankan Government to enable them to begin to identify corruption and to develop a national action plan to address it, thereby providing broader benefits to the country beyond the tsunami reconstruction program itself. Training and technical assistance programs have strengthened the capacity of key government institutions; citizen participation in monitoring and reporting corruption has been increased; and the public has been engaged in the campaign to combat corruption and promote integrity.

In July, USAID together with Sri Lanka’s Auditor General’s Department and the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, presented Sri Lanka’s first National Anti-Corruption Action Plan, which aims to mobilize citizens to combat corrupt practices and to promote principles of integrity. A Consultative Council, with participation from OPA members, was established to provide a forum for discussion and coordination among interested individuals and organizations. The ACP conducted more than 1,000 workshops, meetings, and seminars throughout the country involving more than 3,000 citizens of all ages and ethnic groups, producing a document that represents the views and hopes of a broad range of Sri Lankans.

As the OPA’s efforts show, the fight against corruption is a challenge that requires sustained, committed involvement by all elements of society: government, civil society, business, and media, as well as individual citizens who are prepared to take risks, challenge the status quo, and stand up for what is right. I congratulate OPA for its hard work and dedication, and I applaud each of you for accepting the responsibility of maintaining and promoting the integrity of your democratic government.

Thank you again for the opportunity to address this distinguished gathering.

[Source: US Embassy, Colombo, Sri Lanka]

by Kusal Perera

A few days, or perhaps a fortnight ago, there was an article about the possible outcome of the APRC that I wish to engage with for two main reasons. One for it raised the issue of a “unitary State” and two, because it discussed about “devolution” of powers, both in very linear form. Two concepts that were treated as issues that keep political parties divided at the APRC. While it is so, the two concepts or terms have more reasons and confusions than that to be discussed. Again, those in government who for some reason do not want to oppose or challenge the government on its war strategy, yet want to oppose the unitary State and support devolution, making the issue more blurred. DEW Gunasekara for one and Tissa Vitharana the other, as the Chairman of the APRC represents this blurred political positioning. It’s to make their stay with the government easy and less conflicting, they prefer to drop these “terms” from the discourse on “finding the right platform for negotiations” with the argument that it is not words that matter, but the content of the draft. Sadly, words have no life without contextual meaning. It is thus worth the effort to trace the defining of these two terms within the political debate that surrounds the ethnic conflict in our country.

It is being argued now by cautious ideologues who wish perhaps sincerely to see an end to the war that the issue of a unitary State was never there with the Soulbury Constitution as it never said what this country is, but instead spelt, how this country should be administered or governed. They argue therefore, the issue of a “unitary” or a “united” State should not be made into a bone of contention in working out a proposal for negotiations at the APRC. But the fact remains, even though the Soulbury Constitution did not have the word “unitary” included in any of its articles defining the “State of Ceylon” as in the present Constitution, the State nevertheless was organised as a “Unitary State” from the time of the British Colonial rule. It was centralised in Colombo with all decisions made in the highest echelons of power administered by a Parliament with which was vested all legislative and executive powers. The Judiciary, the Police, Public Administration and all other appendages of the State was heavily centralised and was under the political authority of a government that acted on the strength it gained from the constitution on one side and on the will of the majority of the people on the other side. The majority, as elections was decided on geographically demarcated constituents, was always held by the 70% Sinhala votes. And it’s the nature of this unitary State that aggravated the issue we are now faced with, what ever label one would wish to stick on it.

Yet often the role of the State is neglected and what is talked of, is the day to day hazards of the Tamil people who had to live with a Sinhala administration since the enactment of the shortest Bill ever passed in Parliament, the “Official Language Act No. 33 of 1956″ commonly and popularly known as the “Sinhala Only Act”. Although in 1958 the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act No. 28 was passed, this was not supported by due Regulations to give effect to the Act, till 1966. Even there after, the Treasury circular No. 686 of March, 1966 was very emphatic in its direction which Stated, [quote] 1) Without prejudice to the operation of the Official Language Act No.33 of 1956. (unquote) which meant Sinhala.

This meant that all “New Entrants” into the State Services were from the Sinhala vernacular education and could therefore only think and act in Sinhala. Worst was that they were groomed within a social ideology that raised Sinhala as “the greatest civilisation on earth” but was introvert in its thinking. This Sinhala ideology nurtured by the much fancied Bandaranayake politics drew its life breath from past Sinhala glory to live in the present but had no understanding of the modern day world that reached to the future. This therefore had a very drastic impact in turning the State into a Sinhala State with a potential in making it Buddhist too and it did over the next decades that followed.

As every State develops its own ideology and direction, this Sinhala State too had a wholly Sinhala approach in all its functions. It would suffice to say that the ideology of the State was so narrow with its Sinhala outlook, it could not in any way feel the presence of other linguistically different cultures that also had to have a stake in the State. It is reason why there are Sinha, Gemunu, Gajaba regiments in the military, instead of “Ruhunu, Wayamba or Yapa-patuna” regiments. Thinking was obviously Sinhala and not capable of grasping the larger pluralistic picture. So was the reason to have all State sponsored enterprises in the South except for four meagre corporations that went to the North-East all through the decades since independence. Worst is that the largest development project undertaken since independence, the Accelerated Mahaweli Development Programme opted to have Uda Walawe from the South that has absolutely nothing to do with the Mahaweli and had its own development project, included as a development zone within the Mahaweli scheme. The adjacent district Killinochchi that was qualified to have irrigated water for its agriculture was never thought fit to be included into these schemes of development.

All this went beyond that of having a departmental letter or a complaint recorded at a Police station in Tamil language. All those administrative aspects added, this meant a purging of the Tamil polity from the State. Distancing and refusing the right of the Tamil polity to share power in State affairs. It is this right to be included in State power that formed the basis of Tamil politics ever since the Plantation Tamil population was disfranchised and made Stateless in 1948, on which issue the All Ceylon Tamil Congress split to give way to the Federal Party. Since then, all negotiations and all “Pacts” that the Tamil political leadership entered into were efforts to gain some access to power sharing within the “Unitary State”. And all such efforts failed, not because the Tamil people objected to them, but because the South did not want to accommodate power sharing.

This reality is what the South is shying away from. Reality of accepting that it would have been far more wiser for all to have accommodated Tamil political aspirations within the unitary State that evolved through Colonial rule, than to have turned the State into a Sinhala unitary State and throw Tamil politics into the clutches of separatism.

For it is this refusal to share State power that has finally led Tamil politics to establish a State of their own, in the absence of a right to what they first thought they could share. Let’s not forget that the Tamil political leadership that was voted with the biggest margins at the 1977 elections to be the majority in the Opposition came in with an almost unanimous mandate from the Tamil polity to establish a Separate Tamil state. It was while having this mandate that the TULF negotiated and agreed to the District Development Councils (DDC) as a way out of the protracted conflict to be within the unitary State. DDC is now history as much as the burnt Jaffna Public Library.

The unitary State is thus an obsolete concept to play with, to get beyond the impasse we are now in. We had that chance but we never took it. Now the opportunity is to shift to a power sharing mechanism that would accommodate all as equal share holders in a single federated country. One, where the South too could assert its right to share power in deciding its own future development. If this reality is not accepted by the South in favour of a unitary State, the South could continue with a unitary State, adjoining another that would aspire to live with what they could not have since independence.

By Dr. S. Narapalasingam

The need to restructure the Sri Lankan State is widely acknowledged by all concerned persons, who are disgusted with the lack of progress in all major fields-social, economic and political-during the past several decades, except the Sinhala extreme nationalists who want to transform it permanently into an exclusive Sinhala Buddhist nation. Their intent is based on the dubious claim that the entire land in ancient time when monarchs and feudal lords ruled before the advent of the concept of nation as we know it today was occupied by the Sinhalas or the ‘Hela’. Their mindset is fixed to what they have read or heard from old legends believing them as real events. Their prejudiced minds cannot accept the undisputed historical developments that took place during the post-medieval period after realizing it is imperative for different groups of people living in adjacent lands to co-exist (live and let live) peacefully for their own survival. This ended (virtually) tribal and feudal wars. These were waged by feudal lords anxious to expand their fiefdoms by capturing adjacent lands of other rulers. Some conquerors captured land to eliminate the potential threat to their fiefdoms or kingdoms. The unitary system is considered by the Sinhala nationalists with this mindset as necessary to minimize the threat of conquest by the ethnic Tamils who add up to 70 million in the sub-continent!

Contradictions, distortions and utter confusion

A blatant feature of the present government is its contradictions in stated positions on the ethnic conflict and the approach to final settlement. These have helped to create confusion in the minds of peace loving citizens as well as concerned foreign leaders. It is not certain whether these are intentional or due to the lack of coordination in the hierarchy or the eagerness of some ambitious politicians and officials to demonstrate their ability in defending the government at awkward times. The President himself has made impetuous statements on different occasions that have been criticized by several columnists because of their contradictions with previous ones as well as stated national goals. On the ethnic issue, he announced at the beginning that there was no ethnic problem and the challenge is to rid the country of terrorism. He has said repeatedly, the government is committed to ‘honourable’ peace through negotiated political settlement with the LTTE, while condemning them as ‘terrorists’ without a realistic political aim. The major offensives including aerial bombardments are said to be part of the ‘war on terror’. The President has at the same time urged the political parties represented in the Parliament (except the Tamil National Alliance which is the proxy of the LTTE) to come up with an agreed set of proposals for political settlement.

The home grown solution to the ethnic conflict to be found by national consensus was the response to external pressures urging the present government to reveal its proposals for constitutional reform aimed at settling the nationally damaging protracted conflict. He then set up the All Party Conference (APC), the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) and the Expert Committee to assist the latter. To those who are not familiar with or intentionally overlook the negative politics of the parties that had no concern for the political stability, unity, economic advancement, this mechanism may have seemed holistic and hence sensible. The Expert panel produced two – majority and minority-reports. Chosen members from all three ethnic communities, some in government service jointly drafted the majority report, whereas the minority report was written solely by the dissenting Sinhalese members. The President rejected the majority report as well as the APRC Chairman’s helpful report fusing the recommendations in the two reports.

President’s own recommendations were incorporated in the set of proposals submitted by his party, the SLFP to the APRC. This was widely condemned as regressive going decades back to the time of the defunct District Development Councils Act (1980). His party’s proposals with district as the unit of devolution as expected blocked the advancing APRC process. President’s slogan – ‘maximum devolution of powers’ – contradicted with his stand on the unit of devolution and the unitary structure. He also went back on his stated position that he would go along with the final decision of the APRC by insisting later that the recommendations must recognize the unitary structure of the State. The Tamil separatists main argument for secession is based on the assumption that the Sinhala polity will not give the minority Tamils anything that will enable them to live in dignity with equal rights and opportunities they are entitled to as citizens of a sovereign country.

The sovereign power was not shared equitably amongst all ethnic groups but vested in the majority Sinhalese under the unitary constitution. There were no safeguards to prevent Sinhala authority over the ethnic minorities in the central decision-making process. The current move by a section of the Sinhala polity is to safeguard this supremacy.

The contradictions and distortions in resisting significant structural change are too many; it is not possible to list all here. A few that caused wide embarrassment recently are mentioned. Following the two-day talks in New Delhi (September 3-4) between high level Sri Lankan and Indian officials, the Presidential Secretariat in Colombo announced on September 6 that an Indo-Lanka High Level Defence Committee has been set up. The press release stated Defence Secretary Gothabaya Rajapaksa, Basil Rajapaksa (Senior Adviser to the President) and Lalitha Weeratunga (Secretary to the President) from the Sri Lankan side and Defence Secretary Shri Vijay Singh, External Affairs Secretary Shivshankar Menon and National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan from the Indian side were the Committee members. All six were the officials from the two countries who participated in the earlier talks in Delhi. When the truth came out that no such committee was constituted, the Sri Lankan President’s office apologized on September 9 to the members of the two delegations over the previous erroneous statement to the media on the setting up of an Indo-Lanka committee of high officials on defence related matters.

The very next day (September 10) IANS reported, “Narayanan’s meetings with the Rajapaksa brothers and Weeratunga-who matter more than any minister in Sri Lanka-followed conflicting signals that have confused many in India on what really Colombo intends to do vis-a-vis the ethnic conflict that has left tens of thousands dead”. It also recalled an earlier IANS interview September 2 with President Rajapaksa, wherein he stated that “he was opposed to Tamil demands for a federal government and to India’s advocacy of a merger of the north and east of Sri Lanka to form a single Tamil-majority province”.

In the earlier interview President Rajapaksa justified his pro-Sinhala stand saying: “I cannot change history or my own political circumstances overnight. You must remember my political legacy and constraints. During my election I received few Tamil votes because of the LTTE-enforced boycott. I was elected primarily by a Sinhala constituency on an election manifesto which made it clear that an ultimate solution to the ethnic crisis could be evolved only on the basis of a unitary state. In any peace settlement I have to carry the Sinhala voters with me. I cannot unilaterally impose a settlement. It has to be the outcome of a political process an outcome that must be long-lasting and acceptable to the people.” This quote appears prominently in comments by Col. R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia who served as the head of intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka 1987-90 and other analysts.

In other words, President Rajapaksa wants to follow the path that will please the Sinhala voters instead of leading them along the correct path for the good of all and the country. Had Sri Lanka been fortunate to have had a leader like Lee Kwan Yew who was the Prime Minister of Singapore from 1959 to 1990, when he opted to step down He is now a highly respected minister- mentor. In a wide ranging International Herald Tribune interview he said: “When Singapore broke off from the Malayan Federation it had a hostile neighbour and population made of Chinese, Malays and immigrants from the Indian subcontinent. The basis of a nation just was not there. In 1965, we had 20 years of examples of failed states. So, we knew what to avoid-racial conflict, linguistic strife, religious conflict. We saw Ceylon. Thereafter, we knew that if we embarked on any of these romantic ideas, to revive a mythical past of greatness and culture, we’d be damned.” He also mentioned how Singapore benefited by retaining English as an official language, unlike Sri Lanka that went for ‘Sinhala only’ which resulted in riots and disunity between the two main ethnic communities. The language barrier also hindered the building of mutual trust. The absence of such visionaries in Sri Lankan national politics is felt now more than ever before.

The contradiction between the military approach to the conflict advocated by Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa (also an American citizen) and the propagated approach of ‘negotiated political settlement’ by the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister has also drawn global attention. The latter approach is also pronounced by some ministers in Colombo as the main official one to conflict resolution. The Defence Secretary has set a three-year time frame for achieving the military objective. The disturbing aspect of the “aggressive military approach to the conflict (is) that (it) often seemingly draws no dividing line between the LTTE and Tamil civilians causing massive civilian suffering. Many international actors share this assessment” (quote from the IANS report).

Regardless of world opinion against military solution, the Defence Secretary (former military officer) continues to stick to his plan. He announced August 27 during a passing out parade of Home Guards: “The Government is determined to liberate the remainder of the ‘uncleared’ areas in the Wanni from the clutches of LTTE the same way it liberated the East”. Such hawkish statements are often toned down by counteractive statements of the Foreign Minister, Rohitha Bogollagama. Soon after Gotabhaya’s announcement, the latter told Reuters in an interview: “There’s no plan for a major offensive in the North”. He said that that the Government’s main priority was to look instead for a political solution. At the meeting in Brussels with the European Union Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighborhood Policy Mrs. Benita Ferrero-Waldner, he assured her that “the Sri Lankan Government has a road map in seeking to bring the conflict in Sri Lanka to an end.” This was in response to the query about the Sri Lanka Government’s position on finding a negotiated political settlement to the conflict and the concern whether the Government was seeking to pursue a military solution. He is also reported to have “pointed out to Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner that Sri Lanka is working out the parameters of a political settlement for the process of constitutional reform, being finalized by a group headed by the Prime Minister, together with leaders of the Political Parties participating in the All Party Representative Committee (APRC). Final proposals that would emanate from the APRC would be comprehensive, sustainable and satisfy the concerns of all parties”. It is the Foreign Minister who has been continuously breathing life into the APRC process by making pledges in foreign capitals and to important dignitaries that a political solution would be announced by the APRC shortly.

The fact that the APRC process is being used to buy time and mislead foreigners concerned about the political settlement of the conflict is also evident from the assertion made by Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake (another staunch defender of the present unitary system) when he met a group of Servicemen of the Indian Defence Academy at his office on September 4. He told them that “the Government was prepared to solve the ethnic conflict and eradicate terrorism on the basis of power devolution”. He also said: “Provincial Councils have been set up and already power has been devolved as per the 13th Amendment of the Constitution.”(?) With regard to the government’s approach to secure a political solution, he told the visitors: “17 parties had been invited for the All Party Representatives Committee (APRC) meetings. Excluding the UNP and the TNA, 15 (?) of them have participated at the discussions”. However, the Government expects “the UNP and the TNA to join in the discussions on broad-based power sharing”.

He added: “although the LTTE withdrew from the negotiating table, they (the Government) were prepared to re-accommodate them to discuss power sharing”.

The APRC process

The reality is the APRC process is now in a shaky state, after the Chairman’s report was put on ice. The chairman, Minister Prof. Tissa Vitharana has been the glimmer of hope for the moderates, who have been and possibly still are looking for meaningful structural changes in the governing system. The third largest political party in Sri Lanka, the JVP withdrew from the APRC several months ago and the UNP’s Working Committee on September 4 approved the Party’s decision to withdraw from APRC saying the Government was not serious about finding a solution to the country’s prolonged conflict. The UNP had been demanding the coalition government to put forward its joint set of proposals agreed by all the constituent parties. The main opposition party’s reaction is also damaging. It has a national duty to expose the shortcomings and the consequences to the future of the country. It should also reveal the alternative and convince its usefulness to the public.

The JHU was the only coalition partner pleased with the SLFP proposals and is now seen to depend very much on the President for preserving the Sinhala-Buddhist supremacy. Or is the President depending on JHU and others with same views for maintaining the balance of power in his favour? The other coalition partner that has openly taken a Sinhala nationalist line is the MEP represented in the APRC by the well-known academic and Sinhala ultra nationalist Dr. Nalin de Silva, who in a recent article (The Island September 5 and 12) had put forward reasons for retaining the unitary structure.

Basically it is the view that any change that weakens the Sinhala majority rule is federal and this in turn is a step towards separation. He has like some others cited the 1976 Vaddukkoddai Resolution as having given rise to the development of the concept of Tamil speaking people(s) and a full scale campaign to establish a Tamil Eelam. This resolution was not pursued by the parties that introduced it but was meant to convey the degree of frustration with the discriminatory ways the minority Tamil speaking people were being treated under the unitary system. The movers might have also thought the resolution would pacify the furious Tamil youth but it was a reckless step. Regrettably, all the non-violent protests and resolutions by the then Tamil political leaders were not taken seriously by the international community. It was the eruption of violence following the 1983 anti-Tamil pogrom that drew international attention.

Dr. Nalin de Silva has said that the discriminatory charge was invented by the Tamil leaders in order to justify their claim for a separate state! Many Tamils think that the Sinhalese leaders for their own political advantage invented the ‘Tamil enemy’ waiting to enslave the Sinhalese! According to him “these discriminations were nothing but the loss of privileges that the Tamil elite had, and also reductions of certain privileges that the Jaffna Tamils in general had under the British”. There are other fanatics who have put forward theories that are not relevant to the real situation that emerged after independence, contrary to what was promised earlier. They forget that the Tamils rejected federalism when it was recommended by S. J. V. Chelvanayakam and other Tamil leaders in the early 1950s. They preferred the unitary system and had high hope of living amicably as equal citizens with the Sinhalese. It was the rise of Sinhala nationalism promoted by power seeking politicians and the marginalization of the ethnic minorities that drove the Tamils to seek self-governing powers for their safety, security and welfare and protection of their interests. What is missed importantly is the fact known to all objective persons that the unitary system is a complete failure because it even permitted the non-implementation of the acts passed by Parliament and policies approved by the government to mitigate the problems faced by the Tamils. The frustration was more because the governments acknowledged that the Tamils have genuine grievances but did nothing when it came to the implementation of their own remedial measures. This pathetic plight of Tamils was realized by many as due to the lack of power for them to either prevent the emergence of the specific problems affecting them as a minority community or implement policies to alleviate the hardships caused. In short, their future as a distinct ethnic community has all along been not in their hands.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa when speaking to News Post on 1st September over the current political situation in Sri Lanka said: “Federalism is a negative word in Sri Lanka because people think it is synonymous with dividing the country. Also, I prefer the phrase ‘power sharing’ to ‘devolution’.” He also said: “Ultimately, it would be a mistake for Western governments to allow their frustrations with the slow pace of (political) reform in Sri Lanka to be interpreted as empathy with a terrorist cause”. Here the President has misinterpreted the disappointment of the international community. Their frustration to use his word is the lack of serious commitment and sign of a breakthrough in restructuring the State to free the country from the present quagmire.

The usual sympathetic statements were also made on the plight of the minority Tamils. This is an improvement from his earlier statement that there is no ethnic problem in Sri Lanka. He said: ‘I recognise the legitimate historic grievances of our Tamil people. They are Sri Lankans: proud Sri Lankans. And any organised repression of the rights of any Sri Lankan is a blot on all Sri Lankans.’ He also said that he had no hidden agenda. He urged Tamil groups to “present a united agenda and concrete proposals for peace. Prabhakaran does not speak for all Tamils. The vast majority of Tamil people want peace above everything and to them Eelam is just an illusion”. Truly, concerned persons will find it difficult to reconcile this statement with his rejection of the Expert panel (majority) report. In as much as Eelam, ‘unitary’ state too will not bring lasting peace to Sri Lanka.

Unity not unitary for lasting peace

Dr. Sumanasiri Liyanage in his commentary September 13 on the latest developments on the APRC process has raised the very pertinent question- “Are We Going to Make the Same Mistake After 35 Years?” He has said that the APRC chairman is under pressure to retain the ‘unitary’ label in the final recommendations for a political solution to the national problem. “All the signals show that the APRC final report would suggest that the unitary character of the Sri Lankan state be preserved”. His clarification on the unitary vs. federal issue is relevant to the objective approach to restructuring for unity and political stability.

To quote: “Many constitutions do not specify the nature of the state in terms of this rigid binary. Political and legal experts prefer to characterize states by using power spectrum perspective rather than rigid categories. One of the principal positive characters of the Indian constitution is its flexibility. In this sense, including the word unitary may impede the constitutional evolution in a pluri-national society like Sri Lanka”.

Fr. Tissa Balasuriya in his very useful contribution at this critical time (The Island 12 September 2007) has also clarified some important points that have not been fully understood by those who feel the unitary system is essential to safeguard the future of the Sinhalese. He has mentioned the various unfair and unnecessary acts of successive governments to achieve this aim. Starting from the disenfranchisement of the plantation Tamils, Sinhala only language policy, introduction of new constitutions (1972 and 1978) ignoring Tamil concerns and finally violent attacks and intimidation all were intended to strengthen Sinhala majority rule. But this approach taken less than a decade after independence was aggressive than conciliatory. The consequences are now seen from the extent of the destruction to life and property, spread of violence and disorder. The country is on war with itself.

His comments are noteworthy at this juncture when there is some visible reluctance to do the right thing. He has very candidly said: “The unity of Sri Lanka cannot be assumed or claimed as a historical or present day reality. Our oneness as a country has to be achieved by consensus (as in 1947) and respect for the rights of the communities who have lived here as separate peoples until the British brought us under one flag by force of arms. It is important to remember that the rights of the Tamil community are not a concession of the Sinhala majority but the inherent human rights of a people who, as they claim, are a distinct national community with an ancient language, culture and religion of their own, for many centuries prior to foreign invasions after 1505. We Sinhalese can have the wisdom to cooperate with the Tamils (and Muslims) to set up a united Sri Lanka, respecting their rights and arriving at a peaceful resolution of power sharing at the Centre and agreed local government areas. Otherwise would we not condemn future generations of Sri Lankans to division and internal violence”?

Another true patriot V. Anandasangaree in his latest (September 12) plea to all the people-Muslims, Sinhalese and Tamils which he says has been induced by recent depressing developments in Sri Lanka has also warned of the high risk in seeking a political solution within the unitary structure. He has said: “A political solution with the “unitary” label, where the State is not willing to recognize the other communities as those with legitimate grounds of power sharing will only strengthen the LTTE’s call for separation and give oxygen to a dying organization. A “unitary” solution will be a political defeat for those such as myself that have been challenging the Tamil community to forget separatism and come into the path of a united Sri Lanka. A “unitary” solution will shatter the confidence of the Tamil people and the sense of fairness they expect from the Sri Lankan State. Only a reasonable solution that leads to a contented society consisting of all communities will lead to a sustainable peace”.

Conclusion

Real peace cannot be achieved by dodging the issues that obstructed ethnic harmony and national unity. Instead of building a united country, the state policies and practices promoted divisions that ultimately led to the bloody conflict. The post apartheid leaders in South Africa set up the ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ with the objective of moving forward jointly leaving the past behind. Truth is fundamental to peace with ‘honour and dignity’. It is the considered view of all true patriotic persons that the unitary system is a complete failure in many respects, not just from the point of the ethnic issue, which is linked to the Sinhala majority rule bestowed by the unitary structure. Economic development and the general well-being of all ethnic groups have been affected by the manipulation of the system by the privileged few for their own advantage. The Executive Presidential system too is unsuitable for Sri Lanka. It has not helped to ensure good governance, the rule of law, financial management and national development. Importantly, it has not been a counterbalancing arrangement to the lopsided unitary rule but gave strength to this system. Any sensible structure to foster unity and peace must take cognizance of the diverse demographic and regional features and the concerns of the different ethnic groups in the island nation. Restructuring the multi-ethnic state should not be a political decision by the majority just as past imbalanced decisions of the government under the unitary system.

The structural changes needed should be decided realistically from the standpoint of avoiding the problems that denied unity, peace and rapid development and securing trust and unity between different ethnic groups. It is also important to ensure that the unity and territorial integrity of the State remain permanent. It is an illusion that the unitary system guarantees the territorial integrity of the multi-ethnic island. Restructuring, is for the purpose of building a new united multi-ethnic State. There is no need to fix the label unitary or federal before deciding on the new structure which should emerge from the changes needed to meet the above goals.

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

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.