My Responses to Certain Comments - 1 July 2009

My Responses to Certain Comments

Though several comments are not directly related to the topic, I wish to respond to some of the issues that have been raised.

The comments about the JVP have been completely lop-sided and do not take into account the context of or the causes for the armed insurrections. Political violence in Sri Lanka cannot be properly understood without recognizing its complex internecine establishment politics. As citizens of Sri Lanka when social groups vied for access to state power or when they demanded their just rights, the establishment used repressive and violent force against them. Behind the political violence of the state could be witnessed strategies for the further plundering of the island’s resources accompanied by a continuous march towards authoritarianism, in which people’s hopes, aspirations, human rights and civil liberties were increasingly dashed. Existing social divisions such as nationality, language, religion, caste were manipulated to establish and maintain the political power of the ruling elite.

Lack of appropriate political and economic development, equitable distribution of economic benefits, and equitable opportunities provided the essential ingredients for young peoples' radicalisation. The universal franchise and the lowering of the voting age allowed young people to take part in active electoral politics. Free education was introduced in 1945, and the medium of instruction was changed to local languages, which created an expansion of higher educational opportunities. Yet, lack of opportunities to actively take part in social, economic and political life led to extremely tense situations, which in turn led to discontent amongst the youth, who started questioning the existing socio, political and ideological status quo and its value systems. The failure of the ruling elite to introduce social, economic and political change and make them inclusive alienated the majority of young people. All governments regardless of their political hue failed to see the underlying socio-political, economic and psychological causes.

One needs to take into account why these insurrections took place, what were the contexts. I have openly admitted that the JVP in 1971 should not have reacted to the government’s repressive measures, the way the JVP did. However, it was the domestic socio-economic crisis and the cold-war situation in the sixties and seventies that led to that situation. To simply put the whole blame on the JVP indicates one’s lack of understanding of what really happened during this period.

Though I was not a party to the insurrection in 1989, it needs to be pointed out that the pre-condition for the insurrection in 1989 was a creation of the then government by the proscription of the JVP on the pretext that the JVP was behind the 1983 Black July riots against the Tamil people in the south of Sri Lanka.

With regard to the size of the cake and the trickle down effects let me say this. Making the cake bigger is necessary. However, that does not automatically make it possible for everyone to get a piece. Unless the working people ask for a piece and pressurize for it, only a handful will share the whole cake. Some western nations have learnt a lesson from this and created social security networks and supportive systems to cater to those who are in need. Countries like Sri Lanka cannot afford to make this happen because the ruling elites do not wish to share the cake and the cake is not big enough.

‘Governments have a duty to safeguard their peoples and countries’ was another comment. I agree one hundred per cent but with one condition. The governments have to equitably and fairly safeguard all its citizens and its provinces (or regions). Precisely because successive regimes did not look after all its citizens and provinces, Sri Lanka moved into this situation. That is why there was a demand to adopt power sharing as a solution to the problem. I would like to add that I have never opposed attempts to delivering a political solution to the national problem.

Some including Dayan seems to have got the stick by its wrong end. They did not get it that I started my presentation (delivered on 3 June) with the admission that the conventional war between the GoSL and the LTTE has ended. There is no mention of a war continuing in the island. However, the political causes that led to the national problem and the war still remain. I have openly advocated power sharing as the political solution to this problem. I have consistently stated my position that a separate state was not going to address this problem.

In fact, in the eighties, it was Dayan and the Tamil militant groups including his EPRLF that demanded the establishment of a separate state of Tamil Eelam to address the issues of the Tamil people. Dayan used to come to the public meetings held by the JVP and demand that the JVP accepted Eelam as the only solution to the national problem. The JVP and I responded to this position by pointing out that Eelam as a non-solution to the problems of the Tamil people. Trying to divorce the question of power sharing from the militant struggle that was led by many groups (before the LTTE physically eliminated most of them) is to me more than hypocritical.

There is a great opportunity for all the Sri Lankans to make a fresh start towards a better future by making room for all its citizens to live as equals and be treated as equals in all respects. This President has got the best chance to lead the island towards such a destiny.  All those who demanded a military solution to the separatist demand, have a duty and responsibility to continue to demand the ruling elite to proactively provide leadership towards such a destiny by creating equitable opportunities for all citizens in Sri Lanka irrespective of their socio, economic and cultural background. It is a not a time to be complacent as some comments indicate. As we have experienced in our life time, the Tamil struggle was militarily crushed militarily thrice, in 1958, in 1977 and in 2009. Military crushing of their struggle in 1958 or 1977 did not prevent its regeneration, primarily because the socio-economic and political causes for the development of such struggles were not weeded out. So it has become our bounden responsibility and duty to prevent re-occurrence of such a situation after 2009.

May be some of the issues I raise and the positions presented are based on ‘old politics, old slogans’ and the like. I would like to ask those who make these comments whether their politics and slogans are older or not.

Furthermore, it is just historically specious to state that that the war is over because one side lost and the other side won. One major example comes to my mind. The Allied Forces when they declared victory in 1918 thought it was a war to end all wars. Yet, thirty years later they had to fight another war. A more recent example is the Israeli state. It has won every war with its Arab neighbours and the Palestinians, yet there is no peace. The reason is that they failed to take account of the underlying causes for the respective conflicts and attempted to deal with such issues only militarily. This brings me to the next point. How is the peace going to be sustained? Is it going to be sustained by dealing with the issues that gave rise to the conflict in the first place? Or is it sadly going to be business as usual? And then the cycle repeats?

If the government is committed to the welfare of the people in the South, the North and the East then why is it:

Continually narrowing the parameters of civil society by actively stifling dissent;

Refusing to allow independent observers to report on what happened to and is happening to the 300,000 displaced people in the North;

Not taking measures in a practical way to devolve power, apart from words and pronouncements to that effect;

Not showing empathy for the rights of the Tamils in terms of their language and culture;

Desist from initiating a political culture that is amenable to the island’s multicultural heritage.

If these happen, I 'will get over it' 'accept the reality' and see the 'current President is not like previous leaders' of Sri Lanka.

Till then I reserve the right to my critical facilities, and skepticism.

Thank you.

Lionel Bopage
1 July 2009