FRIENDS FOR PEACE
IN SRI LANKA
An Association
convened by concerned Australian Sinhalese and Tamils to work for lasting peace
in Sri Lanka
Reg. No. A2916
'A Lasting Peace for Sri
Lanka'
Proceedings of the workshop held on 31 August 1997
at
85 Havelock House, Canberra
49 Lexcen Avenue
Nicholls ACT 2913
Australia
Chairperson of the workshop
Dr James Jupp
Director, Centre for
Immigration and Multicultural Studies
The Australian National
University
Panel of the workshop
Mrs Michelle Harris
Director, Torture
Rehabilitation and Network Services of the ACT
Dr James Jupp
Director, Centre for
Immigration and Multicultural Studies
The Australian National
University
Dr John Powers
Senior Lecturer, The Asian
History Centre
The Australian National
University
Ms Nancy Shelley
Quaker Peace
(All panel members take part
in this workshop in their individual capacities only)
Agenda
Introduction
Chairperson's
speech
Mr
H L D Mahindapala 20
mts
The
Sinhalese Cultural Foundation and Community Services in Sydney
Speech
of Mr Ranjit Soysa 20
mts
(assisted
by Mr Asoka Subhawickrama)
The
Society for Peace, Unity and Human Rights for Sri Lanka (SPUR) in Victoria
Speech
of Mr P. Sivasubramaniam 20
mts
The
Tamil Christian Community in Sydney
Additional
comments by the above three speakers 15
mts
Discussion 60
mts
Summary
of the proceedings by Dr John Powers
Final
statement of the workshop
IN LIEU OF A FOREWORD
(The open invitation made by
the Friends for Peace in Sri Lanka)
We, Friends for Peace in Sri Lanka, are an organisation
incorporated in Australia. Our main
objective is to promote a durable and peaceful settlement of the ethnic
conflict in Sri Lanka, that recognises the legitimate aspirations and the
security needs of all the peoples in the island. We also aim to create awareness amongst the
concerned persons about all facets of this conflict so that a just resolution
can be reached.
We are extremely concerned at the escalation of human rights
violations in Sri Lanka. The
continuation of the war has already brought death, destruction, and suffering
to many thousands of innocent civilians.
Friends for Peace in Sri Lanka believe that the prolongation of the war
will lead to further alienation and make the reconciliation process more
difficult.
All Sri Lankan expatriates respect their own cultures and
want their relatives, friends, neighbours back at home to live in peace and
dignity. As Sri Lankan Australians, we
live in a multicultural society and would like everybody in Sri Lanka too to
protect and cherish their heritage, cultural values, and religious
beliefs. Multiculturalism is about the
harmonious co-existence of different cultures for the benefit of the society. We have to understand the suffering and
hardships undergone by the people who are living under war conditions. People have lost their relatives, friends,
and their property because of this conflict.
Should we allow those matters to spill over here to perpetuate
misunderstandings among us in Australia?
Whatever solution is eventually peacefully worked out, for
it to be successfully implemented and made durable, it is imperative that the
current strained relations between the peoples of Sri Lanka are overcome. This can be achieved only through improving
mutual understanding and confidence building measures. The expatriate Sri Lankan community of
different ethnic descent could play a significant role in this.
So let us join hands in this effort today and now
itself. To achieve peace we have to work
for peace, with a positive and constructive vision and in a committed manner.
Dear Friends,
The Peoples' Alliance under the leadership of President
Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaranatunga, in accordance with the clear and strong
mandate it received to use a consultative approach, courageously attempted to
end the deadlock by holding unconditional talks. After a short period, the hopes and
expectations of the people for a durable and just solution through a negotiated
settlement were shattered. The current
military stalemate and the death and destruction this war had inflicted on both
sides unambiguously indicate that both the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE
cannot win this war. We believe that it
is necessary to evolve radical changes to the constitution to recognise and
accommodate the diversity amongst the Sri Lankan people.
The quite uphill task of building bridges between the Tamil
community and the rest of the Sri Lankan expatriate community has been moving
forward but extremely slowly. There have
been better and closer personal relationships between all groups of Sri
Lankans. However, we should look at
other methods to build closer relationships by finding common grounds on the
issues affecting us. These relationships
have to represent a higher level of understanding of each other's problems and
a genuine desire to overcome prejudices.
The coming year will be a challenge to all of us. We look forward to this challenge and hope to
improve upon the work we have already done.
We are quite happy to hear from anyone who has any ideas or suggestions
on how we could march forward towards achieving the set goals.
We invite you to attend a workshop and an open discussion on
31 August 1997 (Sunday) 2-5 pm at Havelock House, 85 Northbourne Av, Turner.
With best regards,
Siva Bhaskaradas 242 8243 Lionel
Bopage 283 2153
Asanka Perera 281 1001 Kathir
Ravichandra 019 387930
Willie Senanayake 242 7430 Joe
Sothinanthan 242 9994
Anura Weereratne 259 2426
03 August 1997
Introduction by Mr Lionel
Bopage of the Friends for Peace in Sri Lanka (verbatim)
Dear friends, Ladies and gentlemen,
On behalf of the Friends for Peace in Sri Lanka I welcome you to this
workshop on the theme
"A Lasting Peace for Sri Lanka". Our organisation commenced its activities in
mid 1994 with the following objectives in mind.
The objectives are
(a)
to create
awareness and understanding amongst concerned persons about all facets of the
ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka;
(b)
to promote a
durable peaceful settlement of the ethnic conflict recognising the aspirations
and the security of all peoples in Sri Lanka;
(c)
to promote
respect for fundamental rights as defined in the United Nations Charter and
with special reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
and
(d)
to seek the
support of as many people and organisations as possible who subscribe to the
aforesaid objectives.
Since 1994 we have conducted
ten seminars with regard to the situation in Sri Lanka, addressed by persons
with different affiliations and points of view.
Among
them were: Mr Bibile Kuda Bandara, Professor Carlo Fonseka, Dr Siri Gamage, Mr
Anton Muttukumaru, Dr Arjuna Parakrama, Mr Kumar Ponnambalam, Dr Sunil
Ratnapriya, Mr Kathir Ravichandra, Mr Vasantharajah, and Mr Bernard Wijedoru.
I also note that as an organisation we have condemned
any terrorist activity conducted against the civilian population anywhere in
Sri Lanka.
This workshop is intended to play a constructive role. Please respect each other's views and be
courteous. As the paper in front of you
states, we appreciate if one person speaks at a time, focussing on today's
theme, without disrupting the right of others to listen to the
proceedings. We appreciate your open
mindedness and request everyone to contribute.
The purpose of this workshop is to help identify thorny issues involved
in achieving reconciliation of the peoples in Sri Lanka. The theme "A Lasting Peace for Sri
Lanka" will bring different perspectives of achieving peace. The issues identified at this workshop will
be used as the basis for conducting a major workshop planned for the next
year. We wish to invite specialists on
those issues to address the future workshop.
We appreciate your contribution in this regard.
The material coming out of this workshop will be published in order to
generate more discussion and for that we seek your permission to record the
proceedings of the entire workshop.
The panel will assist in identifying the major issues evolving out of
the different perspectives presented today.
All members of the panel take part in this workshop in their individual
capacities only.
It is with great pleasure I invite Dr James Jupp to chair this workshop.
Thank you very much.
Dr James Jupp, Chairperson
of the workshop (Verbatim)
Thank you very much Lionel, I
think Lionel exactly said most of things that I should say as Chairman, which
is my function to conduct the meeting in a rational and orderly manner which I
hope you will find easy and to introduce the speakers, and most importantly I
think to maintain the timetable and also to allow a considerable discussion, I
think you all have the groundrules. One
at a time speaks, so I will be certainly insisting on that, honesty, I cannot
judge that, so I will leave that to you, courtesy, which I do not think you
will have a problem, focusing on the issues and I think that is very important,
because we are really trying to look at the current situation in terms of
remedying the current situation which most of us, certainly I do, regard as
totally unsatisfactory. So I would
prefer if people talked about positive suggestions which the panel will be
noting for a possible solution of the present situation rather than to go back
in the past; because Sri Lankan past go back two and a half thousand years so
the time will certainly not permit it.
So if you put papers on the key issue, that is how to resolve this
highly unsatisfactory situation. Remain
open-minded, well I guess we all have our view on this, so listen actively and
respect other’s views. I do not think we
will have any difficulties with any of those having been to some of these
forums. Each speaker will be given
twenty minutes and may be allowed to clarify points raised by other
speakers. Afterwards we will have a
break and the general discussion will come after the break.
The first speaker will be Mr
Mahindapala who is the spokesperson for the Sinhalese Cultural Foundation and
Community services and was the editor of the Ceylon Observer, also the
secretary of the South Asia Media Association, President, Sri Lanka Working Journalists’
Association from 1990- 1994. And he is
currently engaged as a free-lance journalist in Melbourne, and is a graduate of
Melbourne University.
Speech of Mr H L D
Mahindapala of the Sinhalese Cultural Foundation and Community Services in
Sydney
I must begin by thanking the
Friends for Peace for inviting me to participate in this workshop on the theme
of “Lasting Peace for Sri Lanka”. Of
course, I must mention that the experiences of the Sinhala community in
Australia has been frustrated time and time again each time they tried to open
a dialogue with the Tamils in Australia.
I speak here as a Sri Lankan who came here in 1970 -- long before I
think anyone of you here arrived here.
My relationships with the leaders of the Tamil community have been very
close in the past and we tried strenuously with the Tamil leaders to bring
about some sort of reconciliation here.
But again and again they refused to shake our hands of friendship
offered to them. For reason best known
to them they decided to act separately.
The expatriate Tamils in all parts of the world would join only those
Sinhalese who support their political line of promoting separatism in devious
ways and I sincerely hope that Friends for Peace are committed to a broader
programme of genuinely seeking peace and not promoting any particular political
line of one side or the other. I will be
presenting some proposals at the end of my speech which I hope will be regarded
as a few preliminary steps needed to pave the way for all parties to meet and
advance further in the direction of peace.
But leaving the local history
aside, our efforts today, if it is go anywhere in the direction of peace, must
necessarily focus on two issues: 1. find out who declared war and provoked
communal tensions and 2) to identify clearly and objectively the real enemy of
peace. I shall try to quote from leading
Tamil or non-Sinhala authorities wherever possible so that I will not be
accused of quoting partisan or biased points of view from Sinhala authorities. I think this is important because I represent
the Sinhala point of view.
As the Chairman pointed out
it is not necessary to go way back in time to the origins of Sri Lankan history
to unravel the latest crisis. So let me
begin at the latest starting point of the current north-south conflict which is
1976. This is critical landmark year for
the Tamils and the Sinhalese. It is
undoubtedly the turning point for inter-ethnic relations between the Tamils and
Sinhalese. It was the year in which the
Tamils declared war on the Sinhalese. It
was the year in which the leaders of Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF)
meeting in Jaffna passed the Vadukoddai Resolution. The 1976 Vadukoddai Resolution stated
categorically and explicitly that it would abandon the parliamentary process
and take extra-parliamentary measures to attain their separate state. In that resolution they declared a racist war
aimed directly at the Sinhala people.
Mr. Amirthalingam openly declared that the youth must be armed and be
prepared for the battle ahead. In the
end these leaders who unleashed the hounds of war were devoured by them. Mr Amirthalingam, who succeeded Chelvanayakam
as the leader of the TULF was gunned down by the Tamil Tiger terrorists, on
July 13,1989. A Tamil expatriate poet,
A. Kandasamy, summarised the plight of the Tamils who despaired about the
devastating consequences of the war when he wrote: “Suttathennavo
avarhalakkuthan; vilunaththennavo naangal thaan” (It was “they” at whom we
fired; but it was “we” who fell) (Sunday Leader, July 13, 1997 - p.6).
Having declared war on the
Sinhala people, the second tactic was to deliberately provoke the Sinhalese
into anti-Tamil violence to derive the maximum political mileage nationally and
internationally. Nationally, it would
bring the Tamil community closer to the TULF demanding a separate state and
internationally it would make them appear to be the oppressed underdog who
needs refuge in safe western countries not to mention their sympathy. As told to me in Melbourne by a leading Tamil
activist for a separate state, the Tamils were also hoping that anti-Tamil
violence would drive all the Tamils out of Colombo into Jaffna which would then
clearly demarcate the existence of two separate communities. Clearly, the Tamil leadership was
deliberately provoking this anti-Tamil violence for their own political gain.
Now coming from me this
statement of provoking the Sinhalese to attack the Tamils may seem
far-fetched. So let me quote the highest
authority on Tamil politics on this critical aspect hardly known or
acknowledged by those who accuse the Sinhala people of unleashing communal
violence. There isn’t a better authority
on early Tamil politics than Prof. A. J. Wilson, who is not only a political
scientist of some repute but is also the son-in-law of the father of the
separatist movement, S. J. V. Chelvanayakam.
By no stretch of imagination can he be considered to be a pro-Sinhala
academic. In his analysis of the tactics
adopted by the Tamil leadership, he meticulously described the tactic of the
Tamils to provoke the Sinhalese in 1982.
This is what he wrote: “A second tactic is to destabilise the internal
political situation. Political murders,
acts of sabotage, and inflammatory and provocative speeches are the established
forms and these have been tried. The
Sinhalese masses and their lower-level ethnic leadership are needled by such
acts and urge their rank and file to take retaliatory action. Nothing is more satisfying to the Tamil
militants.” (Sri Lanka and its Future: Sinhalese and Tamils - p.301)
(speaker's emphasis)
This Machiavellian tactic of
the Tamil leadership to provoke the Sinhala masses against their own Tamil
people is reprehensible and unpardonable.
Their attempt to gain political mileage nationally and internationally
is inhuman. But the Tamil plan,
described by Prof. Wilson in 1982, worked very neatly in July 1983 when the
Sinhala masses, reacting emotionally to the killing of 12 soldiers in an ambush
in Thinaaveli, Palali Road, Jaffna, exploded by running amok in the streets of
Colombo. As a Sinhalese I do not justify
the actions of the mindless mob however provoked they may have been. The remarkable feature since 1983, however,
is that the Sinhalese have refused to fall for that Tamil trap. But the LTTE continues to attack sensitive
centres -- Buddhist temples, Buddhist monks, Sacred Bo Tree, innocent Sinhala
babies and women sleeping in villages -- mainly to provoke a backlash. And the Sinhala people have restrained
themselves with commendable patience since 1983.
Now the Vaddukoddai
declaration of war and the provocation of Sinhalese have a political
motive. Both tactics are aimed at
establishing the Tamil separate state.
This leads us to the third point.
To establish a separate (state) there is also a need for an ideology to
make the people believe that their struggle will be rewarded by a homeland even
though there was no homeland of their own in history. So in the Tamil leadership invented the myth
of a homeland and called it Eelam, the promised land of the Tamils. The historical fact is that neither the
concept of a separate state nor a movement for nationhood never existed in the
political agenda of the Tamils either in the colonial times or in the
post-colonial times. This myth came into
being only in the sixties and seventies.
Mr. Chairman as a reputed scholar of Sri Lankan issues you no doubt
would have read Prof. Kingsley de Silva’s book, Separatist Ideology in Sri
Lanka: A Historical Appraisal exposing the myth of the Tamil homeland. I don’t have to tell you that he is Sri
Lanka’s foremost historian respected internationally. But as promised earlier, I will not quote him
because he is a Sinhalese. I will quote
one of the most respected, non-Sinhalese, left-wing historians of the world,
Eric Hobsbawm, who took the claim of a Tamil homeland in his celebrated book, Nations
& Nationalism Since 1780 -- programs, myths and reality, and debunked
it wholesale in pages 6 and 7. He states
quite bluntly that “the criteria of language, ethnicity etc. are fuzzy,
shifting and ambiguous” .."
though, of course, these “are convenient for propagandist and
programmatic purposes.” He quotes in
toto the resolution of the Federal Party which stated the criteria for
“nationhood” and tears it apart almost line by line. And he adds: “As for the separate historical
past, the phrase is almost certainly anachronistic, question-begging or so
vague as to be meaningless.” That is
the objective judgement of an independent historian on the Tamil claims to a
separate homeland (speaker's emphasis).
It is clear from the history
of Eelamists that it is this invented myth that feeds the violence of Eelamists
-- and this theme of inventing myths of nationhood is explored by Hobsbawm at
length among other communities. The
tragedy of this invented myth was driven home other day at a meeting in Colombo
when Mr. S. Thondaman, the leader of the Indian Tamils, turned to Dr. Neelan
Tiruchelvam, a leader of the TULF, and said that it was your Federal Party that
misled the Tamil youth with the promise of Eelam and Dr. Tiruchelvam maintained
a grim a silence. By and large, racist
violence is rooted in myths like the pure Aryans of Hitler. Any friends of peace, therefore, must come to
grips with realities in Sri Lanka and not the myths. Friends of Peace cannot afford to dabble in
illusions which can only lead to further death and destruction. Furthermore, all attempts to build a racist
state exclusively for one community must be rejected because it is the fear of
the separate state that is a major stumbling bloc to even modest proposals for
devolution.
Lastly, I come to the role of
Mr. Velupillai Prabahakran. Prof. Rajan
Hoole, perhaps, one of the leading intellectuals who had studied very closely
the role of Mr. Prabahakran and the LTTE in Jaffna, and he is also the leading
light of the unimpeachable University Teachers Human Rights of Jafffna, has
labelled Mr. Prabhakran as a “totalitarian monster.” The New York Times called him "the
latest master of terror" -- Asia's’ latest "Pol Pot". Now the question is: Is it possible to
negotiate peace with him? As we all
know, three rounds of peace talks earlier failed because Mr. Prabhakaran has
broken off peace negotiations unilaterally relying on the gun to achieve his
goals. He has, of course, never been a
part of the democratic process ever. He
enters peace talks when it suits him and withdraws after regrouping and
consolidating their military position.
Why does Mr. Prabhakaran refuse to end the war and negotiate for
peace? The reason is simple: he has
nothing to gain from peace. This is a
fundamental fact that must be recognised by any friend of peace. Mr. Prabhakaran. has promised Eelam and he
knows that peaceful negotiations will not give him Eelam or his own
security. He is wanted by India, his own
Tamil people whom he persecuted, the Sri Lankan government and the
Muslims. So he must continue fighting
for his own survival. Now will peace
give Mr. Prabhakaran the kudos, the power and prestige he enjoys now. Peace is the greatest threat to him
personally and to his political ambitions.
So who is the enemy of peace? And
where do we go from here?
Here I must deviate a bit and
personally commend Mr. Prabahakran for his greatest achievement which no other
Tamil leader had the guts to handle. His
greatest achievement is in dismantling the vicious and fascist caste system
that dehumanised the poor low-caste people in Jaffna. However, his biggest mistake was in rejecting
Chandrika’s peace proposals. If he had
accepted Chandrika’s proposals he could have remained easily as the supremo in
Jaffna and Chandrika would not have had an opportunity to oust him from
Jaffna. If he accepted the peace
proposal he could have driven Chandrika’s government to the wall. Had he accepted the peace proposals -- not
that he ever will but even as a tactical manoeuvre -- he could have been
bargaining from Jaffna with his position intact. Instead of which he foolishly rejected
unilaterally Chandrika’s proposals thus pushing the Chandrika government to go
on the offensive. It is his folly and
intransigence which lost the war for the Tamils. The international community turned against
the Tamils because they realised that like in the case of Saddam Hussein it is
not possible to negotiate with a man who understands only brute force. The Tamil expatriate which had done a
splendid job in building up the Tamil propaganda as the underdog suddenly found
himself rejected by the international community as a gang of terrorists. The work done by them for years were lost in
one foolish stroke of Mr. Prabhakaran.
Of course, no one can expect
anything but violence from Prabhakaran.
He is a school drop who had never known the democratic process, or
peaceful negotiations. He had known only
the gun and come up only through the gun.
Tragically, some Tamils -- particularly the expatriate Tamils -- endorse
and applaud his killings. According to
the independent Indian daily, the Indian Express (January 13, 1977) and
according to the authoritative human rights activist and Jaffna academic, Prof.
Rajan Hoole, Mr. Prabhakaran has killed more Tamils than the Sri Lankan
army. He is the cause that led to the
killing of more children in Sri Lanka in its entire history -- and all of them are Tamils. No friend of peace can tolerate these
violations of human rights or be silent about it. What I cannot understand is how the Tamil
expatriates who go round the world pleading for compassion from the world not
only excuse but hero-worship what Prof. Rajan Hoole called “this totalitarian
monster”.
Peace must come not so much
for the sake of the Sinhalese or the Muslims but mainly for the sake of the
Tamils. If this war goes on for another
forty fifty years, as some Tamils claim boastfully, how many Tamils would be
left to fight the war? Of the 950,000
Jaffna Tamils the population has come down to 500,000. All the able-bodied men have migrated either
to the south or gone abroad. So who is left in Jaffna? The old and the very young -- and the young
are dying by the hundreds. The primary
duty of the Tamils and all Sri Lankans abroad, if they genuinely want peace, is
not go behind parliamentarians and church groups shedding crocodile tears about
those left behind but to come forward and face truth. As long as you hide from the truth and
propagate myths you will inflict further suffering on all Sri Lankans and
Tamils in particular.
I come to the last part now
and ask
What steps can the friends of
peace take to promote peace? As a friend
of peace I wish to present some modest proposals as a prelude to peace talks:
The friends for peace agree
1. To take every positive step to promote the Australian
government’s initiative to urge AFTA (Australasian Federation of Tamil
Associations) and the Australian Human Rights Foundation and the LTTE to
abandon violence permanently and join the democratic process to pursue
negotiations peacefully. Following this,
work actively for a cease-fire on both sides with either an independent local
body or a foreign body supervising the ceasefire and the decommissioning of
armed groups.
2. Endorse unequivocally the recent UN initiative to abolish
and prevent the recruitment of children under 18 to “baby" brigades.
3. Like UNHCR, Red Cross and other NGOs condemn without
reservation the attempts of the LTTE to block the supply of food and medical
supplies to the people of Jaffna as a step that is not only to ease the
suffering of the people of Jaffna but also to give them in advance the benefits
of peace.
4. To take all necessary steps -- through the media and
personal contacts -- to urge the LTTE to abandon its claim of being the “sole
representatives of the Tamil people”.
This is not only an unrealistic claim not acceptable to the Tamils but
also one of the basic causes that obstructs multi-party peace
negotiations. As everyone would agree
there cannot be peace without a multi-party agreement.
5. Condemn unequivocally the planting of anti-personnel
mines which are maiming and killing innocent civilians in the Jaffna and
Vavuniya areas.
6. To establish the fundamental principle that the
aspirations of all communities must be taken into consideration in resolving
the current crisis as no lasting peace can be founded on the aspirations
defined by only one community.
7. That all communities should agree to the verdict of the
sovereign will of all the peoples of Sri Lanka on the new constitutional
arrangement for power sharing as it is the only alternative to the continuation
of the war.
8. That all communities should agree to work within the
framework of a united Sri Lanka by rejecting all separatist claims which not
only has no future but is also the prime cause of violence.
9. To establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the
South African model to investigate publicly the violence and injustices of all
communities as a primary means of healing the wounds of the past and to prevent
vindictive and punitive measures of the future.
All community leaders to apologise to each other for their mistakes of
the past.
10. That all Tamil leaders must apologise to the Tamil
people for the suppression and oppression of their own people for three
centuries through the inhuman and vicious caste system and by the LTTE since
1983.
11. That the Constitution should lay down entrenched legal
provisions which guarantee the fundamental rights of all citizens (irrespective
of race, religion, caste or creed) appealable to the highest international
courts.
12. To establish a joint committee of all communities to
promote this programme in Australia and abroad.
I thank you all for giving me a patient hearing.
Speech of Mr Ranjit Soysa
of the Society for Peace, Unity and Human Rights for Sri Lanka (SPUR) in
Victoria
A LASTING PEACE FOR SRI
LANKA
We all are in agreement that
Sri Lanka needs peace and it is time that we all exert our efforts to examine
how we can reach this objective. It is
also important for us not to change our plea for peace according to the
dictates of the parties in power or other actors who push for peace only when
they are cornered. If we do so even due
to practical reasons or any other motive we become a party which wittingly
helps to prolong the war and create anticipated opportunities forces of
evil. Therefore, the organisations and
individuals praying for lasting peace in Sri Lanka should naturally have a
clear understanding of what is happening in Sri Lanka at this moment. Any ulterior motives of others, who shrewdly
hide behind the humanists’ cry for peace, if not correctly identified will only
make us delay in the proverbial “ambalamas” (traveller’s resting places) on our
way to peace. Lasting peace is important
for all in Sri Lanka except the insane.
A peaceful Sri Lanka will be able to play a very positive role in South
Asia, Asia-pacific and in the international arena.
One of the main objectives of
The Society for Peace, Unity and Human Rights for Sri Lanka (SPUR) in Victoria,
an organisation of Australians of Sri Lankan origin, is to take all possible
steps to help Sri Lanka achieve meaningful and lasting peace. In this connection, we have at all times
exerted our efforts to help Sri Lanka’s peace efforts and expose forces
operating in countries such as Australia who denigrate Sri Lanka as a country,
demonise the Sri Lankan nation, especially the Sinhalese, the majority
community who comprises 74% of the population and elevate ultra-communalists
who have committed deplorable crimes against humanity in their quest for
power. Contrary to the misinformation
churned out by the international propaganda lobby of Tamil communal politicians
and their NGO allies Sri Lankan minorities enjoyed a very high participative
rate in all areas of Sri Lanka’s sociopolitics.
In fact, historically and statistically the Tamils in Sri Lanka can be
proven to be one of the most privileged minorities in the whole world. Some problems that existed in education and
the use of their language in official correspondence have been solved. The myth of a Tamil homeland peddled by the
communal propagandist has been deplored by even the Tamil historians. It is indeed encouraging to observe that what
the ordinary Tamil wants is not one third of Sri Lankan territory and two
thirds of the coast line for a mere 6% Tamils in the north and the east but a
peaceful Sri Lanka where everybody is equal.
Therefore it gives us great pleasure to make our contribution at this
seminar to explain our point of view in regard to a lasting Peace for Sri
Lanka.
We yearn for a lasting
peace. AND, we are aware, that peace
does not arrive whether it is in Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland or Afghanistan in
response to mere wishes or prayers. The
forces which cannot, or do not want to, settle problems through discussion and
negotiation choose violence and war as their means to achieve their
objectives. While it is necessary to
relentlessly pursue meaningful peace it is also equally necessary to understand
and comprehend the history, objectives and modus operandi of any organisation
that has waged an extremely violent war against all. democratic forces in Sri
Lanka, be it the democratically elected government, or the seventeen
parliamentarians (11 of them Tamils) killed so far. Therefore, let us pose a valid question? Who is throttling peace in Sri Lanka and
how can we bring them back to their senses?
Without finding the answer to this question of paramount importance,
attempts at finding a lasting peace would only be groping in the dark and cries
for various “initiatives” or actions could very well help push it further away
in the time domain. More importantly, it
should be realised that every such well- or ill-intentioned campaign had only
caused the sacrifice of thousands and thousands of human lives that would
otherwise have been saved if the problem was correctly identified and remedial
action pursued sedulously (speaker's emphasis).
Let us consider three recent
attempts to bring “peace” to Sri Lanka as a starter.
(i)
In 1987 under the
Indo Sri Lanka agreement the Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lankan
President, J.R Jayawardena with the consensus of the Tamil political leaders
and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), better known as Tamil Tigers initiated
a number of steps, including the confinement of Sri Lankan forces to their
barracks, to bring an end to the war in the name of peace.
At
an opportune moment the Tamil Tigers walked away from the agreement killing
1700 Indian soldiers and hundreds of Sinhala civilians. For his contribution towards peace, Gandhi
was subsequently assassinated by the Tigers using a human bomb in 1981.
(ii)
In 1989, the Sri
Lankan President Premadasa invited top Tiger leaders to Colombo, showered them
with hospitality in 5 star hotels and discussed the concerned issues for 14
months! All the time, Tamil Tigers used
delaying tactics to prolong the lull in fighting only until they regrouped,
rearmed and gathered vital intelligence of defence installations and remote
Sinhalese and Muslim village defences.
Finally, when they were ready, Tigers demanded that police officers in
all eastern stations must surrender as a prelude to further peace talks. Further, in his genuine quest for peace,
Premadasa ordered the police to surrender their stations. Then the Tigers spit venom: against all universal
conventions, 600 surrendered police officers were rounded up, their hands were
tied behind their backs shot and were buried, some alive, in mass graves. Subsequently, for his troubles, President
Premadasa was blown to pieces, against using a human bomb, by the Tigers in
1993.
(iii)
Finally, the
present President of Sri Lanka, Chandrika Kumaratunga ordered an unconditional
cease-fire and opened negotiations with the Tigers as soon as she assumed
office. In her sincerity- or naivety-
she even allowed armed Tigers to roam at will wherever they wanted and ordered
security forces into inaction even if the terrorists appeared at their door
step. Tigers gathered intelligence as
never before and surveyed the defence installations as well as the villagers
which would be the targets in their next round of ethnic cleansing. Then, out of the blue, they unilaterally
declared an end to the cease-fire and immediately staged simultaneous attacks
on the defence forces and the villages.
Within a matter of days, ships were sunk, planes were blown out of the
sky, hundreds of soldiers and policemen were killed and inhabitants of
villages- men, women and children- were massacred without mercy. The gains in strategic territory was a bonus
to the Tigers.
The fact that Tamil Tiger
terrorism hops another giant leap forward during every round of peace talks was
driven home at last.
It was realised that
beyond any doubt that every time the Tigers are cornered, or are on the run in
the battle field, their international agencies, masquerading as peace loving
organisations lobby the world community to bring pressure upon the Sri Lankan
government to stop the war immediately and enter negotiations. Experts on the Sri Lankan conflict now
concede that any realistic conflict resolution exercise should exclude a pull
back of defence forces in the front
(speaker's emphasis).
Political analysts from the
West to the East tend to agree that as long as Velupillai Prabhakaran is in
command of Tamil tigers there cannot be peace.
The New York Times on
28 may 1995 said “He has shown a blood thirstiness in dealing with his
opponents that has been compared with some of the cruelest figures in recent
Asian history including Pol Pot of Cambodia.
His ruthless tactics led to the liquidation of thousands of Tamil,
Muslim, Sinhalese civilians and scores of moderate Tamil politicians.” In the article titled “Asia’s Latest
Master of Terror” correspondent, John F Burns comparing Prabahkaran’s
record of killings with that of Pol Pot said that what LTTE lacked in scope
they made up in brutality. He says “For
years, the Tigers have been notable for their expertise with bombs, in
particular in which militant Tigers, very often women from a squad known as Freedom
Birds, have detonated body belts packed with explosives at public gatherings,
killing themselves, their political and military targets, and almost invariably
large numbers of civilians besides.”
Tiger suicide bombers-both
male and female agents of mass destruction- child infantry personnel, female
cadres who generally form the first wave of attacks are characteristic tools of
Prabahkaran’s “liberation struggle.”
Both human rights organisations and Tamil intellectuals have voiced
their opinions on the incalculable damage caused by the Tigers’ preoccupation
with death. Radhika Coomaraswamy, well
known Tamil intellectual laments that unless feminism is linked to humanism, to
non-violence, to hybridity and celebration of life over death it will not
provide society with alternatives that we so desperately seek.
The combined impact of
dehumanising strategies used in the war and the autocratic control that
Prabhakaran exercised over his organisation is having an alarming effect on the
Tamil society in particular and the rest of the world in general. What is practised in Sri Lanka today by
Prabhakaran is put to wider usage in London and New York tomorrow.
In the New York Times
article another reprehensible aspect of Prabhakaran’s rule is discussed when it
refers to his treatment of political opponents.
“Meanwhile Mr. Prabhakaran has established a rule of terror in the city
of Jaffna. According to scores of
accounts from defectors and others who have escaped the Tiger tyranny, many of
his lieutenants have been murdered.
Tamils who have criticised him, even mildly or jest, have been picked
up, tortured and executed; others have been held for years in dungeons, half
starved, hauled out periodically for battering by their guards.” The ease with which he got rid of Mahattaya
(Mahendra-rajah), his second in command, and his one time colleagues such as
Uma Maheswaran, Sri Sabahratnam and others who opted to carve a path of
liberation based on violence enables any independent reviewer to fathom
correctly Prabhakaran’s capacity to run a state as we approach the year 2000.
Very recently, the Tamil
Tiger warlord improved on his record of silencing Parliamentarians by
collecting scalp of Mr Mohamed Maharoof, the Muslim MP for Trincomalee on 20
July 1997 when Tiger killer squads went on a murdering spree. First parliamentarian victim of the LTTE was
Mr Alfred Duriayappa, Tamil MP for Jaffna, who was killed on 27 July 1975. Since then the Tiger guns have silenced 17
democratically elected Parliamentarians.
Ironically, of these 17 victims of Prabhakaran - “the Tamil Liberator” -
11 have been Tamils. No parliament in
any other part of the world has scarified so many Parliamentarians in so short
a time to a group of terrorists who still masquerade as a liberation front. The Tigers, in reality had been pursuing a
policy of targeting parliamentarians who were seen as a threat to their
politics of totalitarian separatism.
Prabhakaran does not tolerate any political rivals in his area of
control and all Tamil political parties except the Tigers operate only from
majority Sinhalese areas. Even though
democracy and dissent are considered norms of civilised political culture, to
Prabhakaran democracy itself is anathema.
The leading Indian daily, The Indian Express (13 January 1997)
editorially commented that, “Prabhakaran has no time for niceties of pluralism
and dissent, the reason why more Tamils have been killed by the LTTE than the
Sri Lankan army. The LTTE cannot countenance
a situation where it will have to compete with other groups for the affection
of the “Tamil community.”
After the Tigers called of
the last truce the Sri Lankan President, Kumaratunga said that the fundamental
problem is less the Tigers’ military strength than their intractable leader and
she described Prabhakaran as a megalomaniac in need of psychiatric treatment.
As a group interested in
lasting peace for Sri Lanka it is incumbent upon us to analyse the phenomenon
of LTTE rationally. Can the Tigers be
considered as a serious political group with whom a peaceful and fruitful dialogue
can be built up? How should one deal
with Tigers? If one clinically examines
their violent attitudes, cruel militancy and the shrewd renegade behaviour in
the failed conflict resolution exercises in the past and learns from not only
the Sri Lankan experience but also from the lessons from the West and the East
the answer is obvious: The Tamil Tiger
terrorists should be handled the same way the world handled Hitler, Saddam and
Pol Pot. Did the conflict resolution
experts enter peace talks in Berlin, Kuwait or in Pnom Pen?
As
the first essential step towards a lasting peace in Sri Lanka we must
complete the military annihilation of the Tiger terrorists without giving them
a breather to regroup.
Secondly, once the main force of
terrorism that bled the country for the last one and a half decades is erased
from the equation, stringent steps should be taken to eradicate racism that
parented terrorism. Sweeping legislation
that prohibit racial discrimination, dissemination of racist sentiments, calls
for territorial separation on the basis of race should be drafted and strictly
enacted. A high powered permanent
commission (such as the Election Commission) should be empowered to stringently
implement the laws with regard to any one including the highest politician or
the executive. It must be admitted that in the past,
political leaders belonging to Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim communities had used
the racist sentiments only to increase their power base, mostly making
unreasonable claims and demands but sometimes patronising or giving in to them
in their bid to secure power in the parliament.
This should stop when it is made clear that no one is above the
anti-discrimination legislation (speaker's
emphasis).
Therefore, finally our
proposal is to create an acceptable environment to have Sri Lanka as a single
country with diverse groups protected by justiciable human rights and prohibit
any abuse of ethnicity. Any division of
the country through devolution of powers or any other means to create ethnic
territories will ultimately lead to more instability and border wars. Sri Lanka which is smaller than Tasmania with
a high population figure of 18 million does not leave much room for
division. “it is morally indefensible to
expect the interests of all communities to be sacrificed in order to satisfy
the changing visions of one community.
The vision of all communities should be to develop institutional
framework that ensure full citizenship for all, without devolving power to the
regions to ensure fuller the participation at the center. The territorial approach lays unwanted
emphasis on the sovereignty of the territory, when the emphasis should be the
sovereignty of the people. Let me quote
a former senior civil servant of Sri Lanka, S.L. Neville. "THE GOAL SHOULD BE TO SHARE THE
PEOPLE’S SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF A COMMON TERRITORY.”
Thank you very much.
Speech of Mr P.
Sivasubramaniam of the Tamil Christian Community in Sydney
A LASTING PEACE FOR SRI
LANKA - A Tamil Perspective
In presenting the Tamil
perspective for a lasting peace in Sri Lanka, I want to place before you some basic
and fundamental principles which a majority of Tamil people hold
dear to their hearts and minds.
They are in no particular
order.
1)
The Tamil and the
Sinhalese originate from the same common megalithic culture and have inhabited
the island as two distinct nationalities since at least 1000 BC.
2)
It is a well
accepted fact among all parties to the conflict that when the early European
settlers came to the island, they did not find a Ceylon or a Sri Lanka as some
would have us believe, but two or three distinct kingdoms, based in the North
East of the island, being Tamil, and in the South East of the island, being
Sinhalese. I will not venture at this
stage to speculate whether the third - the Kandyan kingdom was in fact
Sinhalese or Tamil. Suffice to say they
were Sinhalese who probably believed in having Tamil kings from the South of
India rule them.
3)
When the last of
European colonials, the British, left the island in 1948, they left behind one administrative region which they called
Ceylon. The date of the British
withdrawal from the island bears note, 1948 - February the 4th - for
in August 1947, a mere five months earlier, they were forced to
"Quit" India, our Northern neighbour.
In doing so (they) gave the Indians two countries, India and Pakistan,
divided along religious lines, when the Indians wanted one country. In Ceylon, however, they merged three
separate kingdoms and left behind one country.
Ever since, the Sinhalese have paraded the international stage pleading
for understanding among Western nations, to preserve the island as one
nation. It is similar to the Israelis
asking the Americans to help them to keep the West Bank as part of Israel for
the sake of national unity, or the British asking the world to help keep
Ireland, British. You would laugh at
these suggestions, more because the Palestinians living in the West Bank do not
want to be Israelis, nor do the Irish want to be British. However, when the Tamils want to have their
own land back, some countries seem to accept the Sinhala propaganda that Sri
Lanka is one country, indivisible, and that the Tamils by virtue of the fact
that they are a minority in a nation that they do not want to belong to, have
to settle for peace - an unjust peace - and be oppressed subjects in their own
homeland, and be ruled by a group of politicians based in the South of the
island, who are incompetent, corrupt, and above all are weak and captive to the
undemocratic special interest groups in the country; the groups who both
finance and deliver votes at crucial elections to keep the incompetents in
power.
If one looks at the history
of the Tamils and the Sinhalese in the period leading up to and following the
departure of the British from the island, one cannot help noticing that the
Sinhalese paid lip services to the rights of the Tamils and lavished promises
on them in the past. But, in every
instance, they betrayed their own pledges made before they came to power, and
once they lost power they suffered total loss of memory. This amnesia has become the characteristic of
all Sinhala politicians, irrespective of party affiliations.
The oppression of the Tamils
by the Sinhalese has led to the burial of democracy in Sri Lanka. Democracy cannot flourish if the culture and
the identity of the other communities are not respected and valued.
The fact is born out even
more by what happened during the pogroms carried out shamefully under State
sponsorship in 1958, 1977, 1981 and 1983.
Subsequent governments turned Tamil inhabited areas into killing fields. This gave the armed forces the necessary
expertise to kill the democracy of Sinhalese.
The lesson, my friends, is plain and stark - there can be no democracy
in Sri Lanka with out democracy for the Tamils.
Only if the State ceases to oppress the Tamils, can the much needed
political and economic reform be carried out, and the cause of democracy be
advanced in Sri Lanka.
The average Sinhalese tends
to confuse nationalism with racism, as the Sinhala word “JATI” which denotes a
race, is the same word used to denote nationalism in modern Sinhala usage.
The corrupt politicians who
rule the country have taken advantage of this semantic confusion to conflict
the poison of racism in to the minds of the ordinary Sinhalese. The Sinhala masses have been conditioned to
think that the armed struggle of the Tamil people is the root cause of the
ethnic problem; they are unable to conceive that the Tamil militancy is a
response to the conditions of oppression imposed on the Tamil people by their
political leaders who are bankrupt of ideas for peace or for the prosperity of
the nation.
It is against this background
of the mindset of the Sinhala masses that one should understand Chandrika
Kumaratunga’s "Peace" slogan.
She believes that she is playing a game of chess where she is thinking ten
moves ahead. The duplicity of her
juvenile antics is in fact patently obvious for all to see. She wants the Sinhalese to construe her
devolution package as a small “concession” to induce the Tigers to lay down
their arms, so that ethnic harmony may prevail.
Chandrika’s "other
face" is designed to give the Tamils and the international community the
impression that it is only she who can provide, and is genuinely seeking
to provide, and equitable solution to the ethnic problem.
I would like to bring to your
attention some recent history. At the
parliamentary elections held in 1994 and at the Presidential election,
Chandrika waxed eloquent about “Peace”; yet she did not place before the people
any concrete or detailed program for the solution of the ethnic problem. The fact is Chandrika is not genuinely
concerned about peace. Those who are
naïve enough to believe that Chandrika can bring about Peace in Sri Lanka,
reckon without certain realities.
Chandrika is under pressure from all quarters; the Armed Forces, the
Bureaucracy, the Press, the Buddhist clergy who killed her father, the
intelligentsia, and factions within her government and party. Her attempt to propose a solution while trying
to placate all these forces is doomed to end in failure.
Chandrika’s pronouncement
that the ethnic problem will be solved in a manner which is not detrimental to
the rights of the Sinhalese is, when you look at it closely, a kind of
euphemism, a mask of racism.
What is the solution to the
problem, and then how do we achieve Peace, you may ask.
My friends, I have but one
answer. We, the Tamil people, want a
Just Peace. Not Peace for you and
continued suffering for us!
We want lasting Peace- not
Peace now and another pogrom in a few years time as you delivered!
The only Peace we will accept
will be a Peace negotiated by two equals who recognize each other's territorial
claims and the aspirations of their people.
The only equal you have on our side of politics is the LTTE. You must negotiate with them. For, as your father said in the 1958 Pogrom-
and I paraphrase - If it is Peace you want, we will give you Peace- but if it
is a Fight you want, Fight We Will
Additional comments made by the speakers
Mr H L D Mahindapala clarifying
some of the observations made during his speech said that the quotations he
made during his speech are not his views or opinions but are from the
best Tamil authorities who know inside-out of Tamil politics better than
anybody else. He took the example of
Prof Jeyaratnam Wilson, who is the son-in-law of father of the separatist
movement. He also said as a Sinhalese,
he did not condone the actions of mindless Sinhalese mobs, however provoked
they might have been. He also said it
was not the Tamil people Prof Jeyaratnam Wilson was referring to but the
leadership who went about manipulating them for political mileage. He also mentioned the efforts of this
leadership to go to the international community, obtain refugee status, bring
Tamil people over here, extort money, increase their tax base and finance the
war. He further said majority of Tamil
people-even in Jaffna-do not want the war.
He said his criticism and
attack were directed to leaders of Tamil politics not the Tamil people.
He also expressed his
surprise about the remark made by Mr Sivasubramaniam to the effect that
Pirabhakaran is not his problem but is a problem for the Sinhalese. He maintained that Pirabhakaran is the
problem for all communities of Sri Lanka, Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims. He said whatever the solution to be worked
out it has to be a military one. He also
said there are people like Pirabhakaran who are stubborn, intransigent and
refuses to enter any democratic process or negotiations. And he said like Saddam Hussain, Pol Pot,
Hitler he has never been in democratic process, and they can only understand
violence and are not amenable to reason.
Referring to Mr
Sivasubramaniam’s claim that President Kumaranatunga did not place any concrete
proposals, he said it is true, because Sri Lanka is a democratic country and
one ought to have a process of consultation in solving a complex problem like
the present one. He said the real
stumbling block to this process has been Pirabhakaran who claims that he is the
sole representative of Tamil people when even Tamils themselves like Dr Neelan
Thiruchelvan, EPDP, TELO, EPRLF do not subscribe to this view. He said anybody or any political party
opposed to Pirabhakaran could not live in Jaffna because of the fascist regime
he ran there. He said according to Prof
Rajan Hoole, a leading Tamil academic, about 4000 people had been detained in a
concentration camp in Jaffna just because they opposed Pirabhakaran’s
regime. He said these people come to
south to escape his persecution. In
conclusion, he posed the question whether the security -the biggest cry of
Tamil politicians- was ever provided under Pirabhakaran’s rule.
Mr Asoka Subhawickrama: (verbatim)
We are all here to try to
find a way to resolve the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka. I think it is unfortunate our friend Siva
took this opportunity to blame my colleague, Ranjith, that Prabhakaran was his
creation. If we attack each other like this, and antagonise each other like
this, I do not think it is very constructive in the search for peace. So, I will try to answer very logically one
issue raised by Siva, that there have always been two nations in Sri Lanka.
As
a student of history, I understand that except for a very brief period, there
was no kingdom in the east or in Jaffna throughout the history of Sri
Lanka. However it is the claim of the
Tamil Eelamists or the Tamil separatists that nearly of �13 of Sri Lanka is their homeland. Please remember that Sri Lanka is a country
smaller than Tasmania with a population which is more than the whole of
Australia. The Tamil communalists claim
more than 1/3 of Sri Lanka their homeland.
According to this 18th century map of Sri Lanka, except some
maritime areas controlled by the Dutch, the entire island was under the Kandyan
kingdom. If we go back further into the
history, according to Ptolemy’s map of Taprobane (name of ancient Sri Lanka),
we would not find any reference to a Tamil kingdom or a Tamil homeland. All these misconcepts have been construed by
Tamil communalists and their agents. The
notion of a Tamil homeland was created only two decades ago by the Tamil
politicians who wanted power by sacrifying their own people in the ethnic
troubles we had back in Sri Lanka. I
must also say that as an engineer worked in the northern division, including
Jaffna and Trincomalee, that I was able to witness through my own eyes how
these communalists, now led by Prabhakaran, started ethnic cleansing in Sri
Lanka.
If
there is anybody in here who is faint hearted, I must warn you that I am going
to show you a photograph, which can be offensive. This is how Tamil liberators try to carve out
Tamil homeland, killing out very young babies and infants. If they continue their killings like this and
if we try to stop the war against there terrorist activities now, this kind of
killings which will definitely eventuate a homeland throughout Sri Lanka only
for terrorists.
Finally,
I would like to quote from a Ph.D. Thesis of a Tamil historian, Dr.
Karthikarusu (Indrapala):
“
Until the 9th century, with the exception of megalithic remains of
Padrippu and the exception of Kadiravelli, there is no definite evidence of any
Dravidian settlement in the island.
There are no evidence regarding the existence of significant Tamil
settlements in Batticaloa district of the Eastern Province.” Where was this homeland? The root cause of the problem now is that we
are trying to divide the country on an ethnic basis. This is what we are against. This is why we have to first defeat terrorism
and then start talking about equality.
We propose the appointment of a full powered committee, which would have
authority to even overrule the Sri Lankan President herself, to fulfil the task
of creating a multicultural, multiethnic Sri Lanka, as it was before
Prabhakaran was born.
Mr Sivasubramaniam said in
reply to Mr Subhawickrema’s speech that he is not going to debate about the
existence of Tamil kingdom in the north and believes historians would be able
to enlighten him on that aspect. He said
Tamils do exist today in the north and the east of the country and have always
lived there, have had a homeland and whether one likes it or not it is an
indisputable fact. In reply to the
points raised by Mr Mahindapala, he quoted a passage from the foreward written
by Lord Soulbury who drafted the first constitution of Sri Lanka, to B H
Farmer’s “Ceylon, a Divided Nation” in 1963. "My commission.devoted a substantial
portion of its report to the minority question and stated that it was satisfied
that the government of Ceylon was fully aware that the contentment of
minorities was essential not only to their own well-being but the well-being of
the island as a whole. Recent years have
shown that these observations were only too true. Had Mr D S Senanayake, the first prime
minister of Ceylon lived, I cannot believe that the shocking event of 1958 and
the great tension that now exist between the Tamils and Sinhalese, would have
ever occurred. Mr Senanayake would have
scorned this electoral advantage the less far-sighted Sinhalese politicians
might expect to reap by extorting the religious, linguistic and cultural
differences between the two communities for it was his policy to make Ceylon a
united nation and as he told the state
council in November 1945, in his great speech, recommending the proposal of the
British government that the Tamils are essential to the welfare of this
island. Unhappily, for reasons indicated
by Mr Farmer, the death of Mr D S Senanayake led to an eventual adaptation of a
different policy which we would never have countenanced. Needless to say, the consequences have been a
bitter disappointment to myself and my fellow commissioners. While the commission was in Ceylon the speech
of certain Sinhalese politicians calling for the solidarity of the Sinhalese
and threatening of the suppression of the Tamils emphasised the need for
constitutional safeguards on behalf of that and other minorities, despite the
confidence held by the commission on Mr Senanayake and any government under his
control...”.
Replying to Mr Ranjith Soysa
he said he did not mean that Mr Soysa is personally responsible for creating
Pirabhakaran but that Tamils have been pleading equity from 1947 and the
pogroms carried out each instance against them was to say that Tamils have to
accept the majority rule and subjugate all their wishes and aspirations to
it. He also said there are some people
in his community with whom Sinhalese governments are very comfortable dealing
with, but that does not mean they represent the aspirations of Tamil
people. In conclusion, he said the
reality is today the LTTE represent the aspirations of the Tamil people and if
one genuinely wants lasting peace one must deal with them and posed the
question if LTTE were to be destroyed, with whom the peace will be negotiated.
Discussion
(after the tea-break with the participation of members
of the audience)
Charles David (Sri Lankan
Tamil expatriate) said that he left Sri Lanka in 1973 because he was
forced to. He said the ground rules laid
down for the discussion, namely, honesty, focus on the issues, and
open-mindedness were sadly missing from the speeches he witnessed so far and
thus he has serious doubts whether there will ever be peace in Sri Lanka. He observed one should not point out the
wrongs done by others in the past without acknowledging what they have done
specially since 1958.
He said Tigers are killing
people and nobody is going to deny that.
He recalled that although he was a victim of discrimination he turned
down an approach by Tigers to join them in 1973 because he did not believe in
violence as means of solving a problem.
He said from 1947 to 1983 lot of Tamil people had been killed and if we
keep talking about who got killed by whom we are driving ourselves further and
further from resolving the problem. He
also said the past governments did take positive steps to treat all its
citizens equally and fairly Pirabahakaran would not have come to focus at
all. He also admitted that Pirabhakaran
may be a monster but a single person cannot control so much of power if he is
not supported by so many people who feel that without him they cannot live in
peace or respect and all what the previous governments have been doing is to
push Tamil people to feel that way. He
also queried whether the people killed in the photograph Mr Subhawickrema
displayed were Sinhalese or Tamils. In conclusion
he pleaded everybody not to dwell in the past, be honest and try to solve this
problem with some common sense and in a constructive manner.
Ms Shoba Joseph (Australian of Indian origin) said she spent the last
year in Vavuniya and in Trincomalee attached to UNHCR. She noted the emotional content of the first
three speeches and agreed with the last speaker(Charles) that something has to
be done about the whole crisis. She said
there are millions of “displaced people” who by UN definition would become
“refugees” only if they crossed international borders. In her stay there she had been appalled by
the hatred among people. She said she is
not blaming anyone but the human rights situation there is much more worse than
what is being reported, even the Amnesty International misses some of it
because they get buried.
She also recounted about two
boys she had seen playing in a beach and about a lesbian couple living in
Colombo, where in both cases they were a Sinhalese and a Tamil each who wanted
the war to stop because they could not understand or identify with it. She also noted, especially from the previous
speeches, that different people have a different definition of democracy, and
she was not sure what President Chandrika’s definition of it.
She recalled the two days
ceasefire her organisation obtained from both sides for a mass vaccination
program for children. In conclusion, she
suggested two solutions: one is to have a multi-national team, preferably not
from the sub-continent, go into Sri Lanka and try to get LTTE, Sri Lankan
government and the Muslim community to the table; the other is try and stop
money pouring to both sides from other countries to keep this war going on and
stop people with vested interests reaping benefits from the war. To this end she pleaded support from all
present and make that a subject for the next forum.
Mr Siva Bhaskaradas (The Friends for Peace in Sri Lanka) said he too was
forced to leave Sri Lanka and after working for more than twenty years in a
high position in the government, he still did not get his pension whereas he
receives one now in Australia. He quoted
Vijaya Samaraweera “...the establishment of a separate Tamil kingdom in Jaffna
in the early 12th Century had important ramifications. The de-facto situation made the cry of
Sinhalese sovereignty over the entire island somewhat meaningless and it also
enabled the Tamils to develop their own independent civilisation and political
organisation.”. He said in “Political
Systems of the World” a publication with annual updating, in Asia only India,
Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sri Lanka are classified as liberal democratic
countries. He said in the Human Rights
ratings where one has to get 70% to pass the test, as in 1986 and 1991 India
from 60-54%, Japan 88-82%, Malaysia 53-61%, Singapore 59-60%, and Sri Lanka had
a record 52 to 47% indicating it was the worst among this five nations.
He quoted Prof G L Peiris who
had recently indicated that under the present constitution it was very
difficult to devolve power because of the follwing two articles: Article 2
("The Republic of Sri Lanka is a unitary state"), which defines the unitary
status of the Republic of Sri Lanka and Article 76 ("Parliament shall not
abdicate or in any manner alienate its legislative power, and shall not set up
any authority with any legislative power") where it prohibits the
Parliament of devolving power. He said it
was not Mr J R Jayawardene but the present Prime Minister Mrs Sirima
Bandaranaike who brought these articles in the first place in the 1972
constitution. He said that is why
Pirabhakaran did not participate in the Indo-Sri Lanka accord as Mr Ranjith
Soysa pointed out earlier. Referring to
Mr Mahindapala’s speech he said as a Tamil person there is nothing he has to
compromise whereas the government who has everything should compromise. He drew an example from Bangladesh where
Mujibar Rahman, father of modern Bangladesh did not compromise to the end under
different leaders of Pakistan. He also
cited the situation in Cyprus where the political equality in a negotiation was
emphasised and said Sri Lanka needed such a political equality in order to have
successful peace. This, he concluded,
does not mean numerical equality to a minority, but merely a right to veto any
legislation or subject matter.
Dr Willie Senanayake (The Friends for Peace in Sri Lanka) said although it
is important to understand what happened in the past we must look into the
future and also what is happening at present.
He said the reality, as far as he can see, is the dark side of the war
and whether we like it or not nearly one million people are refugees and lot of
others are getting killed. He said it
should not be an academic exercise to debate about whether to eliminate
Pirabhakaran or not - which is not the important point at the moment - but
instead we should think about what are we going to do about the results of the
brutal war which Shoba pointed out from her first hand experience. In conclusion he also appealed the expatriate
community living in Australia to get together and as a first step, to stop this
war and try to bring this warring parties together and bring about a negotiated
settlement.
Mr G Meganathan (Sri Lankan Tamil expatriate) said he was born and
bred in Colombo and had very good relations with his Sinhalese friends. But he said that does not mean they were
equals and differentiated between the personal relationships and his lack of
political rights. He referred to a
recent statement made by Prof G L Peiris that Buddhism will be given the prime
place in the future years to come and questioned why should a religion be given
such a status in a community and whether we are not discriminating the other
religions by virtue of that. He also
referred to one of the conditions laid down by the government to resume talks
namely asking the LTTE to lay down their arms.
He questioned since there are two parties fighting the war if one party
get asked to lay down the arms whether it is not logical to ask other party to
do the same.
Mr Kathir Ravichandra (Friends for Peace in Sri Lanka) said he would
support Dr Senanayake’s observation made about why we are here today. The obvious reason is to identify what the
different views are and to see whether we can reach common grounds. He said peace can come only through
reconciliation and as in the case of Australia's attempt to reconcile with the
Aboriginal past, unless we acknowledge the history and repent for bad things
whoever had done to others, we will never understand why some of the things are
happening the way they are happening now and how we can overcome them in the
future. He said although the history is
important and we can argue as to whether there was a Tamil homeland or not, to
a lay person the concept of a homeland is an emotional thing. He recalled that in 1958 and in 1977 when the
anti-Tamil riots started he had to go back to Jaffna and not to anywhere else
in the island because he treated Jaffna as his homeland. So one cannot remove this emotional
attachment from people. It is an
inalienable right and an emotional issue and therefore has to be recognised and
respected. For example, he cited the
case of Friends for Peace in Sri Lanka where three Tamils and four Sinhalese
could actually sit down and talk to each other in a civilised manner without
much of a difficulty because they understand and respect each other's
existence. He asked how one person exerting
his/her fundamental and inalienable right should be a threat to other person’s
existence. He said as he has observed in
the peace forum, once we understand this fundamental thing, the rest of the
issues are very cosmetic and easy to deal with.
He believed we can always workout civilised structures for people to
live together without killing each other.
He cited South Africa as an example where intractable situations have
been overcome where once everybody was considered as equals, they could sit
down and solve the problem. He posed the
question when are we going to do that and perhaps this workshop will lead the way.
Mr Asoka Subhawickrema observed that the speeches by Mr Ravichandra and Ms
Joseph were very beautiful and heart rending.
But he wanted to point out that these type of peace fora and negotiating
committees seem to think there are only two parties to this conflict, i.e. the
Sri Lankan government and the Tamils. He
begged to differ and wanted to include average Sinhalese and average Tamil
people too in the equation, the other parties then being the government and the
Tamil separatists. He said the average Sinhalese
who comprises 74% of the population of Sri Lanka is ignored in peace meetings,
even in the present one. He said even
back in Sri Lanka decisions are taken by the Sri Lankan government not by the
Sinhalese. He thanked for including Mr
Mahindapala even at the last minute as this corrected this anomaly. He asked whether the organizers have
forgotten the Sinhalese community as he noticed all the speakers who from the
audience were non-Sinhalese. He said the
Sinhalese probably were boycotting this workshop because the cry to stop war at
this juncture was not well received by them.
Answering the question raised
by Mr Charles David as to whether the photograph showed was of Sinhalese or
Tamils, he said it does not matter whether they are Sinhalese or Tamils it was
a crime against humanity. But he said
they were in fact Sinhalese who were killed by LTTE in the village of Mahadivulgasweva
in November 1995.
Referring to the absence of
Sri Lanka’s government’s point of view he said the audience deserves an
explanation from the organisers. He also
referred to Mr Ravichandra’s speech and said sadly every 10-15 years there is a
cycle of violence in Sri Lanka. He said
this violence is not the prerogative of the Sinhalese but common to all ethnic
groups. He said his brother-in-law was
hacked in the north and in 1983 he sheltered five Tamil friends in his home in
Kandy as his best friends were Tamils and Muslims. Therefore he pleaded not to blame only the
Sinhalese for violence.
Ms Sue Bull (Democratic Socialist Party of Australia):
I agree with Mr Ravichandra
in that I do not think that you can actually ignore history, in as much as we
should not dwell on deeds of the past.
Instead of ignoring history we must learn from history and from
the struggles of other nations and peoples who have similar struggles, not that
you can say that every struggle is same, and in fact there are lessons that we
can learn from Ireland, from Palestine, and from East Timor and things that
happened in many countries after the first and second world wars. The struggle for self-determination is not
just a struggle that is found in Sri Lanka but it is a one which is faced world
wide, if you look at Middle East for instance, before the first and second
world wars, there were many people in those countries who previously have lived
happily side by side. But with the
intervention of colonial and imperial powers, and with the carve up of those
countries and discrimination against the needs of the many people who lived there,
we begin to find that the new nations emerge and people consider that they are
nations. There were the Kurds, the
Armenians, the Assyrians, the Palestinians and I am sure there is a dozen more.
And what happens is, today
these people consider themselves as nations, as they no longer see themselves
as Turkish or Syrians; they consider themselves as Kurds or whatever group they
belong to. What we see is the development
of new nations that emerge that we cannot ignore. I personally feel that there is a similar
situation now happening in Sri Lanka. I
think that although in the past maybe LTTE did not represent the views or
aspirations of Tamils, but I think today the Tamil people think they do represent
their aspirations. And we have to learn
from situations in Palestine or in Ireland, governments were in the end forced
to deal with the IRA or the PLO despite the terrorist tags or all the labels
that were put on these people. They were
forced to actually negotiate with them.
And in the end we know sometimes the outcomes of the negotiation do not
necessarily suit the people, we cannot see into the future. So these groups whom the governments are
being forced to deal with do represent the aspirations of most of the people
who now see themselves as nations but did not 10, 15, 40 or 50 years before.
The second thing I wanted to
say is that the definition of the democracy is a very important one. My definition of the democracy is, yes the
majority rules, but the rights of the minorities are taken into account. No democracy can work if the rights of
minorities are trampled. Unfortunately
in Sri Lanka we see that majority of Tamils feel that (they) have been
repressed. They do feel that their
rights have been trampled. I think the
world community can no longer sit by and ignore these demands coming from Tamil
people. Actually we have to look at it
what their rights are and how do you actually have a democratic society.
A final point I want to make
is that I do not know a great deal about Prabhakaran, but I feel that it is a
terrible thing to label him of being a Hitler or a Pol Pot or whatever. Obviously this is a person who is seen as the
leader of the LTTE and they represent Tamil aspirations; to write him off as a
Pol Pot when this man did not even have state power seems to me that there is
no ability to negotiate almost from the outset.
I think it is recognised that history is not made by individuals but by
groups of people and individuals in the end represent groups of people. They are not there by some mystical power by
which they come into being; they represent people. I think in the end that there is a negotiated
settlement for Sri Lanka. The groups
that represent Tamil people are able to talk to Sri Lankan government and
proceed from there. We cannot foresee
the outcome. The solution or the
beginning of the solution has to be these groups are recognised and they can
talk really to each other.
Mr Lionel Bopage (The
Friends for Peace in Sri Lanka)- (verbatim)
It was very good that those
points were raised (by Mr Subhawickrema).
Actually at the onset I wanted to clarify the position of the
representative of the Sri Lankan government.
But I will deal with that later.
According to my dear friends Ranjith and Asoka we do not represent
Sinhalese. I pose one question. Does the Sri Lankan government represent the
Sinhalese? Does the Opposition in Sri
Lanka represent Sinhalese, at all?
Beacause the “war for peace” launched by the government, the ultimate
objective, President Chandrika has said, is to weaken the LTTE politically and
militarily and bring them to table for discussion, not to exclude the LTTE; and
yesterday the leader of the opposition, Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe has declared in
public that they should talk to the LTTE.
That is the majority Sinhalese view.
The President of the country and the Leader of the Opposition, they
represent the Sri Lankan population, as a whole. If someone accuses us of neglecting
Sinhalese, I would like to point out to you that it was the collaboration you
have with the Sri Lankan High Commission here, I am very sad to say that, I see
there are strong links between the two.
(Messrs Soysa and Mr Subhawickrema obstruct the speech and demand a
withdrawal of the accusations). OK, I
will withdraw that statement; sorry about the misunderstanding, what I said was
not referring to you two as individuals.
What I say is, that the government and the opposition, I think, they
represent the majority Sinhalese and the (majority of the) whole population of
Sri Lanka. They want to discuss with the
LTTE, the government does not have means
to talk to the LTTE, and that is why they are fighting the war. That is according to them.
Here, we posted and manually
delivered more than 200 letters to the Sri Lankan community in Canberra. It is unfortunate that most of the Sinhalese
are not interested in these things. We
want them to come. As one of you
mentioned, may be Sinhalese are boycotting.
I will tell you the reason (why).
There was a targeted letter campaign, I am not referring here
personally, by SPUR, about one month back, saying Friends for Peace in Sri
Lanka is a frontal organisation of the LTTE.
Then, we had a multi-faith gathering about two years back. From the very inception we have been telling
to stop the war. It is not something
new. The multi-faith gathering was
described as an attempt by the LTTE to celebrate Pirabhakaran’s birthday. We did not even know that it was
Pirabahkaran’s birthday.
On behalf of the Friends for
Peace in Sri Lanka, I will now read out what happened with the government
representative:
We sent the invitation on 26th June 1997 requesting the Sri Lankan High
Commission to send a speaker to this workshop.
As far as I know, in the past, the Sri Lankan High Commission has taken
part in all the seminars and the multi-faith gathering we organised. The former Deputy High Commissioner Mr
Samsudeen used to be the representative.
When we contacted the High Commission one-week later, we came to know
that they are awaiting instructions from Colombo. In order to expedite matters we sent a
further request to the Foreign Minister's office in Colombo. When we contacted the High Commission, before
organizing publicity for the event, they allowed us to mention that there will
be a representative from the High Commission.
About four days back the situation was that they had not yet received a
response from Colombo by then. Therefore
they had taken the unprecedented step of sending two observers from the High
Commission.
I contacted the Minister's (Foreign Affairs) office in Colombo to find
that he was not available. I spoke to
his private secretary, explained the situation, and she wanted me to send a fax
message which I did. The secretary of
the foreign ministry or the additional secretary in charge of the Australia
desk was also not available. Next day
when I contacted the High Commissioner he told me that my fax to Colombo has
been referred to him. Since then he had
contacted Colombo and still awaiting a response. I contacted the Minister's residence
yesterday and left a message. They
promised to come back to me. Still I am
awaiting this call.
Yesterday I met the High Commissioner at our community Spring
Get-together and according to him, because of lack of response from Colombo,
they have decided to withdraw sending observers. It is not appropriate for me to criticise
anyone in this regard. But we believe
there had been many dealings. We know
that many things that are not in line with the current Sri Lankan Government
policy are done apparently without permission from Colombo. Furthermore I have to state that if a High
Commission cannot represent the position of the Sri Lankan Government to their
own expatriate community that tells us many things.
I invite the chair to
conclude the proceedings. Sorry about
this. Thank you.
Summing-up
Speech by Dr John Powers (verbatim)
As an outsider who does not
have a personal connection with the conflict at all, I am very much interested
in the Sri Lankan conflict because I see there is number of important human
rights dimensions to it which is one of the reason why I am engaged in doing
lot of research and presenting papers and things like that.
I guess as a historian and
somebody who works in a history department, I tend to think that history is
important as Ravi said and I think that personally I tend (to) agree with the
people who feel that simply looking to the future or looking to the present is
not going to be sufficient in that the present and the future is going to be
determined by a large extent by the past.
I do not think that there is any possibility of any sort of resolution
to the conflict without being honest about what the past history is.
And it seems to me, again
very much as an outsider, that there is plenty of blame to go around and it is
very unlikely that anything positive is going to happen if both sides spend
their time pointing fingers at each other or recounting the atrocities from
other side. This could go on for an
awfully long time and is unlikely to have any positive effect on either
side. And when you get into a conflict
as messy as the present Sri Lankan civil war, there is plenty of atrocities to
point to you from either side, and it is not a very constructive way of going
about things. I think it is one of the
problems of the fora I attended that there is plenty of blame, name calling and
so forth. I like to reflect particularly
on couple of opening speeches; it is not personal criticism but I think that
one of the problems is that the language is very emotional and very much
intended to whip up emotions and so forth and is very unlikely to bring any
positive results. For instance,
referring to again Prabhakaran as a totalitarian monster is very unlikely to
bring about any positive results in any sort of real discussions. I think that categorising people on opposite
side in absolute and negative terms is not likely to provide any positive
effects. In order to have real dialogue
there has to be a very conscientious move beyond name calling and blaming and
so forth. And a recognition that this
conflict is moved along courses...
I also teach courses on
Buddhism and one of the things I talked about with my students is karma. And karma as you know is one of the things
which operates. that once the things
start going the karma keeps the thing going.
And violence starts to get more violence, name calling starts to get
more name-calling and animosity begets more animosity. And unless somebody comes along and breaks
that cycle, it is very unlikely that it will ever do get broken. And one of the problems of the Sri Lankan
conflict, as I see it, is that there is a real lack of political will on both
sides, there is a real need of someone who comes along and breaks the cycle of
violence, breaks the cycle of incrimination, breaks the cycle of looking to the
past and so forth and says that we really need to move beyond this, we need to
make some positive constructive step for peace.
And simply blaming the other side is not going to achieve that.
One of the things that has
come up number of times in these discussions and one of the things I see as a
problem of the whole Sri Lankan conflict is a basic breakdown of
democracy. And this is, I think, the
root of the whole conflict. In
successful democracies all over the world, the breakdown of democratic parties
does not operate along ethnic lines; they operate according to political
persuasions. So for instance, in US,
which I am most familiar with, you have Republican Party which serve
conservatives and Democratic Party which serve the liberals. And they attract people across the racial and
political spectrum and the way the democracy works, for instance, it is very
important for Republicans to attract whites, blacks, Hispanics and so forth, in
order to win the election. What you find
in Sri Lanka, for instance, is that Sinhalese parties have tended to appeal to
Sinhalese chauvinism and Tamil parties have tended to appeal to Tamil
chauvinism, so as you have a very strong breakdown along ethnic lines, but not
according to political persuasions. And
this is the basic problem of the democratic process when you have that kind of
ethnic polarisation, there is no way that any democracy can work in that sort
of situation. And as long as these fora
are propelled down along polarised ethnic lines it is very unlikely that there
is going to be any kind of consensus.
Now having said all that, it
seems to me that we have not addressed to any large extent the main purpose of
this forum, that is to put forward concrete proposals to bring peace in Sri
Lanka. Most of the speakers has spoken
about the wrongs done by the other sides and demonised leaders of the other
side, but I have not yet heard any actual proposals for how to move beyond
this, any concrete proposal for how a peace can be negotiated.
It seems to me, looking at
the situation again very much as an outsider, as somebody who does not have a
personal stake in it, that the lines of agreement for potential peace are very
clear, ie. you have unfortunately very intractable positions from both sides,
the LTTE has made clear that they would not settle for anything less than a
separate state of Eelam and it is not conceivable that any Sri Lankan
government is going to permit that, everybody knows this. Similarly the Sri Lankan government seems to be
committed to the idea that the only way to have any sort of peace negotiation
is to bring LTTE to its knees-which is again very unlikely to happen. The LTTE is very well funded, it is a highly
disciplined organisation, it is very unlikely that it is ever going to be
militarily defeated. So somewhere
between these two extremes is where some sort of peace negotiations is going to
have to happen, and until both sides are going to talk to each other, I cannot
see how it is going to happen.
This (is) my rather
depressing summary.
FINAL STATEMENT
The Workshop on 'A Lasting
Peace for Sir Lanka' organised by the Friends for Peace in Sri Lanka, held on
31 August 1997 at 85 Havelock House, Canberra adopted the following statement:
Having listened to the
Sinhalese Cultural Association in Sydney, the Society for Peace, Unity and
Human Rights for Sri Lanka (SPUR) in Victoria, a Tamil spokesman, and other
participants' perspectives of the fundamental issues associated with the Sri
Lankan ethnic conflict, this Workshop is of the view that:
·
the current war
has only brought about death, destruction and immense suffering to the civilian
population and combatants and economic disaster to the country;
·
the prolongation
of this unwinnable war can only further alienate the peoples and;
·
it will make
reconciliation which is fundamental to achieving lasting peace, all the more
difficult.
This Workshop, therefore,
calls upon the warring parties to stop the current war immediately and to
negotiate a just and lasting peace.
Given the gross mistrust
prevailing between the warring parties, the peace process could be facilitated
by a third party acceptable to all parties to the conflict. To this end, this Workshop calls upon the
international community to take steps towards affording facilitation for
negotiations.
Two representatives of the
Society for Peace, Unity and Human Rights for Sri Lanka registered their
disagreement with the above statement.
Dr James Jupp
Chair of the Workshop
02 September 1997
Publisher's note:
On 08 September 1997, the
Speaker of the Sinhala Cultural Foundation in Sydney informed us that their
organisation has decided not to agree with this statement.
