Comments on: The Tragedy of Politics in Sri Lanka

By: KUMARPUSHP

KUMARPUSHP — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:18:47 +0000

Dear Bhochaka, LTTE is a terrorist organisation who was supported by Indian government before Rajeev Gandhi was killed but since then Tamilnadu government is supporting LTTE by giving arms,aeroplanes and now you can see they are telling ,Prabhakaran is their friends. and freedom fighters.When Indira Gandhi was killed by sikhs in 1984 ,about 10000 sikhs were burnt alive by hindu led government in systemic way.What had happened when Mr Mohan chndra Gandhi had killed by one brahmins ,not even a single Brahmins was killed in riots ,when Rajeev Gandhi was killed by LTTE with help of Tamil supporter ,not a single Tamil was killed in riots.This is called hindu brothe r hood .Same hindu intellectuals with their hindu medias are supporting LTTE.What will happened ,tomorrow ,Sri Lanka government will say Dalitstan organisation,kashmeer,Nagaland,Bodoland ,Gorkha land ,all are freedom fighters and hindu led government is killing the innocent people then these hindu intellectuals will piss in their trousers.Time has come hindus and their government should stop supporting LTTe otherwise it will be too late for hindu led government to keep srilanla on their sides.

By: Bhochka

Bhochka — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:44:53 +0000

I agree. Like Nivedita and Aditya, I recently went to the Parliament Square demonstration in London. It was courageous and committed; the racist injustices and atrocities it publicized were real; there was an anger and desperation on the faces of the demonstrators that it was impossible not to feel a solidarity with. Yet through all this, my friends and I were bombarded with posters, slogans, and leaflets that meant that this solidarity also had to be a reluctant one. An uniform demand in all the propaganda was that the LTTE be recognized as ‘the sole spokespersons’ of the Tamil cause – and the thought is horrific. The banners exhorted us to identify Tamil people with the LTTE: in short, a vision of a Tamil homeland without any place for Muslims, or for plantation workers, a cause that has systematically killed off people campaigning for alternative and more pluralist Tamil/Sri Lankan visions. I went along anyway, holding fast to a solidarity that it’s imperative to feel for Tamils who’re being butchered by the state, but a solidarity that emphatically did not extend to the LTTE. For the angry and desperate people on the demonstration, and for the hunger strikers half-unconscious before Parliament, however, this was clearly not an operative distinction. It was a deeply disturbing experience.

By: Nivedita Menon

Nivedita Menon — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 05:27:17 +0000

Two useful links: University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna), Sri Lanka, Information Bulletin No. 47. Excerpts:

During the 2005 presidential election, the LTTE overtly worked to prevent the Tamil people voting in the North-East, in order to ensure that Mahinda Rajapakse got elected as president. After the election again the LTTE began IED attacks in various places and claimed that these were people’s forces outside their control. Against the LTTE’s continued provocations and assassinations, the Government responded in kind, leading to its blockade of the LTTE-controlled area south of Trincomalee in July 2006 and the LTTE in turn shutting down an irrigation sluice. The last was used by the Government begin what it termed a ‘humanitarian offensive’ where tens of thousands of Tamils and Muslims were displaced and hundreds in the East died of shelling during the latter half of 2006. The offensive then moved to the North resulting in the present scenario... The Government should bear the principal blame for creating a situation where the world was left with little choice but to start from the LTTE’s version of events once it arrogantly denied access to war zone for any independent eyewitnesses and its claims to restraint were readily contradicted by persons fleeing the war zone... [LTTE is no excuse for killing Vanni civilians]

Pradeep Jeganathan A reply to "An American and an Outsider"

On the prospects for the return of peace and democracy in Sri Lanka: "This won’t happen this week or next, but with relative peace, which now seems on the horizen, there is every chance I will see it before I die."

By: Pradeep Jeganathan

Pradeep Jeganathan — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 06:40:08 +0000

well said!

By: Nivedita Menon

Nivedita Menon — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:20:44 +0000

Here is Malathi de Alwis in The Guardian on the “well-organized and orchestrated public demonstrations” by the Tamil diaspora across the globe, in which protesters have been coerced into marching behind LTTE flags.
Aditya and I saw the protests in London last week, by “Tamils” as the press termed them, and as they termed themselves. And we were struck by the large number of LTTE flags and Prabhakaran’s pictures held aloft, and the total visual absence in the demos, of any other political organization or grouping. This was a clear indication that the eradication/silencing of non-LTTE Tamil voices is complete, at least in the diaspora.
I am also struck by the contrast Malathi draws between “the vocal protests of the diaspora” and “the deafening silence of peace activists within Sri Lanka”, the latter recognizing the urgent need for “decommissioning of a liberation organisation turned fascist.”
The Sri Lanka situation outlines forcefully for us the need to avoid knee-jerk reactions to demands for solidarity from parts of the world we know very little about, just because these appeals use key words such as “genocide” and “state repression.” Just such an ignorance about the Indian situation led Chomsky and other Left intellectuals across the globe to unwittingly endorse the CPI(M) line on Nandigram. We owe it to ourselves and to people’s movements all over the world, to educate ourselves on the complexities and specific histories of each context before we leap in with statements endorsing one side or the other. Otherwise it is just patronising.

By: Rohini Hensman

Rohini Hensman — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:43:38 +0000

You are right, Deep, the role of Sinhalese civil society in this conjuncture is critical. It is certainly true that the majority of Sinhalese are sick of the LTTE, and willing to sacrifice a great deal to see the last of it. This is not surprising when we remember that LTTE terrorist attacks have often tended to strike at the poorer sections of society – those using public transport, for example – and that the soldiers who are dying in their thousands are also drawn mainly from the rural poor. But this hostility does not, by and large, carry over to non-LTTE Tamils. It is highly significant that most of the terrorist attacks of the LTTE, which appear to have the sole purpose of provoking anti-Tamil pogroms, have not succeeded in that objective. The state terror against the Sinhalese in the late 1980s, which was carried out in the name of fighting JVP terrorism, also played some role in changing the perception of the state as an institution which always protects Sinhalese.

Moreover, there is a grassroots culture of compassion and generosity, which operates even among those who have Sinhala chauvinist propensities. For example, when I interviewed Tamil refugees in the late 1980s, a very large proportion had stories about how Sinhalese friends, neighbours, or sometimes even total strangers, had sheltered and saved them during the 1983 anti-Tamil pogroms. And Hoole and Sritharan of University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) report that even in the present dire circumstances, when Sinhalese soldiers saw the LTTE shooting at fleeing Tamil civilians, they treated these civilians more sympathetically.

This means that Sinhalese civil society is a key constituency which can be brought on board to support a just political solution to the crisis. For example, the Sinhala chauvinists have consistently propagated the view that devolution is the first step towards separation. But a survey conducted a couple of years ago showed that when it was explained to Sinhalese participants that devolution would bring government closer to the people, including themselves, the majority supported it. The majority of Sinhalese are neither monsters nor morons; they can understand that they will be better off in a democratized polity, and have no desire to go on sacrificing the lives of their children simply in order to crush minorities. The problem is dealing with the majoritarian, totalitarian state that Ahilan was describing, which becomes more difficult the more it entrenches itself.

By: Deep

Deep — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:51:57 +0000

What is the role of sinhalese civil society in the current stage of the conflict ? It would be good if there is a discussion on this.

By: Ahilan Kadirgamar

Ahilan Kadirgamar — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:00:47 +0000

I would say the TULF’s Vaddukottai Resolution of 1976 calling for secession and the launching of armed struggle for a separate were both premature. Both were going to exact tremendous human costs on the Tamil community as well as Lanka as a whole, and there wasn’t the kind of discussions and engagement with the ordinary people (who were going to pay with their lives) before such a path was taken. Electoral politics and electoral mandates have their limitations and it is irresponsible on the part of political leaderships to create the kind of emotive politics that can be self destructive. See the first part of my interview with Ragavan in Kafila which addresses some of these concerns and the environment in the 1970s that led to this shift. As suggested by Aacchcharya, there needs to be further attention around the debates within the Left leaning militant movements. Furthermore, there also needs to be reflection on the broader events, debates and the social, economic and political context between 1970 and 1983 to understand the tragic moment now. Indeed the destructive side of nationalism is that it allows for mobilization that threatens even future political possibilities, and the challenge of radical democracy is to check that. I would say the same of President Rajapaksa’s electoral mandate for a unitary state in 2005, that it was not subject to a national debate, and will have to be debated in the future by all the peoples.

By: Aachcharya

Aachcharya — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:15:32 +0000

In terms of the transition from demands for power sharing to a separate state, a point that cannot be overlooked is that the Federal Party in 1970 did campaign on a platform rejecting separatism and for federalism and won so convincingly on such a platform. They did try to engage with the 1970-2 constitutional process but were constructively forced out of the process. This was the tipping point for the transition from moderate/federalist politics to separatist.
I am not sure whether the Vadukkottai resolution could be called ‘pre-mature’ in terms of timing, given the above, while not denying that it was only a rhetorical political positioning on the part of those who advocated it and not a resolution attached to a serious political programme. Clearly the leadership at that time were not capable of moving beyond the type of parliamentary number politics that had failed with 72. The militancy that followed was an expression in response to the incapacity of the moderate parties but wasn’t seriously deliberative enough in terms of politics. This can be understood in the post 83 context because it became a question of existence. The debates that happened within the Left leaning militant movements between the early 70s and 83 needs to be revisited.