TO INDIA WITH LOVE
A delegation of the so-called movement for an honorable peace is to leave for discussions with the Indian Prime Minister and the other high ranking officials. They would most probably visit Chennai and meet Ms. Jayalalitha Jeyaram, whom the LTTE apparently wants to be extradited to Vanni. The delegation to the country which AB (Anton Balasingham, not to be confused with the other AB, Anura Bandaranaike) identified as the fatherland of the Tamils in Sri Lanka (why did not he call it the motherland of the Tamils whose culture is matriarchal? Is it because he lives in UK, which he now calls his motherland? Or does he consider Australia, the country of Adele Balasingham, to be the motherland? May be since he has a kidney from Norway, he considers that country to be the motherland.) It appears that the Tamil racists have a homeland in Sri Lanka, a fatherland in India and a motherland in UK, Australia or Norway. The delegation of the honorable peace movement would most probably consist of Messrs. Anura Bandaranaike, Dinesh Gunawardhane, Mrs. Ashraaf and two representatives of the JVP.
It is interesting to note that the traffic across the Palk Straight has increased in the last few weeks. The President Chandrika Kumaratunga was in India recently, Mr. Gujral, the former Prime Minister of India was here and several others are expected to take wings shortly. The SLFP, the MEP and the JVP were all against the Indo Lanka accord and it would be interesting to find out what the delegation of the honorable peace people has to say on the Tamil racist problem. We do not know whether Mr. Anura Bandaranaike represents the SLFP and echoes the SLFP position on the Tamil racist problem. It is said that the SLFP does not have one position but several positions on this matter and may be Mr. Bandaranaike represents his own position.
It is obvious that India cannot keep quiet for long, opening the mouth only to say "we are for peace in Sri Lanka" like a manthram. One does not have to be a so-called political scientist to realise that "the geopolitical realities" (what a concept?) demand that India plays a bigger role. But what is the role that India could play at this juncture? Several parties in India have demanded the extradition of Prabhakaran. Undoubtedly Prabhakaran has to be extradited to India but only after punishing him for the offences that he has committed in Sri Lanka. Whether there would be a Prabhakaran after the punishments are given in this country is a different matter, but in principle we could agree to his extradition after punishing him here. However, for India there is a major problem. The so-called MOU protects Prabhakaran and the Norwegians (They are certainly no green horns in these matters, as they have claimed, having worsened the Palestine problem with their agreements, ceasefire and what not) are here to see that Prabhakaran is maintained alive and that the LTTE is given an eelam, that they could never establish by fighting.
Neither Norway nor the NGO's have explained why there should be only one kind of peace. Peace for them is absolute and they want us to agree to their kind of peace. The others who are not agreeable to their peace are branded as war mongers, Sinhala Chauvinists etc. The honorable peace movement must be having their own version of peace and a discussion on various forms of peace or "peaces" should be welcome. Peace like anything else is relative and my peace is not the same as somebody else's peace. In a way war is due to these various peaces. (I prefer the word peaces, though the word may not be in usage, to versions of peace. When one refers to versions of peace it implies that there is an absolute peace and people have various views of this peace. It could be, incorrectly, compared with viewing a statue from different angles. Even here my epistemology of constructive relativism tells me that we have different statues and not different views of one statue. People see different statues and not the same statues from different angles. If there is no word to express one's ideas then one has to invent new words.)
Since there are so many peaces a war is necessary to decide which peace would prevail during the subsequent period until a new peace is established. War decides which peace is going to rule in the coming years. Ms. Chandrika Kumaratunga had the slogan of war for peace. Though she may not have realised it she was telling the public something very significant. She wanted to impose her peace on the LTTE by "war". Similarly LTTE was fighting to establish the peace it wanted. However, the war for peace of Ms. Kumaratunga came to a halt and the PA itself was kicked out of power. What happened then? Some powerful forces who had expected Ms. Kumaratunga to deliver their peace, having realised that her peace was not their peace, manoeuvred and toppled the government. The war had to be stopped, they said. What did they want was nothing but their peace and they knew that continuation of war would not result in what they wanted. They wanted peace negotiations that the Kumaratunga government had given up.
It is said that war is a continuation of politics by other means. Similarly peace discussions are a continuation of war by other means. The talk on conflict resolution by the westerners is just another concept invented by them to perpetuate their domination. It is good for third rate political scientists and others like them to earn a few dollars by writing so-called research papers (and organising conferences) using terms like geopolitical realities. (In a way it is wrong to say that these people earn a few dollars for they do nothing other than vomiting the ideas of the others. It is correct to say that they are given a few dollars by the originators of the ideas, meaning the universities, NGO's and other institutions in the countries of the originators, for vomiting the ideas of the later.) We are told that in these conflict resolutions there should be an attitude of give and take. However, it is not so in practice. All the parties and ideas are not treated equally at these discussions. There are dominant ideas and they always take the upper hand. Some ideas and people take more than what they give. Others have to give more but take very little. Who or what decides who takes more? It is certainly the hegemonic group that controls the discussion that decides the outcome of the discussions. Whether in trade union discussions or in political discussions the group that has the power at that particular instant of time takes more than what they give.
Consider the case of the so-called peace process mediated by Norway. The MOU signed by Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe and the murderer Prabhakaran is not symmetrical. The LTTE has taken everything that the government has been forced to give. With this so-called give and take attitude giving was done by the government and the taking done by the LTTE. This will go on as long as Norway remains the mediator. It is very often said by the UNF that Norway was invited by the PA government and that they are only continuing the policy of the PA. This is not quite so. It is true that the PA invited Norway, on paper. But it was Norway that got themselves invited by the PA government. After some time the PA could not give into all that Norway wanted and the "war" for peace went ahead to the annoyance of the Norwegians. At one stage the PA government had to ask Solheim to step down and Norway had to take a back seat. If the UNF government is continuing with the PA government policy then they should continue from where the PA government stopped and not from where they began. It is not a continuation of policies, as the UNF has jumped back.There is a definite discontinuity, as any Advanced Level Mathematics student would understand. I am sure that Mr. Tilak Marapona, who was my tutor in Chemistry at the University, would understand though Professors of Law would find it beyond their understanding.
The pundits have been telling us that the war cannot be won. What they mean by that statement is that the LTTE cannot win the war and establish an eelam. However, what was conveyed to the people was that the LTTE cannot be defeated. When it was realised that the LTTE cannot establish a separate state by war those who are behind Tamil racism wanted peace. By peace they meant an eelam or a confederation that led to an eelam. What they wanted was to get for the LTTE through negotiations what the latter could not win by war. It was continuation of war by other means. The LTTE when it comes to the negotiating table, with Norwegian backing is a more powerful body than when it is fighting. LTTE when fighting a war has to depend on their arms, war machinery and to a certain extent the so-called human rights groups. But that is not adequate and they had no chance of winning the war. However, the situation changes when the LTTE enters the so-called peace process. The so-called international community backs them and they are now stronger than when they were in the battle field. Further the LTTE does not have to give up arms, unlike other terrorist groups that are not backed by the western countries and they could go back to war if for some reason or other the so-called peace process fails.
It is in this background that the visit to India by the honorable peace delegation has to be watched. I do not know whether the honorable peace people have one stand. It may be that there are more than four peaces advocated by the group. The JVP is having its own peace, while the other groups are advocating their own peaces. India also has its own peace with respect to Sri Lanka and when they break their silence with the manthram "we are for peace" they mean their peace and not the peace of the Norwegians. The battle line are drawn in the peace game. As it is the LTTE is having a field day with the weaker UNF government being dictated by the Norwegians. The UNF is dancing to the tune of Norway and that is the reason why the LTTE would end up with what they want namely a confederation. India has realised this but they do not want to "intervene" at this stage. However, time is running out, and Indian peace would have to battle it out with the Norwegian peace. The lady and the gentlemen who are planning to go to India must keep this in their minds. Could they persuade India to adopt one of their peaces (JVP, MEP, SLFP- Anura, NUA-Ashraaf) or would it be an invitation to India to play a more active role with the Indian peace?
The Indian peace is based on certain assumptions and they are there in the Indo Lanka agreement. Do the honorable peace lady and the gentlemen agree with these assumptions? Or do they consider their exercise as an attempt to neutralise Norwegian peace with Indian peace. Whatever their objective may be one thing is clear. Neither the west nor India has been told by any of these delegations that the Tamils in Sri Lanka enjoy more rights and privileges than the Tamils in India. Eelamnation website on 7th April published the following.
"The Tamil Savants Peravai will stage a protest fast against the Tamil Nadu government's betrayal and callous attitude to the appeal concerning education through Tamil medium now argued before the Supreme Court in Delhi. The founder N. Arunasalam and Coordinator ThamizhaNNal of the Tamil Savants Peravai (TSP) issued the following press statement condemning the Tamil Nadu government today.
On July 30, the Supreme Court admitted the appeal filed by the TN government for hearing and issued notices to both parties involved in the case. Though the TSP and other Tamil organizations urged the government to file appeal to the Supreme Court, the Tamil Nadu government took its own sweet time and filed the appeal only in July 2001.
During the appeal hearing the counsel for the TN government told court that "We leave the matter entirely in the hands of the court" thus displaying the TN government's total lack of any commitment to win the case. This we consider it as a naked betrayal of Tamil language and Tamil people by the TN government to condemn this betrayal the TSP as a first step will stage token protest fast in 4 towns on May 01, 2002.
"We demand the Tamil Nadu government not to stop with issuing a general order but to bring legislation to make Tamil medium instruction in schools compulsory"."
In Sri Lanka instructions are given in Tamil medium and Tamil Nadu has to come a long way to catch up with Sri Lanka. The honorable peace people would not talk these matters with India. But it is essential that they try to change some of the myths that are prevailing there. The whole world, not only the so-called international community, has been told that there are injustices to the Tamils in Sri Lanka, for which the Sinhalas are responsible. Unfortunately the world seems to believe this. India by forcing Sri Lanka to accept that the north and the east are the 'historical habitats' of the Tamils has made a blunder. Would the honorable peace group be able to tell India because of this blunder the Sinhala people living in the eastern province are on the verge of losing their fundamental rights as citizens and becoming aliens in their motherland. India has a role to play in the battle for peace. But before that India has to correct at least some of the mistakes that have been made in the recent past.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>