THE ADVOCATES OF FEDERALISM
According to a news item, Mr. Rohan Edirisinghe, a don in the Department of Law of the University of Colombo, referred to as Professor of Law has urged Canada not to ban the LTTE in that country. He has said that "the only way to go forward is for the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE to continue to talk to each other, and work out a political solution." He has added "but I do think that human rights and democracy and pluralism are very important." Mr. Edirisinghe has said the devastating effect of the December 26 tsunami has reinforced the centralizing tendencies of the Sri Lankan government, and stopped progress towards devolution of powers and a move towards federalism. In his wisdom Mr. Edirisinghe has said that "because of the inclusion of the strongly nationalist JVP, it would be harder to achieve an agreement".
Apparently Mr. Edirisinghe is in Canada on a speaking tour and it is very unlikely that the University of Colombo is sponsoring his visit. If it is so I should request the University of Kelaniya and the UGC to sponsor me on a "speaking tour" in Canada and other parts of the world to tell why federalism is not acceptable to the majority of the Sinhalas, especially the Sinhala Buddhists in the country. There are some people who refer to the vocal minority but no body has called the Sinhala academics, directors of various NGOs and such other people who dominate the news media other than those of Upali Newspapers, a vocal minority who support federalism. They are sponsored by the Tamil groups, NGOs, western Christian governments and others, and speak as if theirs is the voice of the Sinhalas.
Sometime ago my services at the University of Colombo were terminated by a council that included Bishop Oswald Gomes, and chaired by another Professor of Law by the name of G. L. Peiris. Though the Labour Tribunal has ordered the University of Colombo to pay me compensation, at the time of the dismissal the vocal minority at the University of Colombo, who have been for federalism, and who talk big on human rights, political solutions and discussions, were not prepared to give me a chance to speak to my trade unions and present my case. Perhaps they did not want to talk to me as I was unarmed unlike the LTTE, and that I was not on a speaking tour sponsored by a NGO that favours federalism. However, they did not refuse the record salary increase that the Federation of University Teachers Associations was able to win for the academics under leadership I was able to provide even after I was dismissed, thanks not to any Teachers Trade Union in the University of Colombo but to the English Instructors Union. So much for the humanists and human rights activists at the University of Colombo.
Mr. Edirisinghe, the learned Professor of Law has said that because of the inclusion of the strongly nationalist JVP, it would be harder to achieve an agreement presumably between the "government" and the LTTE. Now the learned Professor should have told the audience why the JVP had to be included in the government. If Ms. Kumaratunga could form a "government" without the JVP she would have done so. What Mr. Edirisinghe has forgotten to tell the audience, most probably the majority of whom were Tamils from Sri Lanka, was that the JVP thanks to the constitution of JR Jayawardhane, has 39 members in the present parliament. In any event JVP had polled more preferential votes and they are in the government because the people wanted it that way. They had polled much more than the TNA, the proxy party of the LTTE and even if it is not the wish of Ms. Kumaratunga and the vocal minority among Sinhalas who want federalism, the majority of the Sinhala Buddhists want the JVP in the government. It has to be pointed out that it was basically the Sinhala Buddhist vote that elected the present Sandhanaya government, and one of the reasons for them to vote against the UNP was the latter's federal policy of abdicating power to the Tamil racists.
It has to be emphasised that contrary to what the vocal minority among the Sinhalas, especially the so called liberals and Marxists who are in essence products of the western Christian modernity and the western Christian education, the majority of the Sinhalas, especially of the Sinhala Buddhists are against federalism and the Sandhanaya was elected not to continue with the presence of the Norwegians and to work according to the treacherous MoU signed between Ranil Wickremesinghe and Prabhakaran, which in essence is an agreement between the UNP and the LTTE. Ms. Kumaratunga is continuing with those, against the mandate given by the majority of the Sinhala people, and it is JVP that represents the views of the Sinhala people and not the SLFP under the leadership of Ms. Kumaratunga. The current SLFP is only a SLFP by name and what we have unfortunately is the SLMP founded by Vijaya Kumaratunga who cannot be identified as a friend of Sinhala Buddhists. If the SLFP continues with the present policies it would end up the way SLMP did, and the JVP would attract all those who had been supporting the SLFP during the past.
Thus when Mr. Edirisinghe the learned lawyer, I am not sure whether he has taken his oaths, but it is a different matter altogether, says that because of the inclusion of the strongly nationalist JVP, it would be harder to achieve an agreement, he effectively says that because of the Sinhala majority an agreement would be harder to be achieved. In other words it is the Sinhala majority that is an obstacle in the way of Tamil racists and the vocal minority among the Sinhalas. People such as the learned Professor would like to ignore the views of the Sinhala masses in the name of some abstract pluralism and democracy that is not practiced anywhere in the world. In the universities in Sri Lanka there are centres for this and that which are ultimately working against the wish of the Sinhala majority, and are being financed directly by the NGOs. It is time to identify these centres and appoint a commission to inquire into their activities.
Though the learned lawyer says so why should the "government" enter into "peace talks" with the LTTE in order to set up a federal state. Tamil racists have worked according to a plan and we are reminded in this context the policy of S.J. V. Chelvanayakam who advocated little now more later. His party was named Ilankai Thamil Arsasu Kadchi or Lanka Tamil State Party with a view of establishing a separate state, and the Tamil Christian who preferred to go to a South Indian church in Colombo, knew what he was doing when he called his separatist party the Federal Party in English. A Federal State for Tamil racism sponsored by western Christian countries is only a stepping stone for a separate state. Chelvanayakam's policy of little now more later takes the form federal state now an Eelam later.
However, that is not the only reason why the Sinhala majority are against federalism. What is the rationale behind establishing a federal state, and to carve out the present eastern province and the northern province as a single unit in the federal state? In India we have often said that the vast majority, I suppose more than ninety percent, of the people in Tamil Nadu are Tamils, while more than ninety percent of the Tamils in India live in Tamil Nadu. Could Mr. Edirisinghe, the Professor of Law at the University of Colombo or anybody else draw a parallel between the demographies in India in Sri Lanka in respect of the Tamils. The Sinhala people will never allow the eastern province to be part of a combined northern and eastern province in a federal state.
The majority of Tamils in Sri Lanka live outside the northern and the eastern provinces, and the Tamils cannot say that they are the overwhelming majority in those two provinces. If the Tamils have problems on being Tamils in the country how could those problems be solved in respect of the majority of the Tamils who live outside those two provinces, by establishing a federal state? This question has been asked number of times, but the Tamil racists and their lawyers have taken the liberty to ignore it altogether.
Ms. Kumaratunga thinks that she could overcome the opposition of the Sinhalas to a federal state by having a referendum on establishment of a federal state and abolition of executive presidency simultaneously. She thinks that since the majority of the people are against the executive presidency she could manipulate and obtain their approval for a federal state. If Ms. Kumaratunga thinks that she could hold a common referendum on both issues she is mistaken. I do not know what the law of the Professors tell us on this matter. However, at least one Professor of law would canvas against it not because he loves a unitary state but since his party leader has not given up hopes of becoming the next executive president of the country.
The Sinhala people cannot be fooled by Ms. Kumaratunga and her media people, and she would suffer a humiliating defeat if she goes for a referendum. The SLFP will have to be concerned with such a defeat as it is not only Ms. Kumaratunga that would be defeated at the referendum. It would be the end of the SLFP as the party of the Sinhalathva and the beginning of a new nationalist movement. Bandaranaikes could convert their house at Rosmead Place to a hotel, but the SLFP is not their property that can be converted to a SLMP that would be liquidated in no time, even if the hotel would turn out to be a successful enterprise.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>