ANANDASANGAREE'S APPEAL TO JVP
Anandasangaree writing to the JVP has appealed to them to drop their insistence on a unitary state, in order to solve the North East problem or the Tamil aspirations problem. In his letter he mentions that the JHU is prepared to consider the Indian model as a solution to the problem. Meanwhile S. B. Dissanayake has said that the JVP and the JHU are the obstacles to finding a solution to the problem, as he thinks that President Mahinda Rajapakse is amenable to a federal solution. It has to be noted that Anandasangaree does not go as far as Dissanayake to propose a federal solution, and the former is prepared to accept a solution based on the Indian model. However, federal solution and quasi-federal solution of the Indian type would come across difficulties with the announcement of Mano Ganeshan that the problems of the Tamils living outside the eastern and the northern provinces are different from those of the Tamils in those two provinces. He and others have organised themselves into a group that is called the Western Province Tamils, and they want the interests of the Tamils in these other parts also to be considered in finding a solution to the problem. It should be clear at least by now that there are many versions as far as the "problem" is concerned, even among the Tamils.
S. B. Dissanayake, who is tipped to be the next leader of the UNP, is only echoing the policy of Ranil Wickremesinghe. Though Dissanayake is from a different class, unlike Premadasa, who became the leader of the UNP coming from a non-traditional class for UNP leaders (as well as SLFP leaders until Mahinda Rajapakse becomes the leader) he does not have policies even slightly different from those dictated by western countries. This is a phenomenon that has to be taken into consideration seriously. The British nominally left in 1948 after producing a set of elite who would imitate them not only in politics but in other fields as well. Until recently the leadership in various fields was provided by the elite schools spearheaded by Royal College and S. Thomas' College. Whether in cricket or in parliamentary politics it was the products of these schools who became dominant. After all, cricket and parliamentary procedure are the two most significant rituals that the English gave to the world other than, of course, the use of English language, and the products of the elite schools were at the helm, whether in cricket or in politics. However, 1956 changed all these gradually, and fifty years after the "revolution" of fifty six, we now have leaders not only in cricket but also in the two main political parties, coming from central schools and other not-so-elite schools. However, this does not mean that these new leaders would change policies and take a different path. Just as much the elites followed the English (or the British), the non-elite leaders would follow the elites. One could call it a second order imitation with the Americans now giving the leadership in world politics. The elites, though imitators, were at least trained in the best traditions of the English culture, but unfortunately the non-elites have imbibed neither the English nor the Sinhala traditions. This is another instance where the "revolution" of fifty six has been betrayed.
We do not expect anything serious from Dissanayake but Anandasangaree has to be listened to with interest.
Anandasangaree would agree that a necessary but not sufficient condition to offer a federal solution or a quasi federal solution, on an ethnic basis is that an overwhelming majority of an ethnic group in a country should be confined to a particular region, and that within that region the overwhelming majority should be that particular ethnic group. In India this condition is satisfied as the demarcation into states has been done mainly on the basis of the language spoken in the region. For example in Tamil Nadu the overwhelming majority of the people are Tamils, and the overwhelming majority of Tamils in India live in Tamil Nadu. However, in Sri Lanka even this necessary condition is not satisfied. Mano Ganeshan, when he speaks for the western province Tamils, and when Thondaman and others speak for the upcountry Tamils, only bring out the fact that the situation in Sri Lanka is very different from that in India. Moreover, the Karuna factor is an indication that the Tamils in the Eastern Province consider themselves to be different from Tamils in the Northern Province. It is not only that the above-mentioned necessary condition for a federal or a quasi-federal solution on an ethnic basis is not satisfied in Sri Lanka, but the Tamils cannot be considered to form a homogeneous group. While the Tamils in the Western Province have come from the Eastern Province, Northern Province and the upcountry region, the origins of the Tamils in the latter three regions are not the same. As we have dealt with their origins in these columns previously we do not want to go into details at present.
Let us assume for the sake of argument, that the Tamils have grievances merely due to the fact that they are Tamils, and that a federal or a quasi-federal solution with the Eastern and Northern Provinces as one of the "states" or "provinces" would solve the so-called grievances. Then the question is how one would find a solution to the "grievances" of the other Tamils living outside the above-mentioned provinces. As more than about sixty per cent of the Tamils live outside those provinces the "grievances" of most of the Tamils would remain unsolved by a federal or quasi-federal solution. How does Mano Ganeshan or somebody else propose to find a solution for the "grievances" of the Tamils living in the Western Province, having conceded a federal "state"to the Eastern and the Northern Provinces. It is clear that a federal or quasi-federal solution is not a solution even to the problem posed by some Tamils in the country.
Mano Ganeshan and others should come out with a solution to the so-called grievances of the Tamils in the Western Province. Surely, it cannot be a federal solution within the Western Province, as it has no meaning. One has to look for a solution outside the federal or even quasi-federal framework due to the particular situation in Sri Lanka. Westerners and Indians, and of course NGO "intellectuals" have looked at the north and east problem in Sri Lanka either from the western point of view or from the Indian experience. The problem has to be viewed from the Sri Lankan point of view taking into consideration the history and demographic patterns of the country.
Unfortunately, it is the Sri Lankan situation that is never looked into. While we appreciate Anandasangaree's concern and commitment, we have to point out that he is still burdened by the policies of the Federal Party and the TULF. Just as much as Marx's so-called scientific historical materialism justifies taking up arms to overthrow bourgeois states, it is unfortunately the policies of the Federal Party and TULF that justify the terrorism of the LTTE against the Sri Lankan State.
While we acknowledge that Anandasangaree and other TULF leaders are not responsible for killings by the LTTE and other armed groups in the past, we cannot turn a blind eye to the policies adopted by S. J. V. Chelvanayakam. In historical materialism, it is claimed that the society evolves through a number of stages, the capitalist stage being only one such stage. Capitalism has to be replaced, overthrown by an armed struggle if necessary, and preparing for that armed struggle becomes a historical necessity. If socialism is a historical necessity, and if capitalism, meaning capitalist economic structure, is a fetter to the advancement of the society, and if capitalism does not leave the stage of history voluntarily, then capitalism has to be overthrown using arms if necessary. Thus, Marxists who were genuinely interested in overthrowing capitalism prepared for the armed struggle following the Gospel of Marx, while the others who either paid only lip service to socialism or were not committed to socialism did not do much in order to replace capitalism. They played cricket and became experts in parliamentary procedure! In a way, they were wiser as capitalism cannot be replaced by armed struggle, as has been demonstrated by the experiences in Soviet Russia, China and Eastern European countries. Capitalism is only a product of western modernity that began more than five hundred years ago in Poland and Italy. Incidentally, it was a Polish Pope who was instrumental in uprooting the socialist empire, beginning the process in Poland.
The Federal Party and TULF that inherited the communal politics of G. G. Ponnambalam, and the Ponnambalam brothers before him had to justify a federal solution to the Tamil problem in Sri Lanka. While the Ponnambalams were more interested in leadership at the centre, and connived with the British governors to grab the leadership from the Sinhala leaders, the Federal Party was formed in order to establish a Sri Lankan Tamil state (as the name Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi implies) in the Eastern and Northern Provinces, with Chelvanayakam having realised that it was not possible to "capture" power at the centre after universal franchise had been introduced. Universal franchise meant a Sinhala majority in the parliament, and the Tamil elite losing the privileges given to them by the British had to search for other avenues. The so-called Tamil grievances and concepts such as Tamil homeland in a region demarcated by the British only as late as 1889, and a bogus history according to which Tamils had been living in this country from time immemorial, were formulated by the Federal Party and TULF and their "intellectuals" in order to legitimise the demand for a separate state. Once the separate state was legitimised by creating concepts such as Tamil grievances and Tamil homeland, it was only logical for Tamil youth in the seventies to take up arms to establish the Tamil state, which became a "historical necessity". This is not very much different from "revolutionaries" taking up arms to establish a workers' state that had been legitimised by Marxism.
The Sinhalas oppose a federal state as it is against the history and demography of the country. It will not be a solution to the Tamil problem as Mano Ganseshan has proved with the establishment of the new organisation. The history and future of the country have to be seen in the framework of an eksesath rajya.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>