CREATORS OF THE PROBLEM
The following is copied from the Tamil Net that had translated an interview given by the High Commissioner for Britain in Sri Lanka to the newspaper 'Virakesari'. It is reproduced in toto so as not to give the impression that I had been selective in reporting. It has been posted on 21st July 2006, under the title "Constitutional safeguards proved inadequate - High Commissioner". The interview is revealing, especially in the context of the visit of President Mahinda Rajapakse to England where he met the British Prime Minister Mr. Tony Blair. There is speculation as to whether Britain is going to replace Norway as the mediator, and also on the so called political solution. There is speculation that Britain has insisted on a "political solution" and a stop to the "limited operations" by the armed forces.
"Britain's trust in the safeguards built into the constitution of Ceylon at independence was misplaced and their weakness is to blame for the island's present problems, the British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, Mr. Dominic John Chilcott, said in an interview with the 'Sunday Virakesari'. In a wide-ranging interview last weekend, Mr. Chilcott said that LTTE and the Sri Lanka government must now negotiate an end to the conflict. The UK and the United States were in agreement on their policies on Sri Lanka, he also said, adding that India also wants a negotiated solution to the conflict. The UK High Commissioner was asked to comment on accusations that 'divide and rule' policies of the British colonial administration precipitated the present ethnic crisis in Sri Lanka.
"When the British came to Ceylon in 1796, there were three distinct kingdoms. The British made it one country for purposes of administrative convenience," Mr. Chilcott explained.
"In over half the colonies, the British rulers adopted a 'divide and rule' policy. But this policy was not unique to the island alone."
"If one were to truly examine Britain's role, one important aspect deserves special mention. That is the constitutional arrangement that Britain left behind. It left behind the Soulbury Constitution. Britain considered the Soulbury Constitution as having the necessary arrangements to provide safeguards for minorities."
"Britain thought that the rights of the Tamils in particular would be safeguarded by these arrangements. However, history has proved otherwise that these safeguards were inadequate and not robust enough. I regret that Britain's policies have to such an extent been the cause for the problems," the High Commissioner said.
Asked about the present British policy of the UK wanting the Sri Lankan government to engage the LTTE in negotiations, the High Commissioner said;
"There is an imperative not only for the Liberation Tigers but also the government of Sri Lanka to move forward to arrive at a negotiated settlement."
"In the end, the final settlement that's reached must be satisfactory to both parties. The present impasse must not be allowed to continue. The government of Sri Lanka and the Tigers must both dedicate themselves to peace. By some means, both parties must return to peaceful negotiations. There is no other way."
Saying "there have to be changes to [Sri Lanka's] political system," as part of a solution to the conflict, the High Commissioner said: "Although we cannot say much in this connection, Britain's view is to move forward to a political settlement that's based on the 2002 Oslo Declaration `85 on federal lines in a united Sri Lanka."
Asked about the position of the United States, Mr. Chilcott said: "The US has, from time to time, taken a contrary view to Britain in world affairs. However, in Sri Lanka's conflict, Britain has been in agreement with America."
"It's noteworthy that India is [also] fully in favour of a political settlement achieved through peaceful means," he added later.
Given the present climate of international opposition to the use of violence to pursue political goals, the LTTE "could achieve more through negotiations than through violence," Mr. Chilcott said.
If the LTTE returned to the negotiating table, then Britain could ask the EU to reconsider its proscription of the LTTE, the High Commissioner said.
Meanwhile, Britain's proscription of the LTTE in 2001 was not an impediment to direct contact between the UK and the Tigers, Mr. Chilcott said. British policy was that direct contact was necessary to move the LTTE towards peace.
Asked about the status of Mr. Anton Balasingham, the LTTE's Chief Negotiator and Political Strategist who resides in London, the High Commissioner said: "Mr. Balasingham is a British Citizen. He has the right to live in Britain. Britain banned the LTTE way back in 2001. It's been five years since the ban was imposed. As such, the ban does not affect Mr. Balasingham."
"I do not think there would be any change in respect to Britain's attitude to Anton Balasingham," Mr. Chilcott added. "Similarly, there would not be any significant change in this respect in view of the ban imposed by the EU."
Having read (between the lines) the interview given by the British High Commissioner, the first thing that came to my mind was whether the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London would be interviewed by a British newspaper on the Irish question or any other internal problem of the UK. Would any ambassador in London representing any country in the world be allowed to speak freely on any internal matter of the UK? The answers are obviously NO, but in Sri Lanka - everybody - not only the diplomats but media people representing newspapers and TV and radio channels are free to comment on any internal problem of the country. Is Sri Lanka very generous in their foreign policy or is it the submissive attitude of the so called leaders of Sri Lanka?
It is clear that by replacing Norway with Britain or anybody else is not going to reduce the problems that Sri Lanka faces. Britain, USA which is in total agreement with Britain on the Tamil problem in Sri Lanka, according to the British High Commissioner, India or any country that believes in the propaganda of the westerners led by the BBC, would ask for a "political solution" leaving no option for a weak government but to come out with such solution. These countries led by Britain would insist on a solution that "safeguards the rights of the Tamils" and one that fulfils the aspirations of the Tamils. The solution is nothing but a federal solution, where power is devolved to the provinces. It appears that these countries insist on the merger of the Northern and the Eastern Provinces, and devolution of power to the provinces.
When all these countries, the NGOs and peace makers support federalism, they imply that the so-called problems of the Tamils, including the use of Tamil as a language could be solved by devolving power to the Northern and the Eastern provinces made into one unit. However, nobody has stated clearly why power should be devolved to the Northern and the Eastern provinces to solve the so called problems of the Tamils who live in the other parts of the country as well. How one would solve the so-called problems of the Tamils in the Western province by devolving power to the Northern and the Eastern provinces remains to be explained. Moreover, the provinces as existing today were demarcated only as late as 1889, which was done in an arbitrary manner by the British. The concept of federalism was introduced after 1947, and the concept of a homeland of the Tamils was created only after 1976, meaning that Tamil racism that wants to deprive the Northern and the Eastern provinces to the Sinhalas, has been creating concepts that suit their objective in the process. Even today, the Tamils (and the Muslims), are mainly confined to the coastal belt of the eastern province, and based on that demography only, without an iota of historical evidence, the British High Commissioner or anybody else who wants to dabble in Sri Lankan internal politics without any knowledge of history, would not be able to justify why power should be devolved to the Northern and the Eastern province, in order to solve the so called problems of the Tamils living in the entire country.
The British High Commissioner's knowledge of history of the country is demonstrated when he claims that when the British came in 1796, there were three kingdoms, and the British united them into one country for administrative purposes. Could the High Commissioner name these three kingdoms, which are supposed to have existed in 1796, and explain how the British annexed them. It could be said that the Maritime Provinces, except the coastal belt of the Eastern province were under the Dutch. The other parts of the country came under the Sinhala kingdom. The coastal belt of the Eastern Province had been leased to the Dutch and they were only administering that part for the Sinhala king, meaning the king who reined over the Sinhala kingdom, whether he was a Nayakkar or not. The British High Commissioner, who serves on behalf of his Queen, would no doubt admit that his Queen is the English Queen, though her origin could be traced back to German, Russian and other European dynasties.
The British, having created the concept of minorities in this country, tried to use the so called minorities against the Sinhalas. The High Commissioner claims that over half of the countries that they ruled the British had adopted the policy of divide and rule, and that it was not a policy peculiar to Sri Lanka. It is not clear as to what he means by over half of the countries, as many people think that the British adopted this policy wherever they went. In any event, the British Governors manoeuvred with the Tamil leaders to deprive Sinhalathva its due place. It was the British who made a mockery of the history and the demography of the country by appointing only one member to represent the Sinhala people while appointing one member to represent the Tamils in the country, in the legislative assembly. It was the beginning the problem as far as the British were concerned as has been explained in 'An Introduction to Tamil Racism in Sri Lanka'.
The British, thus having created the problem based on a demography that the Dutch had set up by importing people from South India for their tobacco cultivation, then manoeuvred with the so-called minorities against the Sinhalas. The British made sure that the minorities were privileged vis-`E0-vis the Sinhalas, and knew that the Sinhalas, especially the Sinhala Buddhists, wanted the due place for Sinhalathva. The so-called minority rights and constitutional provisions to safeguard them were introduced by the British in order to make sure that the due place to Sinhalathva was deprived even after the British had nominally left the shores of the country. It is unfortunate that the country has still not gained independence as the British, who have come back in the form of High Commissioners, continue to manipulate the politics of the country. The High Commissioner laments that his forefathers had not done enough to grant Sinhalathva its due place in the country. Nobody would believe that Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse was on a private visit to Britain with his Minister of Foreign Affairs, and it is clear that the British who internationalised the Tamil problem in Sri Lanka, are still manipulating to deprive Sinhalathva its due place in the country.
The fact that the British (English) are playing pandu with us is exemplified by the so-called ban of the LTTE. Anton Balasingham continues to live in Britain, and for that matter in London, even though he is a member of the so-called banned LTTE. The High Commissioner claims that Anton Balasingham, one time employee of the British High Commission in Sri Lanka, is a British citizen. We all know that,h but the question is whether a citizen could become a member of a terrorist organisation banned in the country, and help the organisation to promote its activities. Balasingham may not have bought arms himself, but his activities in Britain are directed in that direction. The LTTE is an armed terrorist organisation, which is being helped by the British by allowing Balasingham to continue with his activities. The High Commissioner in his interview has managed only to demonstrate British hypocrisy at its worst.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>