ON PROCESSES
The LTTE kills, the government, JVP, JHU and a few others issue statements condemning the dastardly act, the TNA the proxy party of the LTTE, NGOs and the INGOs observe silence while the so called international community (what does Malawi know of these activities in the name of the "international community") condemning the act somewhat lukewarmly would emphasise on the peace process. India which has now become the most influential on the Tamil problem, would insist on the merger of the northern and the eastern provinces and devolution of power based on the "Indian Model".
The Defence secretary escaped death and we are glad that he is still alive. However, in the excitement we have forgotten the security personnel and the other innocent civilians who died as a result of the explosion. It is only the kith and kin of the dead who would remember the incident in few weeks, as then we would be having another dastardly act to condemn, issue statements, write obituaries etc. When are we going to see an end of this process? It is also a process which may be called the killing process in comparison with the peace process of the "enlightened" (prabhuddha) in the NGOs and the INGOs.
It is clear that the country is divided on how to end these two processes. Both processes have gone for some time now but nobody knows how the processes could be terminated. The most important question is which process has to be stopped first. A NGO pundit could always object and say that the peace process cannot be stopped and the so called negotiations, discussions, discourses (why not call them discos to give a "mod look". In any event in Sri Lankan intellectual usage they are no different from the other discos though the people who use the term discourse in the western intellectual circles would call a discourse also a process.) have to go on, in spite of the violations of the CFA. However, these people forget that the CFA was the first to be killed by the LTTE in this whole process (what a good word this process turns out to be) and even if the dead could be resurrected the CFA, which has been cremated and ashes dropped into a river in India, cannot be put back into one piece in the name of the peace process. In any event, contrary to what a NGO pundit may think, what is meant by ending the peace process is to find a solution to the so called ethnic problem.
India, the Tamil parties and the west including Japan would never allow the killing processes to be stopped first, as they think that without the LTTE the Tamils would not be able to win anything, meaning devolution of power in a federal framework. They, together with the Marxists and other prabhuddhyas in Sri Lanka are of the opinion that the Sinhalas have discriminated against the Tamils in Sri Lanka, and power has to be devolved to satisfy the Tamil aspirations. The aspiration of the Tamils is to attend to their work in the so called areas where Tamils predominately live without interference from what they would call the central government, if not the Sinhala government. Most Tamil parties in Sri Lanka, unlike the Tamil diaspora that maintains the LTTE with the assistance of the west and India, do not now talk of a traditional homeland or of a history of Tamils that goes back to thousand years, and we have to be appreciative of that fact. However, they also think that without the LTTE, they would not be able to satisfy their aspirations.
These Tamil parties know that the LTTE can be defeated by the Sri Lankan army without any assistance from India or so called UN forces. However, they would say that it could be done only after finding a reasonable solution that would satisfy the Tamil aspirations. They have a suspicion that if the LTTE is defeated first, meaning the killing process is terminated, then the Sinhala people would not allow the Tamil aspirations to be satisfied. India is firmly committed to that view, and if it comes to the worse from their point of view, they would resort to parippu diplomacy and a Vadamarachchi to maintain the killing process.
India has had its say on the merger of the northern and eastern provinces, but it is clear that India contrary to all pronouncements will not be a bystander in the coming months. If any country is interfering in the politics of Sri Lanka at present it is India more than even the western countries. Some people are of the opinion that the west is using India, but from the current events it is clear that while the west and India have more or less the same policy regarding the Tamil problem in Sri Lanka, India is more interested than anybody else to see that power is devolved to a merged north and east based on the Indian model. India, meaning the elitist Brahmins and others who rule have an axe to grind with Sri Lanka, from about the fifth century. In spite being very close to India (Bharat) Sri Lanka or Lanka could not be dominated by the Indians, and even today except for Pakistan, Sri Lanka is the only country in the SAARC region that has not come under the ambit of India. USA that entered into an agreement with India on nuclear power for peace knows that India should be developed into a major power in the region especially against China. In this respect USA does not have to think twice to ditch the long time ally Pakistan in favour of India.
Even if the Tamil parties in Sri Lanka agree to have the northern and the eastern provinces separately and devolve power in a federal set up to the two provinces without considering them as one unit, it is very unlikely that India would agree to it. It is by having the Northern and the Eastern Provinces as one unit, and propagating the myth that those two provinces are the historical habitats of the Tamils, and devolving power to the combined unit under a federal or pseudo federal constitution, India wants to alienate the Tamils from Sinhalas in Sri Lanka. India is now adopting the policy of divide and rule of the British, in order to keep Sri Lanka under the ambit of India. It is India together with the west that would not allow the government to finish the killing process first, while maintaining the "peace process" meaning finding a model for the devolution of power.
Let us finish with Prabhakaran and the LTTE without waiting to find a solution to the problem of devolution of power. All the political parties in the APRC agreed on some kind of devolution, at the meeting held on 22nd of November 2006, though the parties may have different opinions on the unit, the extent, the frame of devolution, and even the problem itself. While some parties want a federal framework others would not go beyond the thirteenth amendment and the unitary set up. Then for some other parties devolution is not to satisfy the so called Tamil aspirations but to see that the people use power at the "grass root" level to solve their own problems without interference from Colombo, Matara or Killinocchi. The Sinhala people also would enjoy devolution of power if it is for the purpose of development of their areas and not for the purpose of establishing a federal state. On the other hand, even if the Tamils have aspirations as a community, those aspirations could not be satisfied by setting up a federal state, and devolving power to combined northern and eastern provinces, as more than fifty percent of the Tamils live outside those areas. Further once power is devolved on an ethnic basis to the combined Northern and Eastern Provinces, the Muslims and the Sinhalas in the eastern province would come up with their own "aspirations" leading to non contiguous units for devolution of power, and thus complicating the problem. It is some kind of devolution on a territorial basis that would finally not only give power to the "people" but also would help to create a Sri Lankan identity. As long as we think of so called solutions in terms of ethnicity we would be only postponing the process of integration into one nation. If one is interested in finding out what is happening in India after "devolution" of power on the basis of linguistic units one could read the article by Kudlip Nayar on "Whose country is it anyway" that appeared on "The Island" on 30th November 2006.
On Olcott Buddhists. I am glad that finally Mr. Tissa Devendra has realised that the term Olcott Buddhist has nothing to do with the school a particular person has attended. However, he appears to be concerned of the use of the term Olcott rather than a term such as Themparadu used by Mr. Meththananda whom I respect very much and call the father of fifty six. However, I have my own views on the Colonel based on my readings and I would come out with my findings as space and time permit me. I must hasten to add that I cannot subscribe to the view that we could not have stood up to Brits on our own.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>