SEPARATE THE PROCESSES
The only similarity between Mathematics and Politics is that at least in English both end with tics, though I dabble in both. In Mathematics one is concerned with consistency while in Politics the more one is inconsistent one is more successful. In Mathematics one defines the concepts and objects very carefully leaving no room for ambiguity but in politics one has to be as vague as possible so as to satisfy as many voters as possible, and also to interpret the resolutions, agreements etc., to the advantage of one's political party. The present crisis in the Panel of experts and the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) appointed by the President is on one hand due to the ambiguity regarding the role of the Panel of experts, and on the other hand due to manipulation by interested parties to achieve what they want.
The Panel of experts is supposed to assist the APRC, but nobody knows precisely how they are to provide the relevant assistance. It was known for sometime within the APRC that the Panel of experts were to submit a report(s) on or around the 6th of December 2006. Now two reports together with two other documents have been submitted with one of the reports being called the majority report. However it appears that at least the majority report had been leaked to Hindu even before it was submitted to the APRC. We do not know how it happened, but it is clear that there is an attempt to give the impression that the so called majority report has to be adopted as it carries more weight not only because there are eleven signatories against the four in the "minority group", but also due to the fact that the majority group is multi ethnic, whereas the minority group consists of Sinhalas only. Of the eleven in the majority group six are Sinhalas, but it has been revealed that three of them are public servants who were not supposed to sign the report. Apparently those ladies and gentleman have been questioned as to how their signatures appeared on the report. In any event when the three public servants are left out it leaves the majority report with eight signatories of which only three are Sinhalas. Thus out of nine Sinhalas on the Panel of experts who could have placed their signatures on a "report" only three are in agreement with the majority report, while all the five non Sinhalas are signatories to the report. The position of the MEP on the "majority" report is that it should not form the basis of a discussion, though anyone is free to refer to it. Further the MEP rejects the report in toto as it is worse than any of the "solutions" that have been proposed so far including Chandrika's package and its associated constitutional amendments. The report if implemented would demarcate the country into ethnic enclaves thus aggravating the Tamil problem, and of course creating other problems in the process. Though many pundits object to the majority decision in the legislature it is clear that in appointing the Panel of experts those with vested interests have manipulated to pack the panel with a majority of federalists. However, there is no point in objecting to the composition of the panel at this stage after the reports have been released, but it has to be placed on record so that the general public would know how a majority report recommending ethnic enclaves among other things saw the light of the day first in India. It is also clear that these manipulators want to ignore the Sinhala opinion in finding a "solution", and impose on them solutions that they have rejected time and again in the past.
In the APRC the situation is worse, as far as numbers are concerned. Apart from the main parties UNP and the SLFP, there are the LSSP, CP, four Muslim Parties, three Tamil Parties, JHU and the MEP, unless the JVP returns on a future date. It has to be emphasised that some of these parties do not have elected members in the Parliament, and have been rejected by the people at elections. If the parties do not reach consensus, and if there will be more than one report one does not need to be a political analyst to predict which parties would group into a majority. It is very likely that the report(s) would be finally considered by the All Party Conference, with a similar composition, that would take a decision after deliberation. However, there are other important matters that have not been addressed to by the government. As we have said in these columns there are two processes in respect of the Tamil problem. One is the killing process of the LTTE, while the other is the peace process, which was said to have two facets. One facet is the so called peace negotiations with the LTTE, while the other is the ongoing process on working out a solution by the government and the other parties. The All Party Conference, APRC and the Panel of Experts are all involved in working out such solutions, though there is no unanimity on the identification of the problem. While some parties are of the opinion that the problem is due to the majority Sinhalas not giving the due share of power at the centre to the Tamils, there are parties which grasp the problem differently. According to them the Tamil elite who had been given privileges by the British, with almost equal representation in the legislature with the Sinhala elite, objected when they had to lose some of their privileges due to natural developments, and incited the ordinary Tamils against the Sinhalas and the so called Sinhala government, calling the removal of the privileges as injustices to the Tamils. The Tamil elite observed with glee the "activities" of "our boys" in the seventies, and even after more than thirty years of terrorism, it appears that the diaspora has not changed its allegiance to the "head boy".
The different facets of the so called peace process should be treated poles apart. There are some individuals and political parties that are of the view that the All Party Conference should come out with a set of proposals that could be presented to the LTTE at the negotiations. They think that a "reasonable" solution would weaken the LTTE politically and militarily. It has to be remembered that military action is decided by politics and that military action and political action are not independent of each other, though some pundits pretend that it is so, when they talk of so called political solution to the "ethnic problem". If the LTTE is given a proposal, which the "international community" also expects, it will begin from there and ask for more. The LTTE will never be satisfied with any solution that is offered and would always want Elam and nothing else. The Maoist saying that guerrilla fighters live among the people as fish live in water is not applicable in the case of the LTTE, which is supported and maintained by external agencies. The LTTE can dictate terms to the people unlike a fish who cannot control the water in which it lives. As we have mentioned there is a difference between Tamil nationalism and Sinhala nationalism. In Tamil nationalism the leadership is given by the politicians from the days of the Ponnambalam family in the nineteenth century. The Tamil polity only follows the politicians, and this is one of the reasons that the LTTE terrorists cannot be compared to fish in water. The Sinhala nationalism is guided by Bhikkus and others who are not "real" politicians, and the politicians and the political parties very often follow the polity, only to win the votes.
The LTTE with its killing process has to be treated separately from the peace process. LTTE has brought only misery to the Tamils in more than thirty years and has not deviated an inch from its original goals set up by Chelvanayakam and others to win a separate state. Chelvanayakam followed the policy of "little now and more later" in his so called Gandhian way, and Prabhakaran is only following the former without referring to Gandhi. Chelvanayakam was a political uncle of Prabhakaran, and there would not have been the terrorist movement without the so called Gandhian movement. However, it appears that almost all the other "boys" have now grown up and are willing to find a solution to the problem as they perceive, through negotiations with the government and the other political parties. Though there are differences in perceptions of the problem, it is not a futile exercise to engage in talks with the other Tamil parties, and the other parties that propose federalism as a solution, in order to find a way out. However, this process should not be tied up with the killing process of the LTTE, with which it is useless to have negotiations. There should not be a facet to the peace process, which deals with the LTTE.
The solution(s) of the All Party Conference should be placed before the people, and the government should make up its mind on implementing the solution without wavering or being dictated by the "international community", that has double standards when it comes to the LTTE and the Tamil problem in Sri Lanka. There should be only one facet to the peace process that should not be linked with the killing process of the LTTE, which has to be and can be crushed militarily by the Sri Lankan armed forces, in spite of the infiltrators working for LTTE money.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>