[lg policy] The Tamil Question in Sri Lanka Part 4

[Harold Schiffman]

The Tamil Question in Sri Lanka Part 4


Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow – Tamil Grievances in Sri Lanka.

As a genuinely detached and impartial observer of the Sri Lankan
political scene I get flak from all sides. I refuse to be suckered by
battalions of straw men into defending a position that I do not hold –
I will not adopt the position of Sinhala nationalists who claim that
Tamils in Sri Lanka have never had anything to complain about. Neither
will I accept that the Tamil Tigers were simply freedom fighters
defending an oppressed minority.

Someone calling himself ‘Maham’ says about an article I wrote for Le
Monde diplomatique: “A highly prejudiced and one-sided article. The
Tamils have been continually ill-treated by the racist Sinhala
majority. They never wanted to give the due political rights to the
Tamils. From 1948 for about 30 years Tamils fought for their rights in
a peaceful way. Take the case of the Bandaranaike — Chelvanayagam Pact
and the Dudley Senanayake - Chelvanayagam Pact and what happened to
them? Both the pacts were dishonoured by the Sinhala leaders. When the
peaceful methods failed to achieve anything, then to save the Tamils
from the Pan-Sinhala army and its terrorism, as a last resort the
Tamil youths took up arms.”

Someone calling himself ‘MahamahaRaja’ is clearly not a Tamil.
Reacting to the very same article, he tells me: “Tamils have not faced
any ‘discrimination’ in Sri Lanka. Wanting colonial era privileges to
be maintained for them, in the home of the Sinhalese into which they
were brought like slaves, which they achieved through unwavering
servitude and sucking up to their colonial white masters, is
UNACCEPTABLE! Do some research before regurgitating terrorist
propaganda.”

To state baldly: “Tamils have not faced any ‘discrimination’ in Sri
Lanka” avoids the question: “Why did Tamil separatism become a
powerful enough force to almost topple the state and to lead to a
civil war lasting 30 years at the cost of 100,000 lives?”

Alaska Progressive accused me on Open Salon of being biased against
“Tamils” whom he thinks “are an oppressed minority fighting for
independence... The claim they are terrorists is biased as a Tamil can
claim the Sri Lankan government are the terrorists, just with a better
military.”

Well ... up to a point Lord Copper. One might argue that Tamils are an
oppressed minority (which Tamils?) and evidence could be presented on
both sides of the argument. But Alaska Progressive conflates the terms
“Tamils” (not a homogeneous group, many Sri Lankan Tamils are far from
oppressed; many are obscenely rich and influential; 40% to 70% of them
live outside the “Tamil homeland”) and Tamil Tigers. There is pretty
well universal agreement that the LTTE was one of the more vicious
terrorist groups ever known and they were banned in most countries.

Blame the Brits

Alaska Progressive adopts the knee-jerk reaction of blaming the
British. He seems to be confused in a similar way to MahamahaRaja.
Ceylon was given independence in 1948 without having to fight for it.
After 62 years perhaps some of the blame might be allocated to Sri
Lankan politicians. Many Sri Lankans look back with fondness to the
days of British rule and say that things were better when the country
was a colony. As an Irish citizen, I am well aware of the crimes of
the British Empire.

See http://padraigcolman.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/ethnic-cleansing-in-ireland/
and

http://padraigcolman.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/obama-tortured-by-british-shock/

However let us build a correct case against the British and get the
facts straight. Alaska Progressive gets it wrong when he focuses on
the British practice of importing indentured labor from south India.
The British did indeed do this but the plantation workers were not
generally recruited by the Tamil Tigers. The British have a lot to
answer for but bringing in Tamil slaves has nothing to do with the
fight for a Tamil homeland. The Plantation Tamils’ homeland was in
South India and it was Sri Lankan politicians who tried to send them
back there (like Jefferson sending slaves ‘back’ to Africa even if
they had not been born there). Different kind of Tamils, AP! Real life
is complex. Plantation Tamils did (and do) have grievances but they
are generally addressed through their trade unions rather than through
terrorism. Thanks to the vagaries of the Sri Lankan economy and
electoral system the Plantation Tamils’ unions are not without
influence.

Britain’s main contribution to conflict in Sri Lanka is the perception
that they favoured an educated Tamil professional elite to the
detriment of the Sinhalese majority.

AP says that I give only a “cursory” account of Tamil grievances. I
will here try to redress that perception.

Tamil grievances – yesterday

Although there had been many events leading up to it, the immediate
cause of the long and bloody civil war occurred in July 1983, “Black
July”. Over many years there had been incidents where ill-disciplined
police or military had carried out savage reprisals, rather in the
manner of the Black and Tans in Ireland, on innocent Tamils. July 1983
was a paradigm shift in terror. Thirteen soldiers were killed by the
LTTE. Anti-Tamil riots ensued and lasted for ten days with property
being destroyed and up to 3,000 people being killed and 200,000
displaced.

These horrific events left an indelible mark on the Tamil psyche.
Atrocities were perpetrated on innocent Tamils all over the country
and many fled to the north for refuge. Those who could afford to fled
abroad, from where they provided ongoing financial support for the
LTTE.

There were also reports of incredible courage shown by selfless
Sinhalese people trying to protect their Tamil friends and neighbours.

Michael Roberts, a Sri Lankan historian and anthropologist, looked
back on these events from the perspective of 25 years: “The militant
movement for separation gathered thousands of new Tamil recruits and a
rejuvenation of commitment among most SL Tamils, as well as a wave of
support in international quarters. Sri Lanka also received pariah
status on the world stage.”

Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has not been able to enjoy to the full its
recent victory over terrorism because this pariah status lingers on
with the Tamil diaspora finding sympathetic hearing in the west.

The pressure for violent Tamil separatism had been building mainly
from 1956. Sinhalese-Buddhist activists helped Solomon Bandaranaike
and the SLFP win the elections of 1956 and were determined to claim
their reward by making the new government honour its pledges to
elevate Sinhala to the status of the sole national language. Many
Sinhala students only had unemployment to look forward to and resented
the fact that coveted government jobs required a fluency in English
which they did not have. Bandaranaike was not untypical of a tradition
in Sri Lankan politics of employing high-flown rhetoric in the pursuit
of electoral success without necessarily intending to do much to
fulfil promises once in power.

A group of about 200 Tamils gathered on Galle Face Green for a silent
peaceful protest against the SLFP’s legislation to make Sinhala,
spoken as a first language by 70% of the population, the only official
national language. The police were given orders not to protect the
protesters and anti-Tamil mobs were allowed to take the law into their
own hands. Violence spread from the Green to the whole country. The
death toll in the riots of June 1956 was 150, small, perhaps, by the
standards of ethnic violence elsewhere in South East Asia, but this
first violent encounter between Tamils and Sinhalese in modern Sri
Lankan history was a shock to the system and many thought it could
have been avoided. The warning was not heeded and further wounds were
suffered and continue to be endured to this day.
Perhaps in something of a panic, Bandaranaike tried for reconciliation
by providing, through the Tamil Language Act, for Tamil to be used for
administrative purposes in the north east. The government tried to
appease Tamils by modifying the language policy, only to arouse the
wrath of the Sinhala activists. In the riots of April 1958, the death
toll was higher, around 600. The government was persuaded to back down
from the compromise it had agreed with the leader of the Tamil Federal
Party, S.J.V. Chelvanayakam, whereby concessions should have been made
on language, on devolution and on colonisation of Tamil areas by
Sinhalese.

In Being a Tamil and a Sri Lankan, Professor Karthigesu Sivathamby
wrote: “If I may not be misunderstood by my non-Tamil friends, what
happened in post-1956 Sri Lankan politics was not so much the
implementation of Sinhala as the sole official language, but
Sinhalisation of the entire administration and political machinery.
The Tamils were prepared to learn Sinhala and there were in Jaffna
Buddhist monks teaching that language in the better-known schools. The
Muslims also learnt Sinhala. It was, however, not the use of the
Sinhala language, but the insistence on Sinhalising the staff and the
geographical areas which made Tamils and Muslims hold on steadfastly
to their north eastern areas and identities. When they were threatened
in the areas where they were working and had established themselves as
its people the slogan of the Traditional Homeland began gradually to
emerge”.
Although he identified himself with Sinhala Buddhist nationalism
Bandaranaike was assassinated by a Buddhist monk. This symbolised the
disappointment with Bandaranaike of the extreme elements of Sinhala
Buddhist nationalism. His wife pressed ahead with discriminatory
language policies and her successor, JR Jayawardene, instituted
constitutional changes which undermined democracy and further weakened
the position of moderate Tamil politicians.

In a ham-fisted attempt put right what was seen as an unfair advantage
for educated Tamils in education and the professions and a cynical
attempt to win votes, further grievances were created. Professor
Kingsley de Silva has astutely commented that The Sinhalese are a
majority with a minority complex and the Tamils are a minority with a
majority complex.

Sinhalese-dominated governments contributed to the worsening situation
by stupidity and cupidity and many acts of commission or omission. The
first Republican constitution, which was adopted on May 22 1972,
marked the beginning of a new phase of ethnic conflict because it
consolidated the status of the Sinhala language and elevated Buddhism
to the status of “foremost among religions”.

Section 29 of the Soulbury constitution which gave some protection to
minorities was abolished. State policies were decided in a cabinet
where Tamils were not represented and so Tamil parties could not
influence change.

Sri Lankan Tamils saw the new constitution as a legalistic mechanism
for excluding them from full recognition within the nation of Sri
Lanka. They began to move away from campaigning for protection of
their minority rights, towards assertion of the right to
self-determination.

Tamils had been so dependent on state employment that a quota system
which made entry to the professions and to scientific and technical
education more difficult for them caused a great deal of bitterness
and frustration. The reduction in admissions was so severe that it was
felt as a loss of rights rather than loss of privilege.

In 1979, the people of Jaffna were further alienated by a state of
emergency and a counter-insurgency operation by the army. The LTTE
targeted Tamil policemen, informers and government supporters. In
revenge for the killing of a Tamil UNP candidate and many policemen,
the Jaffna Library, home of 90,000 volumes and many rare manuscripts,
was burned to the ground, it is alleged, with government collusion.

Sinhalese youth might feel alienated from a system which embodied
class privileges. Indeed they felt this strongly enough to mount two
bloody uprisings which threatened to topple the state. Tamil youth had
the added alienation of being made to feel like ethnic outsiders.
These intelligent and disaffected young men added a volatility and
violence to Tamil politics and helped to form an ideology of
separatism.

One can understand why frustration with peaceful politics led to
violence but one also has to question whether the horror unleashed was
proportionate to the grievances. Almost a year ago, the LTTE was on
the verge of certain defeat but Prabakharan would not give up, perhaps
hoping that pressure from other countries might save him. Civilians
turned on the LTTE who attempted to forcibly recruit men and women in
the Puthumatalan area. Several LTTE cadres were killed and many
injured. This incident occurred when the LTTE attempted to forcibly
recruit a young girl, despite her protests. According to civilians who
escaped from the area, the LTTE had dragged the girl and torn her
clothing until she was almost naked. This incident had incited her
relatives and people in the vicinity who then attacked the LTTE
cadres. At least six vehicles in which the group had come had been set
on fire by the angry civilians. Later the people surrounded an LTTE
political office in the area and set it on fire too. Later, in
retaliation, a group of armed LTTE cadres came to the area and
indiscriminately attacked unarmed civilians, killing and causing
injuries to several of them in the presence of the humanitarian
agencies working in the area.

In Outlook India Ashok Mehta, (Major General (retd) former GOC of the
Indian Peace Keeping Force) wrote: “The LTTE’s principal handicap has
been Prabhakaran. Because of him, the Tigers missed several
opportunities for a political settlement—from the devolution package
to even better offers later from president Chandrika Kumaratunga and
prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. Chasing the chimera of Eelam,
Prabakharan became a liability.”

Mrs Rajeswari Balasubramaniam is a writer and human rights campaigner
who lives in the UK. She was one of 21 members of a group called
“Tamil Diaspora for Dialogue" who arrived in Sri Lanka last year and
appealed to LTTE leader Prabhakaran for the release of innocent
civilians trapped in the No-Fire Zone. Mrs. Balasubramaniam said that
it was time for the LTTE leader to rethink how productively he could
have used his abilities by creating a new Tamil community through the
democratic path.
"We Tamils who have borne the brunt of suppression, oppression,
battered and bruised over the years must forget the past and think
anew. We know that it is not easy to forget the past after what we
went through was hell for many years it is not easy but you have to
forget the past". She continued, “Those members of the Tamil Diaspora
who are especially beating the war drums from the cool comfort and
safety of their homes in foreign capitals around the world must think
anew and learn to live in a united Sri Lanka where all could enjoy
equal rights".
DBS Jeyaraj, wrote: “The Tamils need to remind themselves that the
LTTE, despite its prolonged campaign, has ultimately achieved nothing
for the Tamil people. If the LTTE had converted the military strength
it once enjoyed into bargaining power at the negotiating table, Sri
Lankan Tamils would have been much better off. It did not and in the
process has brought misery and despair to the Tamil people.”

Having said all that, the end of the war brought further grievances.
The government forces were accused of shelling hospitals and killing
innocent civilians. Around 300,000 civilians were held in refugee
camps which were called welfare camps by the government and
extermination camps by more extreme elements of the Tamil diaspora.

(See http://agonist.org/padraig_colman/20090826/sri_lanka_s_displaced_people_part_3)

The word “genocide” was bandied about, to which President Rajapaksa
responded: why would he be spending taxpayers’ money on feeding
refugees and providing medical care if he wanted to wipe out the Tamil
race? The government said that the LTTE were using civilians as human
shields.

Tamil grievances – today

The language issue exacerbated divisions from 1956. Today, Tamil is on
a par with Sinhala as an official language but this needs to
implemented and Tamil-speaking officials need to be recruited quickly
to the public service throughout the nation. Tamils have been queuing
up in Jaffna to join the police force in the north.

Jehan Perera, executive director of the National Peace Council of Sri
Lanka, says that the Tamil community needs reassurance after a spate
of extortions, kidnappings and murders targeting Tamils during the
war. A "confidence-building measure would be to ensure the physical
and mental security of Tamil citizens living throughout the country".

A grievance in the past was “colonisation”. Some argued that the
central government, under cover of developing “bare land” was engaged
in a process of Sinhalese settlement similar to the Israelis in
Palestine. Such settlements by Sinhalese, assisted by the government,
allegedly had a sinister agenda of infiltrating the Tamil “homeland”
and diluting Tamil representation. Economic regeneration and
re-integration needs to be handled sensitively. Reconstruction should
not just be for the profit of southern business. This danger is
epitomised by reports that the people of the north are not unanimously
overjoyed by being gawked at by tourists from the south.

In the early 1980s before the war, agriculture and fisheries accounted
for more than 50% of the economy of the northern region of Vanni, said
Muttukrishna Saravananthan, an economist and lead researcher of the
Point Pedro Institute of Development [http://pointpedro.org/] in
northern Jaffna District. Thirty years of war have devastated the
economy of the north and east. The de facto state operated by the LTTE
did nothing to improve or even maintain the infrastructure.

The government was criticised for keeping refugees in camps. It is now
being criticised for releasing them because they have no homes or jobs
to go to and there is till a danger of mines.
India is applying pressure to have the 13th amendment of the
Constitution revived in order to bring devolution of power to the
north and east. The president claims that he is planning to do this
but not everyone thinks it is a panacea.

Rajavarothaya Sampanthan, leader of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA),
said that he was confident that the government would solve the
national problem in a constructive manner although he did not believe
that the 13th Amendment was the solution.
The position taken by Dayan Jayatilleka (former ambassador to the UN
and admirer of Fidel Castro) and others is that devolution under the
13th Amendment is essential to prevent future unrest. Columnist
Malinda Seneviratne believes that any form of federalism or devolution
risks continuing fragmentation and that economic development will be
the main factor in reintegrating the north and east into the rest of
the nation. “If minority grievances going unheeded leads to political
unrest and violence then it is in the interests of those who voted for
Rajapaksa and the UPFA to have such grievances addressed. My only
demand was that grievance must be undressed of the frills called
myths, legends and fantasies”.

DBS Jeyaraj wrote in the Sri Lanka Daily Mirror on 24 April 2010:
“Whenever demands or proposals are put forward to devolve more powers
so that the Tamil and Muslim peoples of the Northern and Eastern
provinces could have a greater role in administering their areas of
historic habitation, one of the standard responses is to point out
that more Tamils and Muslims live outside those two provinces. It is
also an incontrovertible fact that the greater part of Tamils of
recent Indian origin described generally as Upcountry Tamils or
Plantation Tamils or Hill country Tamils reside in the seven Sinhala
majority provinces...The crucial question is whether these Tamils
living outside the Northern and Eastern provinces enjoy political
representation in Parliament and Provincial Councils corresponding to
their numerical strength in the seven southern provinces...The stark
reality of general election 2010 is the decline of Tamil political
representation outside the north and east.”

It is worrying that Tamils are under-represented in mainstream
politics and this could lead again to frustration and a return to
arms.

The 17th Amendment would benefit the whole nation not just Tamils as
it provides human rights protection and curbs on the powers of the
police.

Tomorrow?

So far, a separate Tamil state no longer seems to be on the agenda of
anyone committed to actually living in Sri Lanka, although elements of
the diaspora might still entertain such fantasies. As Jeyaraj wrote:
“The future and well- being of the Tamil people are inextricably
intertwined with that of Sri Lanka and its people. All future efforts
to secure rights and share power have to be within the unity,
territorial integrity, and sovereignty of Sri Lanka.”

Members of the formerly militant and armed separatist parties
mentioned above have condemned the setting up of a “Transnational
Government” abroad.

Douglas Devananda of the Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) : “The
parliamentary elections held recently have proved that there was no
room for hardliners in the Tamil political scene. People in the
country and the Tamils from the North and the East at large wish to
live in peace forgetting their past horrible experiences. The cry for
separatism has done enormous damage to the Tamils in the country.
Unlike previous leaders, President Mahinda Rajapaksa is bold enough to
deal with issues which pose a threat to the unity and integrity of the
country. The country has tremendous confidence in President Rajapaksa.
Therefore, when the whole country is looking towards a bright future,
extraneous forces which cannot digest the healthy political
developments in the country have now embarked on an idiotic move
called `Transnational Government’. I am confident that the selfish
action of a handful of LTTE proxies is not going to take them
anywhere. Hence the Tamils abroad and in Sri Lanka should be cautious
of these sinister moves to destabilise peace that prevails in the
country”.

The Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) leader V. Anandasangaree
said, “The intended ‘Transnational Government’ by the LTTE proxies is
sheer stupidity. The elements opposed to the people’s co-existence in
the country are all out to create another racial calamity for their
existence abroad. People such as V. Rudrakumar in the USA and his
allies in other parts of the world are trying to continue with their
ulterior motives to destabilise the peace created in the country after
three decades”.

Leader of the People’s Liberation of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE) D. Sitharthan
said, “Even after people gave their verdict in the North and the East
at the parliamentary polls sidelining the TNA, the LTTE proxies are
trying to deceive the people abroad and in the country by coming out
with gimmicks such as forming a ‘Transnational’ government abroad.
When the LTTE was active there were people who were thriving by
showing themselves as supporters of the outfit. However, with the
annihilation of the LTTE those who supported it are finding it
difficult to survive. Therefore, they are resorting to all sorts of
stunts to revamp their activities. Foreign Governments should be
cautious of those elements and ensure that their sinister moves are
curtailed”.

Rajavarothaya Sampanthan, leader of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA)
said that he was confident that the government would solve the
national problem in a constructive manner.

Is there hope for the future?

Some companies who are investing in the north and east are giving
priority to finding employment for former inmates of the IDP camps.
The government has been rehabilitating former Tigers and providing
education and counselling for former child soldiers forcibly recruited
by the LTTE (http://mondediplo.com/blogs/rehabilitating-the-tigers).

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization is giving returning families
seeds, tools, poultry and other assistance worth over US$670,000 for
the next planting season.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is providing a $150 million emergency
loan to the government to support the reconstruction of
infrastructure, restoration of essential services and revival of
livelihood opportunities in war-affected regions.
The Indian government is financing the reconstruction of rail links
between the north and east and the rest of the country.
The Central Bank of Sri Lanka said several banks are opening branches
in the region to facilitate economic activity. Banks currently
operating in the region have also committed to grant new credit
facilities in the northern and eastern provinces, amounting to $493
million in 2010 and $616 million in 2011.

Government authorities have begun to distribute boats and engines that
were recovered during the fighting.
[http://defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20100504_07] The government imposed
fishing restrictions during the conflict, but they are gradually being
lifted.

The UN Development Programme (UNDP) has begun helping to repair and
rebuild irrigation channels, access roads and agro-wells. UNDP
spokesman Tahseen Alam said these initiatives, focusing on agriculture
and fishing, should help jump-start the local economy. "The aim is for
these industries to become self-sufficient without relying on external
aid".

In Why Truth Matters Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom write: “There
is a reason that truth and reconciliation commissions are called truth
and reconciliation commissions. The truth is prior and is a condition
of the reconciliation; if the truth is not on offer, then
reconciliation is not possible. If rhetoric is allowed to edge truth
and truth-seeking out of the way, it will become difficult to get the
truth on the record”.

The President has announced the establishment of a commission to
investigate possible war crimes during the closing months of the
conflict. Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch is not impressed, seeing it
as a ploy and delaying tactic to deflect efforts by the UN to conduct
an investigation.

Support for Constitutional Reform and a United Sri Lanka.

The President of Sri Lanka established the All Party Representative
Committee (APRC) to draft a set of constitutional reforms that would
enhance the democratic rights and freedoms of all it’s citizens so as
to ensure long-term stability and growth. Dr Colin Irwin of the
University of Liverpool with his Peace Polls made an important
contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process. He has been
surveying reactions to the APRC proposals throughout Sri Lanka.

The report on the latest survey were published a few days ago. The key
findings were:

• The preliminary APRC proposals have gained more Sinhala support
after the war so that they are now equally acceptable to the Sinhala,
Tamils, Up-Country Tamils and Muslims.
• Although the majority of Tamils and Muslims across Sri Lanka want a
unitary state a significant minority of Tamils from the Northern
Province still want to keep the ‘right to secession’. However most of
them will give this up for the complete ‘package’ of APRC reforms.
• The President, political and religious leaders can all influence
support for these preliminary APRC proposals but although Eastern
Tamils will follow their politicians on this issue Northern Tamils
‘Don’t Know’ how to respond to theirs.
• Although all communities strongly support language and fundamental
rights Tamil concerns about the special status of Buddhism has
increased after the war as a political issue.

Irwin comments: “Throughout the years of similar negotiations in
Northern Ireland there was a considerable lack of understanding of
what was really going on in Northern Ireland in the USA. There many
Americans of Irish descent continued to support the Irish Republican
Army (IRA) and their aspiration for a united Ireland with little
knowledge or appreciation of the power sharing arrangements being
negotiated under the terms of the Belfast Agreement. Similarly, it
seems to be the case that the Tamil diaspora are not fully aware of
the efforts of the APRC to find a constitutional solution to their
country’s problems. In contrast to the detailed APRC proposals tried
and tested here (i.e. in the Peace Poll survey) the members of the
Tamil community around the world were recently provided with the
following statement in what they called a Tamil Referendum:

‘I aspire to the formation of the independent and sovereign state of
Tamil Eelam in the contiguous north and east territory of the island
of Sri Lanka on the basis that the Tamil speaking people in the island
of Sri Lanka make a distinct nation, have a traditional homeland and
have the right to self determination.’”

This “referendum” produced a combined result of 99.68% for the Tamil
Eelam proposition and only 0.32% against.

As a scientist, Irwin is not impressed with this “referendum”.

“It was very important that the Belfast Agreement was put to the
people of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (the South
of Ireland) in a referendum to give the peace agreement political
legitimacy. In that referendum held on May 22nd 1998, 71% of the
people of Northern Ireland voted ‘Yes’ and in a public opinion poll
conducted on behalf of the parties in the negotiations, just 2 weeks
before the agreement was signed by the British and Irish governments
on Good Friday 1998, 77% said they would support the agreement. The
opposition of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), who were able to
get their members to vote against it, can explain the drop of 6%
between the results of the poll and the referendum. So the poll was
very accurate.

The results for the test of the APRC proposals in Sri Lanka are
certainly as good as if not better than the results for the Belfast
Agreement poll, and in Northern Ireland the people there were able to
make peace on the strength of those results. Hopefully, now that the
elections are over in Sri Lanka the new government will take steps to
bring the APRC proposals into constitutional law. With effective
implementation all the people of Sri Lanka can reasonably expect to
share in all the benefits that will inevitably flow from the peace and
stability that these reforms can bring.

Referendums that only offer the options of independence for Tamil Elam
or the status quo can’t achieve this. Neither of these two options is
what is wanted in Sri Lanka now. The people there are prepared to move
on. However, it remains an open question as to whether or not the
political leadership in Sri Lanka will take this opportunity to
resolve the ‘national question’ once and for all.

As far as the people are concerned this door is open. Given the
unprecedented electoral mandate handed to the President and his
government by the people they are now in an exceptionally strong
position to lead them through.”

It is a gargantuan task to rebuild this nation after 30 years of war.
The economy has been ruined and it will cost a lot of money and effort
to put it right. Sri Lanka has great potential. As Irwin puts it: now
is the time for Sri Lankans of all races to be “taking their rightful
place as a prosperous, vibrant island nation in a region of the world
where economic success can only be held back by instability or
despotism.” There is an immense amount of talent among the Tamil
diaspora. It would be good if substantial numbers of them could return
to Sri Lanka and help rebuild their nation rather than picking over
the scabs of grievances, however recent, and fomenting further unrest
by encouraging separatist militancy. The President has not been
proactive in the past about the APRC proposals. It would be a better
use of the public relations skills of the Tamil diaspora to exert
pressure to implement the APRC proposals rather than continuing a
possibly bloody quest for the chimera of Tamil Eelam.

http://agonist.org/padraig_colman/20100602/the_tamil_question_in_sri_lanka_part_4
-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list