Should the Tamil Diaspora get involved with the reconstruction work in the north east? When there is no sign of reconciliation being visible, following the post war situation and the recent Presidential election?

[sunday, 28 February 2010 19:49]

News

“In our zeal for political reform we must be on our guard” Sir Pon Arunachalam’s.

A word of caution as there is an ominous sign lay in wait? Thus, we wish to emphasise to our entrepreneurial members of the Tamil Diaspora that as long as “Mahavamsa Ideology” exists within the Srilankan establishments there can be no progress in the reconciliation between the two communities. Haven’t we learnt many bitter lessons in the past? The past history has shown much deceit in gentlemen agreements and deliberate abrogation of written documents. The terms like reconciliation, rehabilitation and reconstruction had specific references and meanings till not so long ago in contemporary Srilanka. Not any more, those specific references and meanings have been lost to be replaced by more recent political duplicity. All post-war developments and consequent relevance and priorities of this President and his advisers have made the Tamil community to be on the guard especially the Tamil Diaspora. However, these terms such as reconciliation, rehabilitation and reconstruction are more relevant to the Tamil community than the Srilankan state.

Tamils make constant references to the rehabilitation for our war victims or IDPs and reconstruction of war-ravaged Tamil areas. Likewise, the phrase reconciliation has acquired a newer and broader connotation than was intended. The focus intended for Tamil people has been shifted to do with the government and the larger Sinhala political opposition or within the divided Sinhala polity. We wish to stress this cautious message to prevent any disappointments as trust deficiency is the main underlying problem in Srilankan politics. However, before we and you embark on any reconstruction plans a full consultation with the Tamil Diaspora is essential. Let us hold our brakes until we really know what sort of political solution is to be meted out to the Tamils of the Island? Temptations for the use of your funds for reconstruction as investment should be curtailed till you are sure that it would benefit our people and you, not the government.

Looking at the present political climate in Srilanka; one has to be cautious or even need to refrain from volunteering on any of its reconstruction work that is to be under taken in the north east. It is quite apparent that the country is sliding towards an Autocratic Feudal system of one family rule. The Srilankan government based on “Mahinda Chindanaya” is under taking many hurried plans to erase the face of the Tamils homeland. Our people are unable to express their anger or protest on this matter due to heavy military presences that is being maintained within northeast. Secondly, the curse on our society; we have many enemies within us, who are plotting to have their share of power to control our community while being servile to this president and government.

The so called 'democratic' verdict in Sri Lanka very clearly goes against the paradigm of 'post-war national reconciliation' the International Community attempts to impose on our people of the island. As the Sinhala Nation mandated Mahinda Rajapaksa and the Tamil Nation either boycotted or were deprived, but those who voted for regime change showed a sharp difference of opinion in what is meant by reconciliation.

If reconciliation is the point of scrutiny, it has to be approached as reconciliation of two Nation States in this island. Which was the clear message that we got from the Presidential election? The results of this election we hope; would open the eyes of many among Tamil diaspora, who were thinking that moderate politics means hoping on a 'post-conflict' regime change supported by the Sinhala Nation. We were wrong; the chauvinistic Sinhala majority is still vibrant and determines the Island belongs to them alone.

The leading political faction representing the Tamils seems to have taken a clear decision on this issue and advocated their desire. Even though a section of Tamils have favourably responded to it, the majority seems to have rejected it by spontaneously boycotting the elections. This was clearly visible in the North. The mixed nature of demography and new electoral arrangements make it difficult to read it in the East.

However, the voting pattern in the entire North and East sends an obvious message to Tamil paramilitary outfits collaborating with Mahinda Rajapaksa and to their few supporters in the diaspora that they are not acceptable to Tamils. Tamil circles in the diaspora expect new vigour to be shown in the political organisations of Tamil nationalism, both in the diaspora and in the island. Colombo-centric system will enter into a new crisis with a bitter division of its own capitalism is the analysis coming from media circles in Colombo.

The election results places India in a more precarious position in its geopolitical competition, especially with China. As far as the West is concerned, which has lost opportunities of military intervention, diplomatic intervention, human rights intervention and now change-of-regime intervention – all because of twisting the national question of Tamils – the failures in the southern node of South Asia are sure to reflect on its credibility in the northern node too. The level of democracy in the island was best illustrated by the defeated presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka in an interview during the early hours of Wednesday the 27th January 2010, when he called for the intervention of 'outside governments' to prevent dictatorship and to protect democracy in the island.

If we come back to the hurried reconstruction plans without reconciliation activities by the President, show’s that the President is smarting from the results he obtained from all Tamil areas including in the capital Colombo. While campaigning, President Rajapaksa gave assurances that economic and infrastructure development would reach the often-neglected north and east. However, the government’s approach to the development of predominantly minority areas is contributing to minority fears and alienation. According to foreign NGOs based on the island, government plans remain unclear to local communities. Political leaders have not been consulted or informed of reconstruction plans. Military influence over policies as well as a strong military presence in these areas contributes further to the sense of unease.

Even the term “minorities” is politically loaded. In President Rajapaksa’s May 09 victory speech he said, “We have removed the word minorities from our vocabulary…There are only two peoples in this country. One is the people that love this country. The other comprises the small groups that have no love for the land of their birth. Those who do not love the country are now a lesser group.” While some commentators praised the speech as evidence of the president’s commitment to an ethnically egalitarian Sri Lanka, others viewed the claim that there are “no minorities” as ominous. Minorities in Sri Lanka, particularly Tamils, feel as though their basic rights are under assault. A rash of threats following the end of the war, targeting Tamils and others considered lacking in patriotic zeal, created an atmosphere of potential intimidation. The need for reconciliation is essential to have Tamil grievances heard and addressed. The national problem is not just about ethnic peace and power-sharing it does implies more. Bridges have to be built on trust to make progress with the peace front. Initiative has to be taken and has to come from outside the political spectrum. Failing which we may lose the peace dividend that the nation has been hoping for and betraying our heroes who attained martyrdoms.

For close to three decades, discussion of how to create a lasting peace in Sri Lanka focused on constitutional change. The debate centered on the degree to which power would be exercised at the provincial and local levels, and on the units to which power would devolve. The military victory changed the nature of the debate. Even before the end of the war, Rajapaksa had backed away from the constitutional formulas that had been floated during previous administrations. The argument for constitutional change had been that it presented if the existing constitutional provisions Sri Lanka adopted in 1987, when it adopted the present provincial organization and powers.

This suggests that the path to reintegration of Tamils into national political life will not run through constitutional change. The government has no appetite for it. Tamil politicians regard the present relationship between the central and provincial levels of government as a cynical trap that was sprung on them in 1987, and by extension they are mistrustful of constitutional gimmicks that could once again prove illusory. Instead, the path to reintegration will involve political bridge-building and alliance formation. The parliamentary elections due in April 2010 will be a critical opportunity to make this happen.

This could be the first step in creating a new political compact; conversely, a political campaign focused exclusively on Sinhalese politics could reignite the alienation that provided the fodder for the ethnic conflict in the first place. However, the best chance in moving the center of gravity on Tamil opinion away from the LTTE and its military campaign is, by giving Tamils their due rights. On the other hand, the military victory, in the view of mainstream Sinhala politics of Sri Lanka, had made this unnecessary and indeed objectionable to a victorious government and the chauvinistic masses.

During his campaign President Rajapaksa promised a continuation of political development in the provinces as well as free elections in the north. He spoke of “a Sri Lankan solution”—thereby implicitly rejecting the aspects of previous settlement proposals loosely modeled on the Indian constitution. He indicated that this would involve full implementation.

Over the past two decades, Western countries became increasingly critical with the LTTE. The Sri Lanka’s loud propaganda of misinformation, demonization and discrediting LTTE helped many western democracies to ban this organisation and to ignore the Srilankan government’s record on human rights, its treatment of IDPs, and actions toward the end of the war. They have been relatively slow to recognize that the solutions that seemed promising during the periods of active political involvement by Norway. Post war cries by the west on human right abuses, war crimes and cruel treatment to the IDP’S fell on the deaf ear of Srilankan state. Why? They had the support from the oppressive states having seats in the UN Security Council who were able to over turn the Western democracies resolution on Srilankan war crime investigation.

Rajapaksa has meanwhile burnished Sri Lanka’s long-standing ties with China and also moved closer to Russia, Burma, Iran, and Libya. China has invested billions of dollars in Sri Lanka through military loans, infrastructure loans, and port development. At the same time, Sri Lanka has economic needs that the United States and Europe are better placed to supply. The first Rajapaksa administration’s refusal to acknowledge any misconduct vis-à-vis Tamils and IDPs strained its relations with the EU. Sri Lanka could still lose its duty-free access to the EU market for a portion of its garment exports, as well as thousands of jobs in that sector.

The stakes in new engagement between Sri Lanka and the Western nations involve more than Sri Lanka’s political future. Sri Lanka is located at the nexus of crucial trading routes in the Indian Ocean. The United States has an interest in deterring terrorist activity and curbing piracy that could disrupt trade in the area. Therefore the United States cannot afford to “disengage” with Sri Lanka. This would argue for a more subtle and sophisticated approach, recognizing that the political game has changed in Sri Lanka, but also focusing on U.S. economic, trade, and security interests.

Finally, it is up to us to take a deep painful look and to correct our course to prevent our future generations taking up arms. The cause for freedom and justice is inviolable and sacred. The world should stop shedding crocodile tears and excoriate the Srilankan government for its genocide on Tamils and the wanton destruction of their ancestral homeland. We have made clear, that there can be No Peace or Reconciliation without Just solution. Freedom and equality for Tamil Nation, we seek stability not chaos for our homeland. Reconstruction and rehabilitation will flow from the diaspora once we have full freedom to live as equal citizens with dignity. Till then be cautious when departing your generous wealth for reconstruction work. The British Foreign Office defended Mr Miliband’s decision to address the Global Tamil forum meeting on 24th February 2010 in the Gladstone’s committee room within the parliament. A spokesman said: “The UK firmly believes that the only way to achieve lasting and equitable peace in Sri Lanka is through genuine national reconciliation”.

“True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice” Martin Luther King Jr. Authored by: Dr.V.Rajayogeswaran Director Global Peace Support Group UK.

வடக்கு கிழக்கிலும் பார்க்க இரசாயன பாம்ச குடும்பம், வெள்ளைவான் டக்லஸ் குடும்பம், கருணா குடும்பம் எல்லாம் நல்ல வளர்ச்சி அடையும்.

எந்த லூசன் இந்த வளர்ப்பு திட்ட ஐடியாவோட கிளம்பினவன்? முதல்ல இராணுவத்தை வெளியேற்றினால் தான் வளர்ப்பு திட்டம் செய்ய முடியும். இல்லையோ ஆங்கிலத்தில் கூறினால், It is not an investment zone, it is a militarized zone!