The need for a political solution - Part 3

Speech delivered in Parliament recently by R. Sampanthan MP on President Mahinda Rajapakse's policy statement.

(Continued from December 20)

It is in this background, Sir, that the new President has been elected. The positions enunciated by him in regard to the peace process need to be subjected to an in depth analysis.

He states that his policy is to protect the country without dividing or breaking up the country. We would all very much welcome that provided it can be achieved in a rational way. In order to achieve this he states firstly that a government infrastructure will be created. That will inter-alia safeguard the unitary nature of the State.

The first advocate of federalism in this country, Sir, in the mid 1920s was Mr. S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike. That was before Mr. S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike got embroiled in Sinhala nationalism. I must however state in defence of the former Prime Minister S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike that if he had been allowed to implement the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact, this country would not be embroiled in the mess in which it is today.

The next advocates of a federal form of a government were the Kandyan Sinhalese leaders, the Kandyan National Association. When they went before the Donoughmore Commission in the late 1920s, the Kandyan Sinhalese leaders advocated a federal arrangement comprising three units - one in the up-country areas for the Kandyan Sinhalese, one in the low-country areas for the low-country Sinhalese and one in the North-East for the Tamil speaking people.

The recognition of the North-East as a federating unit of the Tamil speaking people by the Kandyan leaders was the manifestation of a historical reality and it must be acknowledged and appreciated that these leaders were prepared to speak the truth as early as late 1920s.

The Tamils Sir, did not at this point of time advocate federalism. The Jaffna Youth League opposed the Donoughmore Scheme and demanded "Poorna Swaraj", much more than what the Sinhalese wanted total independence for the whole country.

The Jaffna Youth League took a decision in April 1931 at a meeting presided over by the famous Indian politician Kamaladei Chattopadhaya to boycott the elections held to the State Council under the Donoughmore Scheme. I state this Sir, to establish the truth that the Tamils truly wanted Sri Lanka to flourish as a fully independent country and wanted to be a part of that independent country. Even before the country attained independence that was the position of the Tamil people.

The circumstances under which the Federal Party and Mr. S.J.V. Chelvanayakam came to demand federalism have been outlined by me. The annual convention Sir, of the Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi, the Federal party assembled at Trincomalee on the 19th day of August.

1956 demanded that in view of the several discriminatory legislative and administrative measures of successive governments and since the unitary system of government had failed to ensure the elements of democracy and had become the constitutional instrument for the planned liquidation of the Tamil speaking people that the present pernicious constitution be replaced by a rational and democratic constitution based on the federal principle with the federating unit enjoying the widest autonomous and residuary powers consistent with the unity and the external security of Ceylon.

This was Sir, well-nigh 50 years ago in 1956 at the Federal Party Convention in Trincomalee. I as a young lawyer of 23 years was present and saw the resolution being passed. The position of the Tamil speaking people has only got infinitely worse in the succeeding fifty years.

The severe discrimination and injustice I have outlined occurred mostly after 1956. Most of the physical violence against the Tamils was after 1956. Democratic verdicts in the North East since 1956 as I have stated before have supported a federal system of government.

The Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi, the Federal party and its successor, the Tamil United Liberation Front having failed to achieve a federal system of government., the Tamil United Liberation Front on May 14, 1976 at its convention passed a resolution demanding total sovereignty. Eighteen out of 19 Tamil Members of parliament returned from the North-East at the General Elections in 1977 were from the TULF.

The Tamil people did not take part in the making of the 1972 and 1978 Constitutions. These constitutions did not have the consensus of the Tamil people. The Tamil people have rejected outright the 1972 and 1978 Constitutions. Both of which entrenched the unitary system of government.

Since 1994, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party - SLFP, the People's Alliance - PA and the Untied National Party - UNP and UNF have progressively accepted a federal system of government as being the most suited system of government for this country. That was the position of the leaders of the two political parties, the two political formation, even at the time of the last Presidential Election.

The JVP had only one Member of Parliament in 1994. The JHU was nowhere in Parliament. The current President was a member of the SLFP - PA Government, that accepted a federal system of government from 1994. He surely, Mr. Speaker, subscribed to that policy.

It is not my intention to embarrass the new President, Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse. But I do want to raise the question whether all that has happened in the past 50 years and what has happened since 1994 particularly in regard to the SLFP - PA. UNP - UNF is to be obliterated because a presidential candidate in my humble view somewhat hastily signed two agreements, one with the JVP and the other with the JHU.

I do not wish to engage in a discussion of the verdict at the last Presidential Election. It can be dissected and analysed from various dimensions. But I do wish to categorically state that the new President has no mandate from the North-East to impose on the North-East the perpetuation of unitary system of Government in the guise of wanting to sustain the ceasefire and continue with the peace process.

The fact is that it is a unitary system of government, which is the cause of the conflict and indeed the war, cannot be swept under the carpet. It will be good for everyone to remember that Sir, any attempt by the President to do so would be the assertion of a majoritarian hegemony. It would be the anti-thesis of the recognition of pluralism and diversity. It would be autocratic and undemocratic.

This country is multi-national, multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-cultural. A unitary system of government would be the anti-thesis of the recognition of the distinct identities and the aspirations of the distinct people's who inhabit this country. It would give them no political space an would compel them to look for independent space.

Several constitutions the world over federal in character demonstrate the recognition of this reality. It is my earnest submission Sir, that the imposition of unitarianism and majoritarianism would inexorably lead to alienation and separation.

His Excellency the President's policy statement Sir, also refers to the concept of traditional homeland and self determinations allowing an ethnic group to break away from Sri Lanka. It is apparent he was referring to the Tamil people who are a distinct nationality or a distinct nation.

The English, the Scottish and the Welsh are accepted as distinct nations who together constitute the United Kingdom. The Tamils who live in Sri Lanka are an ancient people with their own history, traditions, civilization, dance, drama, music, very rich langauge, customs, the own economy and the will to live together.

Efforts to subordinate them have accentuated their distinct identity. Sinhalese people are likewise a distinct nationality or a distinct nation with their own langauge, their own music and their own history. This does not mean, Sir, that the Sinhala nation and the Tamil nation cannot live together in unity in Sri Lanka. It is certainly possible and it is only if that happens in that way that a Sri Lankan identity can ever come into existence.

The Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement of 29th July, 1987 recognizes that the Northern and Eastern Provinces have been areas of historical habitation of the Sri Lanka Tamil speaking people who have at all times hitherto lived together in this territory with other ethnic groups.

There are ancient Sinhala villages Sir, in the North-East which cannot be denied and which must be accepted. They must also live with us on equal terms. There can be no question about that. We also have the Burghers living in the North-East over a very long period of time. What the Tamil speaking people have opposed is state-aided Sinhala colonization which has been a recent occurrence.

I do not, Sir, consider it necessary to furnish any statistics in regard to the Northern Province. Nobody in his senses will dispute that it is largely Tamil speaking.

What has been the position of the Eastern Province in relation to the different peoples and I think those statistics must be placed before the House. I table, Sir, the figures in regard to the Eastern Province between 1827 and 1981 and I request. Mr. Speaker, that you kindly direct that this statement which I table be included in the Hansard. 1827, Sir, was a census based on religion; 1881 to 1981 the census were based upon race - (Interruption) 1981 is the last authentic census as far as the North East is concerned.

In 1827 the Tamil speaking population in the Eastern Province was 99.24 per cent. The Sinhala population was 0.53 per cent. In 1881 the first census by race the Tamil speaking population was 92.82 per cent.

(The Hon. (Dr.) Sarath Amunugama - Minister of Public Administration and Home Affairs)

Does that include Muslims also?

(Mr. R. Sampanthan)

Everybody, Muslims and Tamils. There is no distinction between us. The Sinhala population was 4.66 per cent. In 1921, the Tamil speaking population was 92.95 per cent.

(The Hon. (Dr.) Sarath Amunugama)

Why do you not differentiate between the Muslims and the Tamils?

(Mr. R. Sampanthan)

That is available in the table that I am placing in the Hansard and you can see it. Sir, as I said before I have been disturbed by my Friend, in 1921 the Tamil speaking population was 92.95 per cent and the Sinhala population was 4.53 per cent. In 1946, the Tamil speaking population was 87.80 per cent and the Sinhala population was 9.87 per cent.

State aided Sinhala colonization had commenced at that point of time. In 1953 the Tamil speaking population was 85.55 per cent and the Sinhala population was 13.11 per cent. These were the figures at the time of the signing of the Bandaranaike-Chelavanayakam Pact in 1957.

In 1963 the Tamil speaking population was 79.25 per cent and the Sinhala population was 19.90 per cent. These were the figures at the time of the signing of the Dudley Senanayake-Chelvanayakam Pact in 1965. In 1981 the last authentic census in the North East, the Tamil speaking population was 74.4 per cent and the Sinhala population was 24.92 per cent. These increases Sir, in the Sinhala population as I have explained earlier are attributable solely to state-aided Sinhala colonisation.

Be that as it may. Sir, is it not abundantly clear that it is in the land in the North-East that the Tamil speaking people have their homes, because these figures establish conclusively that they substantially lived there. These were not homes given to them by the state. These were their ancestral homes which belonged to their families for generations.

What is wrong in calling the North-East the homeland of the Tamil speaking people which is the absolute truth, unless you have an insidious plan with an ulterior objective?

During the several anti-Tamil pogroms, Sir, that I referred to earlier, Tamil people living in different parts of the country outside the North-East were attacked and were compelled to seek refuge. They were refugees in various public buildings, schools and temples in Colombo being looked after by many Sinhalese people. They were transported by government, sometimes in ships and other times in other public transport, to the North-East.

(To be continued)