Call to address 'legitimate Tamil grievances'

Neville Ladduwahetty

NATIONAL QUESTION: During his first press briefing the new US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Robert O. Blake had stressed the need to address 'legitimate Tamil grievances'. The previous Ambassador, Jeffrey Lunstead also stressed the need to address 'legitimate Tamil grievances'. Clause 21 of the resolution of the European Union of September 7 also called on the Government of Sri Lanka to 'address legitimate Tamil grievances'.

Despite these constant references to 'legitimate Tamil grievances' no member of the International Community has gone that extra mile and enunciated the specifics as to the content and character of these grievances.

Even members of the Sri Lankan Tamil community who today constitute less than 10 percent of Sri Lanka's population, keep reminding us of the need to address their grievances without specifically defining what these grievances are. Any problem has first to be defined before a solution is sought.

Without clearly enunciating the problem the Tamil community has come to the conclusion that the source of their grievances is the structure of the state, and the mere transformation of the state into a federal structure, would somehow resolve their grievances.

The South has serious doubts about the efficacy of this approach where the South is expected to accept solutions without being informed the specifics of the issues involved i.e. Tamil grievances. In the absence of the specifics of Tamil grievances what guarantee is there that federalism would in fact resolve their grievances? Under the circumstances, the hesitancy on the part of the South to accept federalism carte blanche is understandable.

Furthermore, federalism would not address the grievances of the Tamil community that live in the south who today constitute more than 50 per cent of the Tamil community.

In the meantime the Government is engaged in an exercise to address Sri Lanka's national question through the mechanism of an All Party Conference that is to be assisted by an All Party Representative Committee and by a Committee of Professionals.

Since no representative of the International Community or any Sri Lankan Government in power has ever enunciated the specifics of these grievances the current exercise the Government is engaged in would result ONLY in developing a Southern consensus that may or may not address Tamil grievances.

In the absence of the specifics of grievances, what is being sought is an opportunity for the Tamil community to govern themselves through a federal arrangement in the hope that this would address their grievances.

The ground reality is that the Sri Lankan Tamil community is today less than 10 per cent of the country's population. Furthermore, more than 50 per cent of this population live in the South.

Therefore, federalism to the Tamils in the Northern Province and the district of Batticaloa would NOT provide the opportunity for the grievances of the majority who live in the south to be addressed.

Federalism under these circumstances would be creating opportunities only for those residing in the Northern Province and in the district of Batticaloa in the Eastern Province to govern themselves since these are the only areas of Tamil concentration.

Federalism would then mean creating two non-contiguous federal units, one in the Northern Province and another in the district of Batticaloa. Separate federal units are also necessitated by the social and cultural differences that exist between the Tamils of the Northern Province and Batticaloa in the Eastern Province.

These differences were highlighted during the 1977 election when only 31.5 per cent of the Tamils in Batticaloa that had a 71 per cent Tamil majority voted for a separate state. More recently these differences were brought into a sharp focus when the Karuna faction broke away from the Vanni faction.

Thus, a single contiguous area of Tamil concentration within which the Tamils could govern themselves cannot be delineated.

The lack of consensus as to the nature of grievances within the Sri Lankan Tamil community was reflected in a 1995 article signed by several signatories and titled 'Peace, Lies and Ethnic Conflicts' in which they stated that "Tamil nationalists assert that the 'inalienable right of self-determination' and exclusivity of the 'traditional homeland' are essential and indispensable prefixes for the resolution of the ethnic conflict...Those are archaic and redundant notions"(Island International, July 19, 1995).

The signatories also claimed that: "it is a fact that throughout our post-independence history; the State has systematically discriminated against the Tamils and other ethnic groups. That is the ethnic conflict" (Ibid).

In contrast, Fr. Emmanual states that: "Some in Jaffna find such views" (reference to notions of self-determination and traditional homelands as being archaic and redundant) "myopic and masochistic"(Sunday Observer, August 13, 1995). A statement issued by The Centre for Policy Alternatives also refer to the discrimination faced by ethnic minorities "almost from the time of independence"(The Island, September 23, 2006).

These diverse views reflect not only the lack of consensus as to what Tamil grievances are, but also the fact that the location has a direct bearing on felt grievances. In these circumstances, federalism as a solution to Tamil grievances would address the grievances of ONLY segments of the Tamil community and not the Tamil community as a whole.

There was a time however, when there was specificity to the grievances cited. During the late 1980s the grievances cited were, language, the policy of admission to universities (standardization), state sponsored colonization schemes and disenfranchising of Tamils of Indian Origin.

Except for issues relating to shortfalls in the implementation of language policies, most others have been non-issues for nearly two decades. Therefore, under these circumstances of changing grievances it is not realistic to negotiate political arrangements that for all intents and purposes are meant to address Tamil grievances for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, since grievances are bound to change even further with time, should not the political arrangements contemplated be sufficiently flexible to accommodate such changes?

Despite these ground realities the aspiration of the Tamil community is for them to govern the Northern and Eastern Provinces as a single unit. The lack of a Tamil majority in the Eastern Province was circumvented through the mathematical innovation of spreading the numerical majority in the Northern Province over both provinces, thus transforming both provinces into a single Tamil majority region.

This was to be reinforced by the mirage of a Tamil-speaking entity committed to a common political goal. What they over looked was the fundamental democratic need to seek the consent of the Peoples of the Eastern Province to such a proposition.

The fact that the Tamil community as a whole is opposed to the concept of democratically seeking the consent of communities in the Eastern Province for a merger with the Northern Province reflects a dismissal of and a disrespect for the fundamental freedoms and human rights of the communities in the Eastern Province.

The fact that the Tamil community hopes to realise their aspirations by denying the basic rights of others reflects poorly on their sense of justice when it comes to the fulfillment of their own community's aspirations which they expect should come regardless of the impact and costs to others.

In this regard it is heartening that the President has publicly acknowledged the right of the people of the Eastern Province to decide their future during his meeting with a British Defence Study team. The President stated: "The destiny of the eastern people can only be decided by themselves.

Even according to the Indo-Lanka Agreement, the future of the eastern people had to be decided by means of a referendum". Continuing he added: "It is a myth if anyone believes that a person like Prabhakaran could decide the destiny of the eastern people, and no one can deny that democratic right of the eastern people" (The Island, September 29, 2006).

The demand for federalism presumes the creation of a single political unit where the Tamils would be a numerical majority. On the other hand, if through the means of a referendum the Peoples of the Eastern Province decide against the formation of a merged political unit, would federalism lose its appeal, in which case what chances are there for the realisation of Tamil aspirations?

Under such circumstances the best prospect for the Tamil community is not to seek exclusionary arrangements where they hope to govern themselves in some part of Sri Lanka, but to seek arrangements where they become an integral component of the governing processes of the whole country. It is through the pursuit of arrangements that encourage inclusion that all communities can hope to realise their aspirations.

Repeated calls have been made by repesentatives of the International Community in recent weeks for the Government to address "legitimate Tamil grievances", apparently in the mistaken belief that the South has no interest in resolving issues that are of concern to the Tamil community.

However, if without such prejudices the International Community acquaints themselves with the complexities of the issues involved, they would realise that what is stated as grievances are really aspirations, the fulfillment of which would require the violation of fundamental freedoms and human rights of other citizens.

As to the suggestions that the Sri Lankan Tamils could govern themselves in areas of Tamil concentration as in the case of Quebec, Wales and Scotland, it is clear that this would apply only to the Northern Province and the district of Batticaloa in the Eastern Province. Limiting governance to these areas would not satisfy Tamil grievances/aspirations. This is the conundrum of Sri Lanka's national question.

Therefore, the appeal to the International Community is that if they want to be helpful they should first acquaint themselves with the ground realities before they propose solutions such as federalism to Sri Lanka's national question.

Furthermore, it is hoped that the International Community would appreciate that the whole Sri Lankan nation, having suffered decades of a senseless conflict, is more anxious to resolve its national question with justice to all communities than anyone in the International Community.