And some people will continue to bat for Eelam and the LTTE...

A man by the name of S. P. Thamilselvan was killed by the Sri Lankan security forces in 2007. Almost two years before that in an interview with the online version of TIME, this man warned that if ‘Colombo’ does not accept the LTTE’s version of history and reality, it will have to pay for it and that the costs would be terribly high and the damage irreparable.

That was a threat and certainly not spoken in the tone of one who placed any value on negotiated settlement. When he was killed, someone was ‘saddened’. That someone told the online daily, ‘France 24 - International News’ that ‘[t]he loss of Tamislevanin this way would be a very big setback to any hope of peace talks in the near future.’ The someone concerned did not mention that it was the LTTE that had scuttled all previous attempts at reaching a negotiated settlement and indeed had pulled the rug from the process launched by the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) signed between the Government and the LTTE on February 22, 2002.

This same someone told Rasheeda Bhagat (The Hindu Business Line) in 2003 that ‘for the LTTE, federalism was actually confederalism’, which in reality, he explained, meant two governments, two foreign ministers, two armies and the like. In other words, when he lamented the killing of Thamilselvan as a ‘setback’, he was confessing that he was for the division of the country. He knew after all how intransigent and obdurate the LTTE was and moreover, saw everything, including negotiations through a military lens, i.e. in terms of the costs and benefits to its overall military strategy.

S. P. Thamilselvan

This someone did not see any ‘great inconsistency’ between ‘what the LTTE is doing in the Vanni and other areas under its control and a federal state’. In a federal state, like in India, he explained, the state has its own courts. The man was giving legitimacy to the LTTE claim of running a de-facto state and didn’t think it pertinent to point out that the Sri Lankan state paid all salaries and pensions, funded all hospitals, medical services and educational institutions, facilitated the supply of medicines and food and at various points even armed and helped in other ways the operators of this so-called ‘state’.

He has gone on record to say, ‘I am sympathetic to the LTTE retaining its army for at least a foreseeable future’. Not surprising for he had previously urged, ‘negotiations between the Government and LTTE should be conducted with parity of status’. He has always insisted that ‘settlement’ should be predicated on the Thimpu Principles, which implies that ‘solution’ must affirm as ‘true’ the Eelamist view of history, never mind the pertinent questions of substantiation. In January 1997 (The Island) and May 1998 (Sunday Observer), Susantha Gunatilleka tells us, this person had pooh-poohed the notion of sovereignty and called for ‘shared sovereignty’ and spoken of ‘two near-states’.

Speaking on the lessons of Northern Ireland for Sri Lanka and quite happily ignoring the differences, especially those of legitimacy and the linkages between demilitarization and democratization, this man spoke of ‘power sharing on the basis of equality’. He has directly and indirectly endorse the LTTE’s claim of being ‘sole representatives of the Tamils’ and thereby conflated uncritically the two categories, ‘LTTE’ and ‘Tamil Community’.

Indo-Lanka Accord

When India, after arming, training and funding the LTTE (and other Eelamist terrorist groups) thrust the 13th Amendment down Sri Lanka’s throat, he warned that it was time for Sri Lankans to know some hard truths about their weakness vis-a-vis the large neighbour who was then wielding a big stick. The 13th clearly boosted the Eelam Project in that it was an attempt to concretize the ‘traditional homeland’ fiction of Eelamist cartography. This person, naturally, engaged in shameless fear-mongering, warning that there would be dire consequences if the Indo-Lanka Accord was not honoured. This was in August, 1987 (Daily News).

Naturally, he was one of the loudest cheer-leaders of the CFA, a flawed document and one which played directly into the hands of the LTTE’s overall military objectives.

For almost two decades, this man argued that the war cannot be won by either party. Even when it was very clear that the LTTE could not survive the determined, clinical and comprehensive military offensive launched by the security forces, he spared no pains to negotiate the surrender of the LTTE leadership. That was the consolation option in reduced circumstances of course; the ‘live-to-fight-another-day’ alternative. All this while strategies were being hatched to evacuate the terrorist leaders to some safe destination, moves which this man could not have been ignorant of.

When a BBC presenter interviewing the then Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar (assassinated by the LTTE) referred to this person as ‘independent analyst’, he (Kadirgamar) had interrupted thus, ‘if you want to associate the word ‘independent’ with regards to [this person], then please use it within quotes’.

Ok, here’s a name. Jehan Perera. Executive Director, National Peace Council. Now this man has batted for Eelam and the LTTE for decades and insisted that the war could not be won. The extent of his sycophancy was once explained by H.L.D. Mahindapala thus:

‘When I met Jehan Perera in Geneva (February 2006) he admitted that Anton Balasingham has not earned a doctorate from any university. He said that he calls him ‘Dr.’ because everyone calls him ‘Dr.’ He agreed to ‘demote’ him but he continues to perpetuate the lie by addressing him as ‘Dr’ in his columns. If he can’t be truthful on a simple and verifiable fact how can he be trusted to be honest on bigger issues?’

Had the political leadership of this country listened to him or had the people of this country not been alert to his politics (the NPC claims to be apolitical in the most insignificant sense of the word, i.e. ‘party-related’, forgetting of course that the LTTE is a party as in ‘organization’) Prabhakaran would still be alive, bombs would be exploding, politicians being assassinated and peace so far away that advocating for it would have continued to enrich racketeers.

Resettlement and reconstruction

Today, Jehan Perera says that the report submitted by three individuals whose neural-credentials are suspect and whose ‘findings’ are based on hearsay and who are clearly swayed by LTTE versions of all related stories, ‘can be used to restore democratic normalcy’ and ‘not as weapon of revenge’. Well, accepting this document amounts to acknowledging it as an element of revenge-intent. Jehan is trying a fast one. As usual.

Normalcy is wanted, let there be no mistake. ‘Normalcy,’ not in the way Jehan perceives it of course, and certainly not in the manner he advocates. The post-war of a 30 year long conflict is necessarily a delicate operation. The government should err on the side of caution and it has, despite errors, by and large done a decent job of resettlement, reconstruction and rehabilitation.

Had it gone along with the recommendations/demands tossed around by the NGO mafia, to which Jehan believes, things could have been far worse. Such advocates were opposed to the notion of ‘phasing out’ with respect to all things military and civilian. Jehan points out that many sections of the Sri Lankan polity have offered cogent arguments that point to factual and legal deficiencies in the report. He stops short of endorsing these opinions. Naturally. Instead he cheers it as being ‘useful’.

He speaks of a ‘Vavuniya Option’, quoting sentiments expressed by some people he labels ‘civil society leaders’. The call is for ‘de-militarization’ and Jehan believes that the ‘report’ can help the process. Sri Lanka embarked on a process of democratization the day that the political leadership accepted that ‘negotiations’ with terrorists was a futile exercise.

That process has passed several landmarks including the holding of elections in formerly conflict-ridden areas. ‘Normalization’ has included clearing land mines, resettling almost all IDPs and rehabilitation and release of LTTE cadres, including children forcibly recruited by Jehan’s friends (such as Thamilselvan). There is still ‘military presence’, but this is inevitable and all things considered not necessarily imprudent given realities. We all wish for a day when civil administration returns to these areas and the citizenship is freed from the restrictions flowing from emergency regulations.

One thing is certain. If there is light at the end of the tunnel, it is no thanks to Jehan Perera, considering his long history of active support for all processes that sought to stop us getting to this point, that of the country being rid of terrorist threat. This latest (‘Using UNSG’s panel report for restoring democratic normalcy, not as weapon of revenge’ - The Island of May 10, 2011) is nothing but an attempt to launder the rubbish he and his fellow travellers have helped put together should be seen for what it. The people of this country would do well to be alert to these and other such machinations. [email protected]

A

man by the name of S. P. Thamilselvan was killed by the Sri Lankan security forces in 2007. Almost two years before that in an interview with the online version of TIME, this man warned that if ‘Colombo’ does not accept the LTTE’s version of history and reality, it will have to pay for it and that the costs would be terribly high and the damage irreparable.

That was a threat and certainly not spoken in the tone of one who placed any value on negotiated settlement. When he was killed, someone was ‘saddened’. That someone told the online daily, ‘France 24 - International News’ that ‘[t]he loss of Tamislevanin this way would be a very big setback to any hope of peace talks in the near future.’ The someone concerned did not mention that it was the LTTE that had scuttled all previous attempts at reaching a negotiated settlement and indeed had pulled the rug from the process launched by the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) signed between the Government and the LTTE on February 22, 2002.

This same someone told Rasheeda Bhagat (The Hindu Business Line) in 2003 that ‘for the LTTE, federalism was actually confederalism’, which in reality, he explained, meant two governments, two foreign ministers, two armies and the like. In other words, when he lamented the killing of Thamilselvan as a ‘setback’, he was confessing that he was for the division of the country. He knew after all how intransigent and obdurate the LTTE was and moreover, saw everything, including negotiations through a military lens, i.e. in terms of the costs and benefits to its overall military strategy.

This someone did not see any ‘great inconsistency’ between ‘what the LTTE is doing in the Vanni and other areas under its control and a federal state’. In a federal state, like in India, he explained, the state has its own courts. The man was giving legitimacy to the LTTE claim of running a de-facto state and didn’t think it pertinent to point out that the Sri Lankan state paid all salaries and pensions, funded all hospitals, medical services and educational institutions, facilitated the supply of medicines and food and at various points even armed and helped in other ways the operators of this so-called ‘state’.

He has gone on record to say, ‘I am sympathetic to the LTTE retaining its army for at least a foreseeable future’. Not surprising for he had previously urged, ‘negotiations between the Government and LTTE should be conducted with parity of status’. He has always insisted that ‘settlement’ should be predicated on the Thimpu Principles, which implies that ‘solution’ must affirm as ‘true’ the Eelamist view of history, never mind the pertinent questions of substantiation. In January 1997 (The Island) and May 1998 (Sunday Observer), Susantha Gunatilleka tells us, this person had pooh-poohed the notion of sovereignty and called for ‘shared sovereignty’ and spoken of ‘two near-states’.

Speaking on the lessons of Northern Ireland for Sri Lanka and quite happily ignoring the differences, especially those of legitimacy and the linkages between demilitarization and democratization, this man spoke of ‘power sharing on the basis of equality’. He has directly and indirectly endorse the LTTE’s claim of being ‘sole representatives of the Tamils’ and thereby conflated uncritically the two categories, ‘LTTE’ and ‘Tamil Community’.

Indo-Lanka Accord

When India, after arming, training and funding the LTTE (and other Eelamist terrorist groups) thrust the 13th Amendment down Sri Lanka’s throat, he warned that it was time for Sri Lankans to know some hard truths about their weakness vis-a-vis the large neighbour who was then wielding a big stick. The 13th clearly boosted the Eelam Project in that it was an attempt to concretize the ‘traditional homeland’ fiction of Eelamist cartography. This person, naturally, engaged in shameless fear-mongering, warning that there would be dire consequences if the Indo-Lanka Accord was not honoured. This was in August, 1987 (Daily News).

Naturally, he was one of the loudest cheer-leaders of the CFA, a flawed document and one which played directly into the hands of the LTTE’s overall military objectives.

For almost two decades, this man argued that the war cannot be won by either party. Even when it was very clear that the LTTE could not survive the determined, clinical and comprehensive military offensive launched by the security forces, he spared no pains to negotiate the surrender of the LTTE leadership. That was the consolation option in reduced circumstances of course; the ‘live-to-fight-another-day’ alternative. All this while strategies were being hatched to evacuate the terrorist leaders to some safe destination, moves which this man could not have been ignorant of.

When a BBC presenter interviewing the then Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar (assassinated by the LTTE) referred to this person as ‘independent analyst’, he (Kadirgamar) had interrupted thus, ‘if you want to associate the word ‘independent’ with regards to [this person], then please use it within quotes’.

Ok, here’s a name. Jehan Perera. Executive Director, National Peace Council. Now this man has batted for Eelam and the LTTE for decades and insisted that the war could not be won. The extent of his sycophancy was once explained by H.L.D. Mahindapala thus:

‘When I met Jehan Perera in Geneva (February 2006) he admitted that Anton Balasingham has not earned a doctorate from any university. He said that he calls him ‘Dr.’ because everyone calls him ‘Dr.’ He agreed to ‘demote’ him but he continues to perpetuate the lie by addressing him as ‘Dr’ in his columns. If he can’t be truthful on a simple and verifiable fact how can he be trusted to be honest on bigger issues?’

Had the political leadership of this country listened to him or had the people of this country not been alert to his politics (the NPC claims to be apolitical in the most insignificant sense of the word, i.e. ‘party-related’, forgetting of course that the LTTE is a party as in ‘organization’) Prabhakaran would still be alive, bombs would be exploding, politicians being assassinated and peace so far away that advocating for it would have continued to enrich racketeers.

Resettlement and reconstruction

Today, Jehan Perera says that the report submitted by three individuals whose neural-credentials are suspect and whose ‘findings’ are based on hearsay and who are clearly swayed by LTTE versions of all related stories, ‘can be used to restore democratic normalcy’ and ‘not as weapon of revenge’. Well, accepting this document amounts to acknowledging it as an element of revenge-intent. Jehan is trying a fast one. As usual.

Normalcy is wanted, let there be no mistake. ‘Normalcy,’ not in the way Jehan perceives it of course, and certainly not in the manner he advocates. The post-war of a 30 year long conflict is necessarily a delicate operation. The government should err on the side of caution and it has, despite errors, by and large done a decent job of resettlement, reconstruction and rehabilitation.

Had it gone along with the recommendations/demands tossed around by the NGO mafia, to which Jehan believes, things could have been far worse. Such advocates were opposed to the notion of ‘phasing out’ with respect to all things military and civilian. Jehan points out that many sections of the Sri Lankan polity have offered cogent arguments that point to factual and legal deficiencies in the report. He stops short of endorsing these opinions. Naturally. Instead he cheers it as being ‘useful’.

He speaks of a ‘Vavuniya Option’, quoting sentiments expressed by some people he labels ‘civil society leaders’. The call is for ‘de-militarization’ and Jehan believes that the ‘report’ can help the process. Sri Lanka embarked on a process of democratization the day that the political leadership accepted that ‘negotiations’ with terrorists was a futile exercise.

That process has passed several landmarks including the holding of elections in formerly conflict-ridden areas. ‘Normalization’ has included clearing land mines, resettling almost all IDPs and rehabilitation and release of LTTE cadres, including children forcibly recruited by Jehan’s friends (such as Thamilselvan). There is still ‘military presence’, but this is inevitable and all things considered not necessarily imprudent given realities. We all wish for a day when civil administration returns to these areas and the citizenship is freed from the restrictions flowing from emergency regulations.

One thing is certain. If there is light at the end of the tunnel, it is no thanks to Jehan Perera, considering his long history of active support for all processes that sought to stop us getting to this point, that of the country being rid of terrorist threat. This latest (‘Using UNSG’s panel report for restoring democratic normalcy, not as weapon of revenge’ - The Island of May 10, 2011) is nothing but an attempt to launder the rubbish he and his fellow travellers have helped put together should be seen for what it. The people of this country would do well to be alert to these and other such machinations. [email protected]