13 A: THE AMENDMENT OPPONENTS ARE FLOORED

Dr Kamal Wickremasinghe

The reaction of the inveterate critics of the government to the proposed constitutional amendments, as usual, is not based upon reason. Their attempts to whip up hysteria that the two proposed amendments, especially the proposal to repeal Article 154(G)(3) as “dangerous”, and that they will render the 13th Amendment “worthless” are based not on reasoned logic, but on the entrenched position that carving out of an ethnic enclave in the North needs to be achieved at all costs.

As per Lord Byron’s observation, their problem seems to be one of “reasoning themselves out of a position which they did not reason themselves into” in the first place!

It is no secret that the noisiest critics of the amendments belong to a Colombo minority of NGOs and the neocon “kultur” set campaigning for the implementation of the most virulent form of the 13th Amendment(13 A) of the constitution.

Their emotional attachment to the idea of a separate state as the solution to the ethnic issue seems to be based on a politically and economically irrational mindset formed through long-term indoctrination by foreign meddlers, and due to varying degrees of compromise of integrity. Naturally, they are forced to rely on baseless, shallow arguments.

In one of the most absurd readings of the politics of the proposed amendments, one “possessed” sounding female commentator who frequently pours out anti-government bile at a certain website sees the amendments as a key component of a “power-drive” by the government leadership.

The supposition that the government needs these amendments to strengthen its power should not be dignified with comment, other than to say that there are much less convoluted methods of strengthening government power if that was the objective.

Same writer, in common with another regular critic with a history of involvement in separatism, suggests that the 13th Amendment still exists only because “the Rajapaksas” have some concerns about Indian and Western reactions to its abrogation.

The servile mentality of these critics seems to make them oblivious to the historical lesson Sri Lanka has learnt that external forces, irrespective of their military strength or persuasive power arising from other grounds, should never be allowed to determine crucial domestic policy. Five hundred years of historical experience on this front was reinforced by the events during the last thirty!

But more importantly, their speculation is based on lack of rigour of analysis of the inner workings of the external ‘forces’ they are alluding to.

The examples of the sources of the feared “external pressure” cited make good comic copy - the list includes pressure from India, CNN propaganda, and expected future influence on US policy by neocon slaves Susan Rice and Samantha Power (who have just taken over as National Security Advisor to Barack Obama and US Permanent Representative to the UN respectively). It is asserted that failure to take note of these “significant” trends will “swing back the pendulum” against the Sinhala “nationalists”.

As a means of adding venom to the Indian ‘bogey man’ myth, a rumour is being circulated that India supported the holding of CHOGM only under the promise that the Northern PC election would be held under the 13th Amendment.

Samantha Power	I. K. Gujral	Atal Bihari Vajpayee	Susan Rice

If all Sri Lankans think in this manner after 60 years of ‘independence’, it can be argued that we never deserved independence!

Intervention in Sri Lanka is the last thing in India’s mind

Let us look at India - Sri Lanka’s war has seen Indian governments of both major political persuasions come and go with great regularity, with the Sri Lankan events greatly contributing to the collapse of governments made up of multi-party alliances that included the Dravida Munnetra Kashagam (DMK) of South India.

The Indian National Congress (INC) under Rajiv Gandhi was in power from 1984 to 1989, and won back power in 2004. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was in power in the interceding years albeit rather shakily, winning elections in 1996, 1998 and 1999-2004.

Apart from the material support of Indira Gandhi to the northern terrorist groups pre-1984, and Rajiv Gandhi’s dramatic interventions in 1987, at least partly due to ‘invitations’ by J. R. Jayawardene, India did not seek to intervene forcefully in Sri Lankan affairs at all. Apart from the traditional Indian foreign policy premise of non-intervention, factors such as the national acrimony towards the LTTE following the murder of Rajiv Gandhi played a part in this policy of non-intervention. The vote at the UNHCR in 2012 and 2013 were determined by a different set of factors only marginally related to the broader Sri Lankan communal issue.

It must be remembered that in 1996, the INC left the United Front government led by I. K. Gujral due to their refusal to cease relations with the DMK following the revelation of the DMK link to the murder of Rajiv Gandhi. Again in 1998, Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s BJP government collapsed due to AIADMK withdrawing its support, leading to new elections in 1999.

The seesawing of the fortunes of war during these years provided ample opportunities for India to seek intervention if they so desired; But India did not. To assume that India will now seek to force a “solution” to Sri Lankan problems is naive in the extreme in terms of foreign policy analysis.

In terms of strategic thinking, Sri Lanka would naturally anticipate the BJP government in power to be the scenario under which India would be more likely to seek to intervene, due to their Hindu sympathies - however, there are strong ideological as well as historical reasons as to why the BJP is unlikely to support a separate Tamil Province in Sri Lanka. Ideologically, BJP is the political offspring of the Indian socio-cultural group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), formed in 1925 to counter British colonialism and fight against Muslim separatism; The BJP is ideologically opposed to the “Fabien socialism” of the IAC and its alleged “pro-Muslim bias”, including the IAC position on Kashmir.

The founder of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), the predecessor of the BJP, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee was a political leader who opposed separatism in all forms, and invited the Muslim population in India to choose a prosperous and safe life in a united India, enjoying the traditional Hindu tolerance and communal respect, similar to the position of the progressives in Sri Lanka on Tamil separatism.

Dr Mookerjee left the INC in 1950 in protest over Ali Jinnah’s demand for a Muslim state of Pakistan. After being arrested for protesting against the grant of special status for Kashmir, he died in detention under controversial circumstances in 1953. His martyrdom caused the reversal of Nehru’s attempt to grant ‘special status’ for Jammu and Kashmir.

The comments last week by the BJP Rajya Sabha member Ravi Shankar Prasad in Jaffna reflected these values of the BJP - he told the northern Tamil leaders in no uncertain terms that India cannot be expected to solve their “political problems”. Similar sentiments were expressed by BJP’s Leader in Lok Sabha and Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj during the visit of the team led by her last year.

Such comments, coming from senior BJP leaders are highly significant because BJP is the “Hindu” political party of India that is more likely to be “obliged” to provide support to the largely Hindu Sri Lankan Tamils, as distinct from the secular INC.

It is highly likely that the BJP will have a strong showing at the 2014 elections under the leadership of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, though a number of Senior BJP leaders including the leader L. K Advani, and Jaswant Singh (Mrs. Ashok Kantha’s father) appear to be lukewarm about his appointment as the party's election committee chief, paving the way for him to lead the election campaign.

The experience of the INC government, after nearly 40 years of unofficial, semi-official and official involvement in Sri Lanka, under different leaderships, will clearly dissuades them from “getting involved” barring the exigencies of a political alliance they would be forced to make with one of the “Kazhagams” in Tamil Nadu.

US trickery needs be discounted

Preparing against the other apparent major “phobia” of the critics, of the neocon robots Susan Rice and Samantha Power wielding the big stick against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC and elsewhere would be a classic exercise in “shadow-boxing”.

It must be recognised that under the revengeful eye of Robert O. Blake, the US has played all their cards against Sri Lanka - short of a bombing campaign - they have nourished the extremist elements of the Tamil diaspora, manipulated elements of the Indian bureaucracy, and have introduced anti-Sri Lankan “resolutions” at the UNHRC. Their ambassador in Colombo is penetrating deep in to the communities of the North and the East, offering USAID “projects”, and is financing many a NGO in Colombo.

There will be many among the diaspora, in Jaffna and the East, and definitely the NGOs who will be happy to receive their money, promising almost anything they would be asking for. However, as in the past, the results will not be promising for the simple reason that the vast majority of Sri Lankans read their true intentions, through the smiles and dollar notes. Sri Lanka cannot decide its future, especially developments that will affect the crucial issue of its territorial integrity, based on such considerations. This is not to say that the government lower its guard against such undermining - the people need to be educated against falling prey, and local collaborators should be duly penalised.

But the decision on amendments to 13 A of the constitution and its ultimate fate should be decided by the Sri Lankan government, and the Sri Lankan government alone, in keeping with the wishes of the people.

Professional critics do not seem to want to understand

It is clear from the debate on 13 A, and the proposed amendments, that fundamental argument that the proposed “devolution” is not a creative, 21st century “solution” to the real and perceived problems of the Tamil people evades the pro-devolution forces. Those who cry out for the implementation of an undiluted version of the half-baked solution hatched-in-a-hurry by some South-Indian minders of Rajiv Gandhi are essentially cynics who represent the TNA, others associated with the NGOs, and professional criers with grievances against the government - poverty of arguments essentially demonstrate this fact.

The members of the TNA are clearly attempting to ride on the back of the professional protesters - Suresh Premachandran is already protesting the government grants of "huge" contracts to the Chinese in the Northern Province, on the grounds that it could "threaten Indian security". He threatens that "we don't want to allow certain external forces to enter the Northern Province and use it for their own agendas." Clearly he does not seem to be prepared to recognise any central government authority in "his" neck of the woods - it is this type of uncompromising, unrealistic megalomania that will come to the surface more and more, if separatism is encouraged.

Nor does R. Sampanthan, one of the few surviving members of the outfit that created the concept of Eelam in the country, demonstrate any mellowing of his ambitions of becoming the leader of a separate province.

His recent remark that "It's a fanciful notion that devolution would lead to separation" could have been convincing if not for the memory that, as Tom Sawyer (in Mark Twain's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer) found out upon joining the new order of Cadets of Temperance, and promised to abstain from smoking, chewing, and profanity - "To promise not to do a thing is the surest way in the world to make a body want to go and do that very thing".

In this case, Sambanthan might well "try", given the chance! The message in all this to the professional critics of the government is that "we can find you an argument; but we are not obliged to find you an understanding".