Continuing review of Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka’s book, Long War, Cold Peace:

India the cause not the solution for Sri Lankan problems

H. L. D. Mahindapala

According to my friend Dayan Jayatilleka's own admission his latest book, Long War, Cold Peace, was rushed to the printer's in the hope of getting it out on time to impact on the UNHRC session in March -- a critical session in which the big powers, including India, were preparing to nail Sri Lanka. This, of course, implies that it was meant to be more of a political tract than a scholarly book exploring in-depth the pros and cons (in Marxist jargon "dialectics/contradictions") of the post-Nandikadal complexities, particularly the external forces poking their unwanted fingers in the Sri Lankan kiri buth. Besides, the main thrust of the book doesn't indicate that it was written to defend Sri Lanka.

On the contrary, the contents, by and large, go to back the anti-Sri Lankan forces. For instance, in his book he cites approvingly the latest anti-Sri Lankan international mafia consisting of Frances Harrison, the BBC correspondent who is still counting the dead, Gordon Weiss who is caged in his own phobias and fantasies and even S.V. Kirubukaran, the pro-LTTE activist from Paris who is a permanent anti-Sri Lankan feature in the lobbies of the UNHRC in Geneva. Dayan picks up every bit of muck thrown at Sri Lanka by these one-eyed Jacks and Jills and hails each bit as a part of the growing external forces that are rising to flatten Sri Lanka in one single stroke. He even cites in one of his recent articles a posting in the CNN made by a member of the TGTE (Tamil Ghost of Tiger Eelam) -- the mythical government of Jaffna Tamils which can't even issue a visa to its bogus Prime Minister, V. Rudrakumaran in New York, to go to the toilet next door -- as another piece artillery fired at the GOSL. Reading all this one does not have to be a political scientist to guess on whose side Dayan is right now.

For good or for bad, his book couldn't make the Geneva deadline. Most probably, he was hoping it would be his equivalent of Channel 4 films. What better authority than a former representative of Sri Lanka at the UNHRC to demonise Sri Lanka! But Vijitha Yapa's printing schedules failed to make it in time for Geneva. This, however, hasn't prevented his text being quoted by his favourite anti-Sri Lankan propagandists like Gordon Weiss. Quoting an ex-diplomat of the Sri Lankan government lends greater authority to anti-Sri Lankan lobbyists abroad than their own voices.

Dr. Subramaniam Swamy

Gordon Weiss

Hillary Clinton

This raises a serious moral question. The Sri Lankan situation at the 11th session of UNHRC in Geneva (March 27, 2009) was not radically different from what it is today. It was the first post-conflict session of the UNHRC in Geneva. As stated by Dayan, within a matter of hours Hillary Clinton pushed the EU to move the resolution against Sri Lanka. More importantly, she moved against Sri Lanka with hardly any evidence -- not even a cooked up one like that of Colin Powell against Iraq -- to put Sri Lanka on the mat. They were out to get Sri Lanka. They were playing politics. They were determined to teach Sri Lanka that it can't do what America does day in day out to protect its internal security, with or without Indians tightening their turbans round their giddy heads.

International arena

The only significant change since then has been India's stance against Sri Lanka. According to Dayan, it is India's stance that is critical for victory in the international arena. So was the victory in Geneva due to his diplomatic skills or due to his following the Indian line abandoning the long-term interests of Sri Lanka? India's line was to commit Sri Lanka internationally to the 13th Amendment. Dayan's resolution did just that. Since that is the reality should the credit then go to Dayan or to India? According to Dayan's logic, any Sri Lankan donkey can win in the international arena if it follows the Indian line. So on what basis does Dayan claim it to be a personal victory for his diplomatic skills when he admits that to win all what is necessary is to say "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir", to India? Does he consider such a subservient role as diplomatic skill or stooging?

There is no rationale for any self-respecting Sri Lankan -- particularly in view of the political and administrative costs and failures caused by the 13th Amendment for the last 25 years – to perpetuate the 13th Amendment as God's gift to Sri Lankans. Its presence in the Statute Book is the most degrading insult to Sri Lankan dignity and self-respect. Why? The 13th Amendment is the ultimate symbol of naked Indian imperialism. All of Dayan's political theory -- Marxist or otherwise – should have made him recognise instantly the nature of Indian intervention. Even Indian commentators have gone as far as saying that India's interventions amounts to "bullying" of a small nation. As a "political scientist" he should have been the first to spot the imperialistic character of Indian arm-twisting to serve Indian interests. As an anti-imperialist Marxist it should have been his moral duty to condemn India's role in Sri Lanka. Instead he welcomes it as a benign act of a benefactor whose aim is to restructure Sri Lanka according to his gospel.

Throwing out the 13th Amendment is only way to kick Indian imperialism out of Sri Lanka. Right now India is piqued and highly agitated because Sri Lanka is making a strong bid to overthrow the Indian yoke. However tardy it may be there is an established tradition of Sri Lankans working out their own salvation through their native genius. For instance, it may have taken 33 years to end the Vadukoddian violence launched by the northern Tamil leadership. But they did end the war triumphantly by (1) saving the lives of 300,000 Tamils held as hostage and, above all, (2) restoring normalcy and democracy to the Tamils of the north who were suppressed under the jackboots of the brutal Tamil Pol Pot. America, after ten years and spending $60 billion, is still struggling to avoid anarchy in Iraq, let alone restoring normalcy.

Giving Sri Lanka the breathing space to work out its own paths to peace, reconciliation and progress is the prime need of the hour. Dayan in his Geneva resolution too argued on "the principle of non-interference in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of tates". Despite the pompous rhetoric India has to yet to convince the world that it is committed to the Gujral or Panchaseela doctrines. The Sri Lankans have to fight back to regain their freedom and their right to solve their problems without Indian interventionists assuming the pretentious role of having answers to Sri Lankan problems. The Indians must first prove that they have the capacity to solve their own problems -- from Kashmir to Arunachal Pradesh -- before they step in to solve their neighbours' problems. On top of this, the irony is that India expects Sri Lanka to be beholden to the Big Brother each time the bully kicks Sri Lanka in the guts. Sri Lanka owes nothing to India -- not even the help it gave in the last stages -- because as Lalith Weeratunga, President's Secretary, said recently Sri Lanka would not be in this position if India kept its hands off Sri Lanka.

Furthermore, the Jaffna Tamils are realistic enough to realize that the 13th Amendment was not introduced to serve their interests. If so they wouldn't have opposed it with guns and going as far as assassinating the Indian author of the 13th Amendment. The merged north and east was the best strategic deal devised by the Indians to consolidate their position in the Indian Ocean. Having their proxy in command over the Trincomalee harbour was better than the Chinese having a foothold in Hambantota. With the 13th Amendment we were not handing over power to the Jaffna Tamils. We were handing over the entire northern and eastern coastal belt to the proxies of Indian puppet masters. This was confirmed in the case of Varatharaj Perumal, the first stooge of India. And it is revealed even now with TNA being summoned to Delhi to hold pow-wows on how to further mutual interests.

From the word go, the 13th Amendment has been the legalised backdoor in Sri Lanka for India to manipulate politics in its southern flank. Nobdoy wanted it -- not even the TULF or Prabhakaran. Dayan knows only too well that it was pushed down the throats of all communities and political parties by India through gun boat diplomacy. His distinguished father, Mervin de Silva, has written enough and more on this topic. Besides, if, by any chance, India had done this to Cuba -- Dayan’s ideal Marxist state run by “Saint Castro” -- he would be doing an anti-imperialist Kavadi, in his loin cloth, opposite the South Bloc in Delhi, with Ranil Wickremesinghe and Sampanthan beating the Indian drums to the Tamil extremist rhythm of “Goo-ooo-urang! Goo-ooo-urang!”

India's foreign policy

The 13th Amendment was India's solution to India's neo-colonial problems caused by India's determination to get a foothold in Sri Lanka. It was the veneer for painting India as the goody-goody benefactor when in reality it was the creator of the political evil of destabilising Sri Lanka through the violence of Tamil terrorism bred in the womb of mother India, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the vindictive face of Indian politics. India's foreign policy is based on the hypocrisy that it has been the protector and benefactor of Sri Lanka without acknowledging its unpardonable crime of violating international law, war crimes and crimes against humanity every step of the way, starting from training camps in India to the failed IPKF operations. My friend Susantha Gunatilake has convincingly demonstrated the reaction of the unofficial international community, represented by The New York Times, The Guardian etc., (Daily News -- 6/6/2013), exposing India's violation of international law by invading Sri Lanka on the pretext of dropping humanitarian assistance.

Furthermore, the 13th Amendment has not served any positive or significant Sri Lankan interests, either for any community or the nation as a whole. It has created more problems than solving any. But since 1987 when it was introduced India needed international respectability and legitimacy for its imperialistic interventions in Sri Lanka. Dayan was the first to give that legitimacy in an international forum, in writing, by including the 13th Amendment in his Resolution in March 2009. And having done that he and his allies in India and Tamil diaspora are using it as the legal bench mark against Sri Lanka.

Right now he seems be obsessed with the aim of pushing the 13th Amendment as the panacea to all the national and international problems facing Sri Lanka. Irrespective of the rapidly changing dynamics of the post-Nandikadal developments he sticks doggedly to the 13th Amendment. His ideological roots go back to the time when he was a minister in the puppet regime of Varadaraja Perumal who was a slimy stooge of India. Eventually, Dayan together with his leader, Vardaraja Perumal, found refuge in India. India, pursuing its self-interests, naturally harbours its agents who serve its foreign interests. Perhaps, it is either loyalty to India or the mistaken belief that India can do whatever it wants in the Indian Ocean -- including what Michael Ondaatjee's grandmother did, "piss into it" (See Running in the Family)-- that makes Dayan feel that Sri Lankans are there to polish Indian shoes.

Humanitarian assistance

Of course, in the resolution steered by him in 2009 at the UNHRC he had committed Sri Lanka "to a political solution with the implementation of the 13th Amendment to bring lasting peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka." Whether it was necessary for him to go that far -- mainly to appease India – is questioned by cool-headed, senior diplomats who would have handled the situation more expertly without pushing Sri Lanka into a difficult corner by committing itself to India's 13th Amendment. In hindsight, it is clear that he should have confined the commitment "to a political solution to bring lasting peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka." That would have confirmed him as a sagacious, far-seeing, adroit "political scientist" who had foreseen the coming events and outfoxed the enemies threatening the security and the overall interests of the nation. But he was blinded by his commitment to the 13th Amendment which he should have known was a cure worse than the disease. It was an Indian move that even the Indian forces -- the fourth largest army in the world -- could not implement through its puppet Varathraja Perumal or enforce to subdue Prabhakaran -- the monster created by India. As a realist, let alone political scientist, he should have seen it coming. Trying to force it down the throat of the nation now by raising the bogey of Indian goni-billa does not justify his claims to be a political scientist who can read the future.

Moreover, nothing that was inscribed by him in the resolution of 2009 including --1. the principle of non-interference in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States, 2. the liberation tens of thousands of its citizens that were kept by the LTTE against their will as hostages, as well as the efforts by the Government to ensure safety and security for all Sri Lankans and bringing permanent peace to the country; 3. the duty and responsibility (of the state) to provide protection and humanitarian assistance to all segments of the population, including Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), without discrimination; 4. reaffirming the obligations of States to respect human rights law and international humanitarian law while countering terrorism (Dayan agrees it was just war fought with less violations of humanitarian law than US etc); 5. reaffirming the respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, and its sovereign rights to protect its citizens and combat terrorism, 6. condemning all attacks that the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) launched on the civilian population and its practice of using civilians as human shields; 7. recognizing that the promotion and protection of human rights should be based on the principle of cooperation and genuine dialogue and aimed at strengthening the capacity of Member States to comply with their human rights obligations for the benefit of all human beings -- mattered to the West and the anti-Sri Lankan lobbies. Any commitment by the GOSL to implement LLRC/13th Amendment didn't matter either. They were determined to run over Sri Lanka like a steam roller.

So why is Dayan stoking the fires of that steam roller now? Is it because he feels that his 2009 "victory" in Geneva has not produced any lasting benefit to the nation? It cannot be considered as a landmark victory because it evaporated in the next sessions. His role in 2009 can be dismissed as a pyhrric victory which helped India more than Sri Lanka. In fact, the West could claim that they feel vindicated and justified in opposing his resolution because the very man who steered the resolution is now arguing against the nation he represented, regurgitating the accusations of the West. Since nothing substantial had changed between 2009 and the time he wrote the book -- all the blackmarks he highlights in his book were there in 2009 too -- his moral obligation is to jettison the imperialistic flotsam and jetsam on board and stand by the main objective of defending the nation. But when he goes against his own resolution what is the obligation for others to uphold it?

Diplomatic skills

What Dayan has failed to recognise is that his current stand is condemned in the words of his own resolution. (I refer to 2009 Resolution as "his resolution" because, rightly or wrongly, he claims ownership of victory to his diplomatic skills. Secondly, a section of the Foreign Ministry states Dayan interpolated some parts --particularly the reference to the 13th Amendment -- on his own initiative to appease India.)

Among other things, his resolution said that the UN "(W)elcomes the resolve of the Sri Lankan authorities to begin a broader dialogue with all parties in order to enhance the process of political settlement and to bring about lasting peace and development in Sri Lanka based on consensus among and respect for the rights of all the ethnic and religious groups inhabiting it and invites all stakeholders concerned to actively participate in it." The operative part of it states categorically the need to "enhance the process of political settlement and to bring about lasting peace and development in Sri Lanka based on consensus among and respect for the rights of all the ethnic and religious groups inhabiting it and invites all stakeholders concerned to actively participate in it." In brass tacks, this means that any consensus must contain the consent of both the north and the south. History has rejected the misleading notion that the 13th Amendment introduced to appease the Indian and Jaffna political leaderships adds up to a consensual agreement that would fulfill the aspirations of all communities. That cannot be the meaning of consensus because it applies only to one community, plus India.

Nor will the rights of all ethnic groups be fulfilled only by implementing the 13th Amendment because it violates the rights of non-Jaffna Tamil ethnic groups. And since he knows, through existential experience, that the 13th Amendment, has been bone stuck in the throat of ethnic groups the consensus has to "begin (with) a broader dialogue with all all parties/stakeholders."

His resolution ended by urging "the international community to cooperate with the Government of Sri Lanka in the reconstruction efforts, including by increasing the provision of financial assistance, including Official Development Assistance, to help the country fight poverty and underdevelopment and continue to ensure the promotion and protection of all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights." So where does this leave Dayan when he is condemning his own resolution and aligning himself with the pro-13th Amendment forces?

Internal affairs

His obsession with the13th Amendment blinds him to the unravelling dynamics of the post-Nandikadal developments. This is partly driven by his over-exaggerated impression of India's power in global affairs which even the Indians do not believe in. Indian analysts like Dr. Subramaniam Swamy are warning India not to overreact and alienate Sri Lanka. Swapan Dasgupta of the BJP too has taken a broad swipe at the external interlopers meddling in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka.

Identifying the current source of interference as the Tamil diaspora he says: "Today, the LTTE has been militarily defeated but the diaspora funds are being used to keep alive the old Sinhalese-Tamil divide in politics and international relations . There is peace and growing prosperity in the Tamil areas, and only the political loose ends remain. This in itself is a challenge but the reconciliation process isn’t helped if the diaspora is determined that its unchanging historical memory and hateful vision for the future must set the tone for the country they left behind."

This statement conveys a profound meaning to the current situation. He is just not blaming the Tamil diaspora for funding “to keep alive the old Sinhala-Tamil divide and international relations”. He goes further and puts his finger in the right place when he says that “the diaspora is determined that its unchanging historical memory and hateful vision for the future must set the tone for the country they left behind.” Isn’t Dayan too afflicted by the same “historical memory and hateful vision for the future...”?

In a sense, Dasgupta is also hinting at India’s interventionist policies when he says: “Imagine our reaction if India’s politics was sought to be remote-controlled from Southall and New Jersey.” Indeed!

Dasgupta is right again when he says that the “remote-control” button must be switched off, permanently. It must begin with India -- the mother of all Sri Lankan problems. Any concessions to India like the way Dayan did in Geneva is going to bedevil Sri Lankan politics further. Post-independence history proves that Indian imperialist interventions have dragged Sri Lanka and India into the depths of varied disasters. India could have achieved better results if its spent the money and the IPKF forces in the poverty-stricken state of Chattisgarh where it is facing, according Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the most dangerous threat from the Maoists to its peace, stability and progress.

SAARC region

Moreover, the time has come for India to calculate the cost benefit ratio of its interventions. What has India gained so far except loss of face and humiliation at the hands of a Sinhala naval rating and finally death to the author of the 13th Amendement? If Indian continues to pursue its current aggressive stand against Sri Lanka it is bound to boomerang on its own security in the region. India will find it more and more difficult to manage her economic, political and strategic interests in the southern flank if she attempts to bulldoze her way into Sri Lanka. Nobody likes a bully. And India should not make the same mistake twice.

In the resolution steered by Dayan in 2009 at the UNHRC he had gone too far to appease India with no positive gains either for India or Sri Lanka. Dayan’s “victory” in Geneva was only a side show for India. Her most substantial victory was in Nandikadal. Eventually, India was rescued by Sri Lanka in Nandikadal. Defeating Prabhakaran -- the assassin who killed their Prime Minister -- stands out as, perhaps, the biggest victory India scored in the region. As President Mahinda Rajapaksa said once: “We fought India’s war and won!” Three cheers for that, Mr. President!

After handing over Prabhakaran’s head to India -- a feat that India’s army failed to achieve -- it has no role in Sri Lanka except to assist Sri Lankans to tie up “only the political loose ends (that) remain”.(Swapan Dasgupta). This can be achieved only if India backs off. It can’t be solved by Dayan raising the bogey of Indian goni-billa. India should be mature enough by now not to put its boots down in their neighbourhood after its repeated miserable failures in the SAARC region.

To be continued