.

Peace indispensable for Lanka’s progress– British MP

mp.jpg (10543 bytes)
Jeremy Corbyn		 Jeremy Corbyn is the Labour MP for Islinton North from 1983. A strong Human Rights activist he is a campaigner on many sensitive issues. Especially on refugees and the environment. Practices what he preaches and rides his bike to the House of Commons. Very popular with the media in Britain and is the serious alternative voice. He has many Sri Lankans living in the North Islington Constituency and has followed the issues of the conflict in Sri Lanka and has also visited the island.

Below is an exclusive interview done by our London Correspondent Sujeeva Nivunhella with him.

SUJEEVA: Mr. Corbyn it is well known that you campaign many causes, particularly the rights relating to refugees. In this you have been involved very much with Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka. Could you give us a background to this and from about when did it start?

JEREMY: I was first elected to parliament in 1983 and that was just before the riots took place in Colombo. For the next three years or so there were a large number of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka who came here either directly or through other parts of Western Europe. Initially, getting them received and getting the right to stay here was fairly easy. It became aggressively more difficult because the then Conservative government introduced first a visa requirement for people entering this country from Sri Lanka which meant that it was difficult for everyone who was politically active, or well known, or under any kind of surveillance to go to the British High Commission and achieve a visa to enter here.

The next thing that the British did was to introduce an act in 1987 called the Carriers Liability Act under which the Carrier of an entrant to the country who was not subsequently given legal admittance to this country would be fined. That meant the airlines operating in Sri Lanka then started in effect acting on behalf of the Home office. The airlines decided who they would carry and who they would not and this meant there was then a growth of an illegal network in over priced tickets being sold to people. Because airlines will then charge the fair plus the profit, plus the potential fine they would have to pay, which was 2000 Sterling Pounds per passenger.

That was a deterrent and the number of asylum seekers decreased very rapidly after 1987. It must be said that before 1987 the majority of the Tamil asylum seekers tended to be mostly politically active or conscious or the better off and the more amount people. It wasn’t the poorest people. They usually went to India. The numbers that have come since then have been much smaller. The support mechanism existing in the country was quite strong. The Catholic church particularly, and other churches as well gave quite a lot of support and help. The British Refugee Council also did a lot, so did the various housing organizations who helped. The numbers coming now are very much smaller. I think the issues of Human Rights in the end to the conflict in Sri Lanka now, is politically probably more centre stage in Britain than they were at the time when it was more a request of humanitarian aid support. Britain like the rest of Western Europe has adopted much harsher regulations towards asylum seekers. I have represented a constituency which includes asylum seekers from nearly every country in the world where people are seeking asylum from.

People needing housing has increased, needing Income Support has increased and because of the harsher regulations towards asylum seekers the numbers that are being deported too has increased. The stress levels of most asylum seekers has increased as well. I know of people in this area who are desperately worried about their relatives. They cannot get in touch with them, cannot contact them, cannot get to see them, cannot visit them. The human level of this sort of thing is something which ought to be much better understood. I think Europe as a whole should recognize that large numbers of people seeking asylum in Western Europe are small in comparison to numbers who sought asylum in India or Mexico or other countries. I am talking here in a general sense about asylum policies. This is partly a product of Western Europe or North American foreign policy. We are happy to sell arms to help prolong conflicts but we haven’t been happy to deal with humanitarian consequences of these conflicts.

SUJEEVA: Your government says that most of the people coming here seeking asylum are not real refugees. They say while real refugees are suffering in Sri Lanka the people who come here as refugees are economic migrants. What is your answer to that?

JEREMY: I don’t like to use the word ‘economic migrants’. I seem to remember being taught in the 50’s in schools in Britain that most of the world was either the part of the British Empire or part of the British Commonwealth. It was all coloured pink or red to say this was ours. That never was ours. We should not have gone there. People who went from Britain were ‘economic migrants’. Most people who went to Africa, went to India, went to Sri Lanka, went to Australia, were economic migrants. They were people seeking to influence their living standards by going abroad. We were told they were some kind of heroes. They went from a civilized place, developed places. Any one coming here has apparently a different sort of motive altogether. So I don’t like to use that word economic migration. If the government actually talked the issue through one can see that it is caused by a number of factors. One clearly is poverty. Poverty is also related to political conflict. It’s also related to the war. It is also related to environmental destruction. So leave Sri Lanka on one side for a moment. There are people who seek asylum from Ethiopia and Sudan. They are victims of war, victims of environmental destruction. They are environmental refugees. They are political refugees. So I think we should recognize the cause of people seeking asylum.

If there was peace in Sri Lanka. If there was a honourable settlement to the whole issue there, then I suspect the numbers of people who migrate out of Sri Lanka will be very very small. Indeed, a very very large number of people are waiting to go back. Perhaps we should put in our energies into resolving the conflict rather than claiming the victims.

SUJEEVA: Within this context you must have got to know the issues of the conflict. What is your understanding of the problems and do you see a road that can lead to peace in Sri Lanka?

JEREMY: Looking from the outside I can’t give an easy answer since I am not facing the issues day in and day out. I only visited Sri Lank once, although I know large numbers of both Sinhala and Tamil people living in Britain. I think the seeds of the conflict go back to colonial rule by both Dutch earlier and later the British. They go back to the enforced settlement of what are called the plantation Tamils. They go back to the way the British promoted one section of the community over another and they go back to the language riots of ‘58 onwards and then on.

How can it be resolved? Its got to be the recognition of the traditions of both communities. Both Tamil and Sinhala communities. They are going to have to co-exist sans violence in some form or the other. Either the Federal settlement, either the full independence settlement or whatever it has to be. There has got to be that recognition. If one take the parallel of Northern Ireland which is a bit dangerous to talk of parallels because they are never simple, but there is a interesting parallel in Northern Ireland. In that the Buddhist State in Sri Lanka saw the solution in entirely military terms. The Republican Movement also saw it in entirely military terms for a very long time. The armed conflict in Northern Ireland could have easily gone for another 20 years with no body ever winning. There would have been more and more bombing in this country too, and there would have been more and more bombing in Northern Ireland. There would have been larger and larger numbers of deaths, and at the end of the day there wouldn’t have been victory for either side. When the British said they could afford to carry on the war, the Republican Movement had no alternative but to carry on the war. So the turning point was not necessarily dramatic movements by the British government. It was the meetings between the moderate Nationalist party, the Social Democratic Labour Party and Sein Feinn who would be associated with the IRA. They agreed the only way forward is the recognition of both traditions. Both the Nationalist traditions and the Loyalists tradition in Northern Ireland. One could see that this was the turning point. From that came two ceasefires. From that came endless negotiations. From that came the election of the Northern Ireland Assembly and power sharing Executives which we now have. I hope it will last. I think it will last and I think at the end of the day one could say the whole turning point took place in 1994 when the first ceasefire took place. But it’s going to be a test of history.

Now in Sri Lanka there has to be a recognition by all politicians that either both sides can continue using entirely chauvinist arguments, appeal to their communities in order to maintain their positions or they can outstep beyond it and negotiate. There are enormous risks involved with that for the political leaders on both sides, because they can each very easily be accused of selling out the traditions of their community. But as I see it, the alternative is so much worse. The alternative is the continuation of this war. Both sides can afford to carry on the war for a very long time. The costs will become greater and greater. The cost in the loss of young Tamils lives in the fighting, and the cost in terms of soldiers from the Sri Lankan army dying in the conflict. The cost in terms of the gradual erosion of civil liberties and the rights of political assembly because both sides desperately need to win the war. You have to recognize the only way forward is by a peace process. If that means a peace process in which outside forces, outside agencies, outside governments, the UN or whatever is involved, so be it. That’s the good thing. But both sides got to want to move forward to peace. Nobody can go and impose it.

SUJEEVA: Talks started in the time of the Jayewardene government. Both the UNP and the PA governments had talks with the LTTE. They all failed. The LTTE said they cannot trust Sri Lankan governments and the Governments said that the LTTE are not interested in peace and while the talks went on used the time to regroup to carry out military assaults later. For the first time President Kumaratunga revealed recently in London to the BBC that Commo-nwealth Secretary Chief Anyoku and the Norwegian Government tried to broker peace between the Government and the LTTE but this too failed. It seems all these talks are going nowhere.

JEREMY: Well, they have to keep trying. The other parallel of conflict is like in Turkey where the PKK have now twice self declared ceasefire. This has had political backing internationally and the recognition of the desire for a peace process in the Kurdish side of it in the Turkish conflict. It hasn’t all worked out yet by any means but it has given some space to the less chauvinist politicians in the Turkish State to open up a little bit more and be prepared to discuss peace. The tragedy in Sri Lanka appears to be that the opposition party usually talks about peace but when in power the government talks about war, as a kind of mirror image. The former government becoming a opposition party and suddenly saying the need to go down the road to peace. Well, Chief Anyoku’s involvement could be very welcome and could be a good thing, but I just wonder how much desire there is not to carry on the conflict in the minds of both sides. I am constantly surprised at the degree of suffering the Sri Lankan people have gone through with the loss of young men in the army. Thousands and thousands of people are losing their sons on both sides of the conflict. There is no voice for them. Part of the end of the Soviet occupation of Afganistan was indeed the political problems of the Soviet leadership had with the Russian leadership when they realised the extent of the suffering they faced.

SUJEEVA: Since you have some contacts with some of the LTTE representatives, can you tell me what sort of approach should the government take to get Prabhakaran to the negotiating table? What do you think about the international mediation?

JEREMY: I think if international mediation is wanted and they are welcomed by both sides, its a good thing. Possibly political people from non involved countries, different European countries or other places. That’s fine. That could be a sort of a peace keeping mission, they could visit both sides and produce a frame work for which discussions could take place. It may be easier for somebody outside to see a way forward than somebody inside because the leader who gets up and says I am prepared to concede something is immediately seen as putting themselves at a disadvantage. If a third party proposes this then it may be something can be done. This then can be some way forward.

The UN is normally very reluctant to get involved in what would be termed as ‘Internal Conflicts’ and indeed majority of wars taking place around the world are theoretically internal conflicts. The UN usually only gets involved at the humanitarian level after the conflict has reduced it’s intensity. If the Sri Lankan government is saying they prefer to refer the matter to the Commonwealth they are then accepting international mediation. That’s a step forward even if at this stage it is not completely successful. I think it might be perhaps better to do a lower key approach where you just invite people to set up a peace keeping mission and develop things from there.

I met some of the LTTE representatives in Geneva in August last. I was there for the UN Human Rights Commission. I am the chair of the ‘Liberation’ International body in Britain and I was there on behalf of the Liberation. We had long meetings with them. I noticed that they are (the LTTE) quite clearly prepared to accept international mediation. The Sri Lankan official’s reply was much vaguer on this matter. They clearly have met international bodies but at no stage, I may be completely wrong, they would put this issue in the hands of a international body.

SUJEEVA: During the last Conservative Government Dr. Liam Fox brokered a bipartisan approach. Now your Government is in power. What is your government’s stand on that?

JEREMY: A bipartisan approach is not a problem. The issue of Sri Lanka unfortunately does not come up in the British Parliament very often. The Foreign office is reluctant to get over involved unless they can see some way forward, some solution for the issue. They got into a lot of trouble over Kashmir. A year ago Robin Cook (the British Foreign Secretary) visited India and that did calm down things a little bit. There are MPs in parliament who understand the situation in Sri Lanka and are quite knowledgeable about it and also have significant numbers of Sri Lankans in their constituencies. People from Sri Lanka, both Sinhala and Tamil, the majority of them are Tamils living in Britain, do discuss these things informally and indeed at the time of the last election we did discuss ways in which we could propose, and we are still doing this, to get some kind of a bipartisan approach in Britain amongst them that could be possibly used as a basis for a discussion. Obviously there is a huge link between Sri Lanka and Britain as a former colonial power. These links lead to lots of people in Britain who wish well for Sri Lanka.

SUJEEVA: The USA and Canada have banned the LTTE. The Sri Lankan government is urging the British government to ban the LTTE in the UK too. What is your response to this?

JEREMY: I think it is a great mistake to ban the organisation. The legislation that the British Government has put through and now it is in its second reading and not law yet. The new terrorist bill gives the Home Secretary very wide powers to ban the organisation. My own speech against the bill, where I argued very strongly against the banning of organisations. Organisations committing bombing raids and terrorist offences in Britain, that is obviously serious. That is illegal anyway. Once you start banning organisations that exist abroad and we take the view that they are terrorist organisations. Then you are actually closing off a whole possibility of bringing about a peace process. I have been in Parliament and in politics long enough to remember when the African National Congress was in a list of terrorist organisations. The PLO and many many others were in that list and after a while they got taken off from that list and they got reckoned with. If you go to make peace it does not mean that you approve of the methods or actions of a particular organisation, but you have to reckon with them and talk to them otherwise there is going to be no peace.

SUJEEVA: How do you see the Sri Lankan situation in the context of South Asian politics with particular emphasis to Tamil Nadu?

JEREMY: I think it is probably destabilising Tamil Nadu as a whole, and there is clearly a great deal of support for Tamil Eelam amongst Tamils in Tamil Nadu. It is less extent amongst Tamil communities elsewhere either in Singapore or other parts of India. It is an area of conflict. That means it is also an area that attracts lots of arms dealers either to sell surveillance equipment and high tech arms to the Sri Lankan government or to sell weapons illegally to the LTTE. What Sri Lanka had to offer in the sense of the quality of the Health service, quality of Education, quality of life of the people in Sri Lanka was certainly compared to the rest of Asia far better before the conflict. Compare that now and one sees the effects of this conflict. The price of peace will provide a opportunity to improve Health, Education, the standard of living and everything else. The conflict could go on for very much longer and will produce a awful lot of young people being killed and will continue to seriously damage the economic interest of the people in the whole of the island. The danger is ofcourse that it has a knock on effect on other countries.

SUJEEVA: Some people accuse Western countries of pretending to settle internal conflicts in Third World countries while secretly they sell arms both to the governments and to the terrorist organisations. What do you have to say to this?

JEREMY: The British government’s strategy of allowing continued growth, if not even encouraging the arms industry in Britain is deplorable. I went to the arms fair in September. It was held just outside London. Forty five countries were represented there who were listed as major violators of Human Rights by Amnesty International. What are they doing there’? We shouldn’t be involved in these businesses and I am somebody who wants to see peace and I think I would start this by reducing the arms ind ustry and putting those skills to a more peaceful purpose. There are British firms involved. They are making a lot of money out of it. Its deplorable.

Defects in Package can be remedied: Prof. A. J. Wilson

An Interview With Prof. A. J. Wilson

Prof. Wilson is a well known Scholar from Sri Lanka, who is presently residing in Canada. He is also the son-in-law of Mr. S. J. V Chelvanayagam, then Leader of the Federal Party. Following are excerpts from an interview he gave to the "Thinakkural" Tamil Daily published from Colombo.

Recorded By: NILA SWARNARAJAH

PROF. A. J. WILSON’S RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY MR. SWARNARAJAH NILAKSHAN

Question: Prof. Wilson you had taken an active role in drafting the 1978 Constitution. Do you feel that the Executive Presidency would be beneficial to the minorities, rather than the West Minister system?

Prof. Wilson: I am indeed sorry to have to set in record straight in regard to my alleged role in drafting the 1978 constitution. In fact the 1978 Constitution with its Executive Presidency was the brainchild of President Jayeywardene. It was fully structured and given teeth by the President’s Constitutional Experts, among whom were H. W. Jayewardane, Lalith Athulathmudali, Mark Fernando and J. A. Cooray. When, I arrived in Sri Lanka, there was only one day more to go before the fully printed constitution was to be tabled for its first reading in the National State Assembly by the Prime Minister at the time, Ranasinghe Premadasa.

So, there was a constitution all ready and printed for enactment by Parliament. My role at that late stage was that of a mere scrivener to dot the "i" s and cross the "t"s. I found a number of instances where there were self-stultifying clauses. These would have made the system unworkable; so I brought this to the attention of the chief architect and his inner circle of advisors. The appropriate changes were then made and the decision was to delay the presentation of the Constitutional Bill by one additional day. So, there was no question of my taking "an active role in drafting" what I now think was an already ready made draft duplication of Hobbes’s Leviathan itself or embodied one of Louis XIV’s exclamation, "I am the State", an over-centralized system, the very definition of tyranny.

Question: Prof. Wilson, having explained your role in the drafting of the 1978 constitution, could you now please elaborate on how the executive presidency would be beneficial to the minorities?

Prof. Wilson: The second part of your question is indeed more interesting. Is the executive presidency "more beneficial to the minorities rather than the West Minster system". The proponents of this type of executive have argued that the minority community can plump all of its votes for one presidential candidate. Their votes might determine defeat or victory for a Presidential hopeful. Thus since this block vote will count in the final reckoning, a minority can extract the best possible concessions from the winning candidate.

All this sounds fine and dandy. In actual fact, in the recent contest for the Presidency, it had oft times been reported in the press that the leaders of certain minority groups had approached the incumbent president who was also a candidate at the presidential contest and obtained undertakings in return for the deliverable vote that was virtually at their disposal. The Late S. Thondaman, leader of the Ceylon Workers’ Congress and Joseph Pararajasingham of the TULF have publicly declared their support for the existing system on the score that they have been able to do much for their communities by dealing with a single individual who has the totality of power virtually vested in him than with a college of leaders who are the power wielders. This argument is sound as it goes. There are however several caveats such as a blanket statement as stated earlier. That individual will certainly want to free himself from the many chains he or she is bounded by our argument is the opposite of what has been stated. The presidential hopeful will only concentrate on winning the deliverable votes of a disciplined and reliable group. The CWC of Saumyamoorthy Thondaman can fill this role. There are the Muslims who also tend to vote in blocs. Thus the potential winner should be able to take his or her pick from among any one of these vote banks. There will also have to be a quid pro quo. None of the parties concerned will make nonsense of its demands in the obviously relative atmosphere of peace and goodwill.

My guess is that there is every chance that once the ethos of peace prevails, all the groups will seek to cooperate.

But this is far from being a permanent arrangement. The UN Security Council will monitor troop movements and the possible arrival of arms, ammunitions and armaments.

Last we must not forget that a minority’s vote bank will always remain permanently the President’s fallback position.

Question: Even though those disciplined groups tend their support to a presidential candidate, the winning candidate might fail to fulfil the promises he or she had made. So, do you think that there is a warranty that the minorities could achieve something more through this system?

Prof. Wilson: Yes, I was to come to that point. Our contention is that the winning candidate will be free to discard promises and undertakings obtained from him or her, under duress. On the very morrow of his or her victory, he or she can summon parties and their leaders who would have made the pledges. He could, for example inform the party and the groups and their leaders that he could not live up to the pledges he had given them and even go so far as to offer to resign his exalted position in just the same way as Dudley Senanayake did with Mr. Chelvanayakam and his F.P. members of Parliament. Senanayke’s plea was that whilst he was prepared to support the District Councils Bill that the F.P. Minister of Local Government Murugesan Thiruchelvam had drawn up he was faced with a revolt from his back-benchers if he persisted with the latter that he go through - with the bill.

If this was true with a Prime Minister, it would be even truer with an executive President as was evidenced by the helplessness of President JRJ, the vacuity of President Premadasa and the anarchy and war that followed President Chandrika Kumaratunga after the failure of her talks with the leaders of the Liberation Tigers.

Thus under executive presidentialism there is an inadequate guarantee that the incumbent will implement promises made prior to the election.

The chances of the incumbent ever adopting measures to alleviate the economic predicament of minority groups are fairly remote especially if opposition is mobilised against the President and his government.

Question: Considering the political structure and practical aspect what are the foibles of the executive presidential system?

Prof. Wilson: Worst are the built in features of a political structure, which by its internal weaknesses will make for collapse and instability. For one thing there is always imminent stalemate should there be contradictory majorities, the President belonging to one party and the majority complexion in the National State Assembly diametrically opposed. There will then prevail paralysis at the heart of the system. When I first pointed this deadlocking aspect of the constitution and that it will not be possible for him to chair a meeting of a hostile cabinet, he countered by stating that he commaended sufficient respect to ensure orderly transaction of business in cabinet. But after the presidential contest of 1982 when the plans of the rival candidate Hector Kobbekaduwa to oust the President JRJ most unceremoniously from his offices were made public, President JRJ understood the nature of the disturbances and restiveness that would overtake the presidential system. A noncontroversial incumbent could without doubt be able to bring about an orderly transfer of power but far be it that a highly controversial, President such as J. R. Jayewardene. So after the unfolding of a recipe for disaster should his rival, Hector Kobbekaduwa defeat him. President JRJ ceased talking of a peaceful and orderly handing over of power. What is more, he realized the dangers that lay hidden in the event of contradictory majorities and when discussion came to this point, he tried to shrug it off by remarking that this was "the Catch 22 question)’.

Two other questions are worthy of consideration. Firstly a vacuum has been created with the removal of the nominal head of state, in our case a constitutional figurehead of a ceremonial kind. The absence of such a dignified emollient has become increasingly clear. In times of critical race rioting etc., a nominal head would have been extremely useful if for no other reason than that two heads are better than one. The lack of a driving force was felt most during the critical days of July 1983 when the entire Tamil. community was placed in double jeopardy as it were. It was more than 24 hours too late before President JRJ declared a state of emergency and called upon the service and security chiefs to restore order. In contrast during the galloping crisis of May 1958, the presence of the governor general Sir Oliver Goonetilake saved the internal situation from deteriorating any further.

Similarly when the internal situation became more crisis laden and sections of public opinion begin to lose confidence in the capability of the real executive to maintain the system beyond doubt of any sort, then the leaders of the oppositional parties should have opportunities to have recourses to a higher authority. The 1978 Constitution having taken out the nominal head in the same way as bad appendix or a useless prostate gland did not provide for a higher court of appeal. Consequently there was no alternative but to rely on the executive president and his administration to maintain at least the semblance of impartiality. And in the case of president JRJ; the trend of suspicion was that he would not be impartial, and that he would with his vast repertoire of political experience and political engineering vary by sleight of hand or by other means manipulate the wheels of democracy to his advantage.

Thus the absence of a nominal or ceremonial head of state can be debilitating and adverse to the interests of minority ethnic groups. One way of remedying the present unsatisfactory situation is to revert to the old system.

The Westminster system it should be remembered was designed and it evolved over time to meet the needs of a business civilization. Besides it grew and prospered in a country, which had adopted the credo of liberalism before totalitarian doctrines could take root. Once again none of the new states have gone through this phase of liberalism for democratic institutions to take root.

Question: President Chandrika has announced that if she is NOT given the majority (two thirds) to solve the ethnic conflict, she will resign her post. I would like to know, whether if she is given the two thirds majority in the presidential elections, will she be able to overcome the barriers which she claims to be made by the UNP at present?

Prof. Wilson: My own view is that if the President wins a two-thirds, she will interpret it as an overwhelming endorsement, have parliament convened as a constituent assembly and proceed to enact legislation giving effect to her constitutional package and the abolition of the executive presidency. The abolition of the presidency will be a step in the right direction for it will democratize the over-centralised administrative system that the British bequeathed to us and it remained the same as it was after the Colebrooke reforms of 1833. There is yet a major hurdle, which she will have to cross. This is the requirement of a referendum. This requirement has made the constitution far too rigid and almost unamendable. It is these kinds of irremovable impediments that led legislatures to stage constitutional coups by ignoring the inflexible barrier.

The problem for President Kumaratunga is that the moment she declares that she is dropping the referendum provision, her government will have a court action on its hands, which the Supreme Court will most likely uphold. This is where the rub is. Whenever this happens the constitutional package and all other changes will be as dead as the dodo and there can be no implementation. The chiefs of the armed services and of the security personnel will inform the President that they will execute only legitimate orders from a legitimate government and this would bring about a certain amount of anarchy and chaos in government. This indeed, it might be recalled happened in July 1965. When the Security and Service chiefs were informed by the Prime Minister of her intention to continue in office, they blandly informed Mrs. Bandaranaike that they would only execute orders from a legitimate government.

My view is that the requirement of a referendum is a built in safeguard for the UNP. No change can be effected without the consent of the opposition. There is however a bigger problem than all of the subsidiary obstacles, I have mentioned. The President is faced with an implacable foe who will in all probability turn down the package insisting on all or nothing. And this is where negotiators, animateurs mediators and facilitators become important.

Question: With your observations for the last so many decades, do you feel that the present ethnic conflict could be solved through the existing parliamentary democratic system?

Prof. Wilson: The present parliamentary system needs considerable modification if ethnic groups are to meaningfully participate in the national debate. However the parliamentary system, in my view, fails to respond to minority demands and aspirations. The Centre will not hesitate whatever powers it has to utilize these to curb the ambitions of the units. The pressure on the unit will be exercised by constituents who will approach their local member of Parliament who in turn will bring such opposition to the attention of the executive president. To illustrate my point you might remember as a result of considerable opposition from the government back benchers to modify the Act to make Sinhala the only official language of the country in 1956, it resulted in the Act being made more restrictive than it was intended, while Dudley Senanayake was forced to abandon the District Councils bill of 1968 after the mounting of fierce opposition to it from some of the more extremist Sinhalese back benchers in the government’s parliamentary group.

Essentially the expectation was that the Westminster system would function as democratically as it had been doing in Britain. But as I already stated there was the absence of the prerequisite background of an expanding economy and an imbedded liberal tradition. What is more under the Westminster system government and opposition transacted a great deal of business on the basis of consensus, and as well behind the speaker’s chair ensuring thereby considerable room for the give and take of democracy. These essentials are not available in Sri Lanka and the question therefore of obtaining results through the existing parliamentary democratic system simply does not arise. Elitist thinking in Sri Lanka has always been that democracy means the rule of the ethnic majority and minorities must accept this fact of life.

Question: Do you feel that the Political Package of the present government will solve the problems of the Tamils?

Prof. Wilson: There are a number of holes in the political package. These would have been worked into had there been greater consultation while the constitutional design was being drawn up. Nevertheless it is not too late to remedy the defects. At the outset, I would state that even though the Political Package has failed to enlist support from amongst Tamils or their leaders, there are ways and means of circumventing the defects so as to make the package more palatable.

But I for one, as I stated earlier will not accept the package because I fear the Greeks even when they carry gifts and more importantly I have no faith in the bureaucracy which will not implement the provisions honestly.

To sum up my position, my considered view is that the present political package fails to satisfy the aspirations of the Tamil people. To give you just a few examples, it has been my position that Judges are as much sensitive to the climate of public opinion or public prejudice. Wise men will therefore not readily place their faith on judges to hold the scales of justice evenly. Quebec for instance has transcended the problem of prejudiced Anglophone Judges by securing the right to have four Francophones as members of the Federal Supreme Court. I cannot think of any other examples just now.

Besides we do not know how the package will be mangled owing to machinations of extremists among the Sinhalese political elite. The package in its original form when first presented in August 1995 was a document, which could be discussed by honest men. It was revised twice thereafter to the detriment of some of the very safeguards for the Tamils of North East. Can we rely on a volatile public opinion, which will keep changing with the exercise of pressure on the government?

As I see it, the only way out is for a confederation of two internally sovereign states with cast iron safeguards against possible encroachment by the neighboring state. There is also serious discussion of reintroducing the Donoughmore Executive Committee system. I think this is a highly retrograde step, which will result in interference in public appointments and confusion in public administration. It is a veritable Trojan Horse. The sooner it is dropped, the better it will be for the effective functioning of devolutionary government.

Kumar Ponnambalam: The First Martyr of the Millennium

By Satya Ramanan
Two centuries ago, Robert Emmet the Irish patriot said, ‘My lamp of life is nearly extinguished.’ British justice had given him the forum to say his ultimate piece. He immortalised himself with his brilliant speech. The quest for the redemption of the Irish did not end with Emmet.

Kumar Ponnambalam’s life was extinguished without warning. The privilege of saying his last was not for him. But is of no matter. He had spoken enough and written enough to earn a niche in every Tamil mind. The demise of Kumar Ponnambalam has not lacerated the will of the Tamil people. The will is not conquered. It is fated to remain unconquerable. An authentic voice has been stilled, but the community will move on. Kumar Ponnambalam had premonitions that his life will be snuffed out. He showed no fear and feared not death. His soul continued to be tortured. His yearnings remained unrealised. Tamils believe that his spirit will see its fulfilment.

Kumar Ponnambalam was born into wealth and circumstance. This was inheritance. Qualifying for the father’s mantle was challenging. The father set his imprint in a settled era. Kumar Ponnambalam, living as he did, in times of turbulence, was impelled to reach for the tortuous. Soft politics had only allurements and little besides. These are ensnaring and debilitating. He set his face against them and went into the eye of the storm. His mark is indelible.

Kumar Ponnambalam was of uncommon mettle. Millenia of pride and independence the Tamils cherished were manifest in him. Drawing inspiration from their hallowed heritage, he was proud to call himself a Tamil. He even delighted in flaunting it. An active mind, setting on a leadership trail would symbolise the characteristics of a people whose aspirations he sought to voice. Kumar Ponnambalam displayed these traits. His courage was indomitable. His toil was unremitting since the situation demanded it. He charted his course unflinchingly. After joining battle there was no halting midway. It was impossible for him to be a mere spectator. He alighted on the stage itself. The cause he championed was the redemption of the Tamils for which he did not go into single combat. He acknowledged the most potent force. Within these frontiers he delineated his turf. All his emotions were directed single mindedly. His powers of intellect were driven to serve his only goal.

The wealth and the learning of Kumar Ponnambalam were readily at the service of his community. His knowledge of the law and the practice of his profession benefited many a Tamil. His energies were purposefully channelled. He had developed a fluent tongue, perfected a facile pen, both of which he wielded with deadly effect. Ultimately these brought death to him. But he would have had little regret. In his writing he was unsparing, in speech forthright. Candidness he developed as his forte. There were hostile murmurs, ruffled tempers, and the rustling of leaves. But there was no turning back. Kumar Ponnambalam was steadfast in his principles.

The challenges he faced demanded diverse responses. Among them was how to face the enemy within. It was insidious. Scorning them as mercenaries he sought to vanquish them. He had the accolade of the community for this brave endeavour. The adversary was formidable. His searchlight of exposure spared nobody. He exploited all fora, national and international. While keeping the fire aflame, he inspired confidence among the Tamils, here and in the diaspora. In articulating the Tamil point of view Kumar Ponnambalam was irrepresible. The adversary’s image stood dented and wrecked.

Kumar Ponnambalam’s death is felt as a void because his contributions were great. Tamils have considered them as invaluable. A vast multitude thronged to pay their last respects. It was the widest possible spectrum of Tamils and was representative of all shades. Writ upon their face were feelings of deep grief, a sense of loss that was irreparable and a feeling of forlorness. These were expressions of solidarity. Also explicit was a strong commitment to the cause that Kumar Ponnambalam espoused and fought for with verve. A doughty warrior being removed from a tumultuous scene could not pass unwept or unhonoured.

‘He who has the power of speech, is indefatigable and is fearless cannot be trounced by anybody.’ So says a classic. His father was the epitome of the first two, the son of the last. He proved his mettle and his community showered its gratitude. With a sagacious discernment for caution he may yet have been living. But that was not destined to be. But he lives in the hearts and minds of the Tamils.

The highest honour, of the people’s endearment, was boldly evident after his demise. In appreciation of his illustrious labours a worthy epitaph remains to be inscribed. It awaits the fruition of his vision. Tamils are proud of Kumar Ponnambalam. Prouder still are his wife and children.

The significance of the bomb attack on the Sri Dalada Maligawa

It is now two years since the bombing of the Sri Dalada Maligawa in Kandy by suicide bombers of the LTTE. They came on the morning of 25 January 1998 in their truck of death and destruction and exploded their fatal cargo at the entrance to the temple. The blast caused the death of several civilians and injured many more, all devotees bearing their early morning offerings in homage to the Buddha. The sacred tooth relic itself escaped damage.

Besides the killing and maiming of many civilians, the blast effected serious damage to the Sri Dalada Maligawa which houses the sacred tooth relic, venerated not only by Buddhists in Sri Lanka but by all Buddhists the world over.

A brochure containing vivid photographs of the ruins, caused by the bomb explosion, together with a slender text succinctly highlighting the historic value of the venerable Sri Dalada Maligawa building and its precincts, was published by the Ministry of Buddha Sasana and Ministry of Cultural and Religious Affairs under the title Sacrilege. It stated, "...the Dalada Maligawa in Kandy is to Buddhists what St. Peters in the Vatican is to Catholics or the Ka’aba in Makkah is to Muslims."

The account goes on to state:

"...the Sri Lankan people have once again refused to be provoked. The incident has also underlined a salient feature Sri Lanka has shown throughout its struggle against LTTE terrorism - the patience and resilience of its people in the face of adversity."

(Emphasis added)

This comment is only too true. Many have been the vicissitudes the sacred tooth relic has had to countenance in its role as the nation’s palladium. They are indications of the continual struggle the nation has had to undergo in combating threats and violence to its integrity. The island’s history is one long saga of struggle to maintain its heritage and individuality despite repeated attacks, invasions, violation, and, more recently during the last five hundred years, domination by Western foreign powers. In all those trials and tribulations the greatest care was taken never to let the sacred tooth relic get into enemy hands for its possession had become a symbol of sovereignty. Even when the British gained control over the entire island, the state continued its custodianship of the sacred tooth relic until 1844 when the British sentry was withdrawn from the Temple of the Tooth Relic and the annual grant of three hundred pounds stopped. (Please refer to Dr. Andreas Nell, Ceylon Observer Centenary Number, Sunday, 4 February 1934, p.3)

In 1847 the state abandoned its custodianship officially by the appointment of three custodians, the Maha Nayaka of the Malwatte Chapter, the Maha Nayaka of the Asgiriya Chapter and the Dewa Nilame.

The Temple Square opposite the Sri Dalada Maligawa where stands the Natha Devale and the Pattini Devale, also sustained damage due to the bomb blast of the LTTE.

This site is also steeped in history. It was and is part of the Sri Dalada Maligawa precincts, originally dubbed the Jayabhumi (Victory Ground) in ancient records such as the Asgiri Upata. The area was spotted by scouts sent out from Anuradhapura by king Gajabahu in the 2nd century B.C.E. to find a suitable site for settlement in the hill country.

The founding of Senkadagala Village, which grew into Kandy, began from there with the planting of a Bodi tree at that site. The Asgiri Upata also states that King Pandita Parakramabahu of Kurunegala (1302-26 A.C.E.) sent his nephew, Prince Sirivardhana, to build a city with the village of Senkadagala at its centre.

Despite these earlier founders, the building of the city of Senkadagala is popularly ascribed to a later subking, Vikrama Bahu (1460-1511).

The Sri Dalada Maligawa in Kandy has also sustained very violant attacks in its eventful history. It was burnt and sacked seven times by the Dutch but they were unable to gain possession of the sacred tooth relic or seize the kingdom of Kandy. Whenever the king retreated to a safer place such as Hanguranketa or elsewhere, when enemies invaded the kingdom, the sacred tooth relic was also borne away with the royal entourage and accorded the greatest reverence and security. No other religious object was more guarded, honoured and secured than the sacred tooth relic from the time it was brought to the island by Prince Hemamala and prince Danta in the 4th century A.C.E. They brought it from Kalinga (Orissa) in India when that kingdom was under attack by enemies.

In Sri Lanka, the sacred tooth relic was first housed in a temple dedicated to it in Anuradhapura and there after in Polonnaruwa, Dambadeniya, Yapahuwa and Kandy successively as the capital was shifted, necessitated by repeated invasions from South India. Sometimes a reign of a king was disturbed by internecine warfare. Then too the greatest security measures were taken to ensure the safety of the sacred tooth relic so that it did not get into enemy hands.

There are many records of the chequered career of the sacred tooth relic down through the ages. These accounts are found in early historical sources such as the Mahavansa and Dathuvamsa. The Dalada Sirita gives an account of the rituals conducted in its honour.

Throughout the centuries, then, the sacred tooth relic came to be regarded as a hallowed symbol of the island’s sovereigns. It was the protector of the nation. In fact, the State was invested in its power, the power of the Buddha Dhamma. The spirit of that doctrine infused state policy and all stated action derived its authority and inspiration from it. It was also believed to possess the power of bringing down rain, a much needed ingredient for an agricultural society. This belief originated in a pre-Buddhist concept that when rulers are righteous the rains come in due season. All this goes to show that the sacred tooth relic and the state had a very close, long and continuous connection, disrupted for a brief hundred years when during the British regime the British colonial government dissociated itself from Buddhism and direct responsibility for the security of the sacred tooth relic. Instead, the British came up with an innovative idea for its joint custodianship. They appointed the Maha Nayaka of the Malwatte Chapter, the Mahanayaka of the Asgiriya Chapter and a lay custodian in the person of the Dewa Nilame (Diyawadana Nilame) whose functions hitherto had never been directly connected with the custodianship of the sacred tooth relic. These three appointees of the British colonial government became the custodians of the sacred tooth relic. The dissociation of the state from direct custodianship of the sacred tooth relic was one of the causes of the Rebellion of 1848.

The rebellion was put down with great ferocity. When normalcy returned, though the policy of the British colonial office continued to dissociate itself from Buddhism it became less rigid and evangelical for a period of time.

One of Governor Torrington’s despatches to Earl Grey, Secretary of State for Colonies, soon after the rebellion of 1848, expresses great anxiety concerning the danger of the sacred tooth relic being whisked away. His comments show to what extent the connection between the State and the sacred tooth relic was an emotional matter for the Buddhists of this country. He says in one of his despatches:

"That it can be used (the sacred tooth relic) as a means to cause an outbreak I have no doubt and though I dare not propose it, I wish from the bottom of my heart the Tooth was safe in Buckingham Palace..." (See K. M. de Silva, (ed) letters of Ceylon 1846-50. The Administration of Viscount Torrington and the "Rebellion" of 1848, Colombo, 1965, p.99)

These misgivings were from the very man who took the greatest satisfaction in officially breaking all connection with the custodianship of the sacred tooth relic and Buddhism and being the "humble instrument" as he put it, "for effecting the completion of this great holy work" viz., "the desired disconnection of the British Government from all participation in the support of idolatry," (SLNA 5/34 no. 713, Viscount Torrington to Earl Grey, Oct. 1847)

With the island’s independence in 1948, the functions of the joint custodians appointed by the British colonial government continued while the State appeared for all intents and purposes to resume its former traditional connection with the sacred tooth relic, especially on ceremonial occasions. How for this connection is based on a total Buddhist outlook and how far a mere ceremonial is an open question. If there is a perfunctory attitude towards the sacred tooth relic does it express the aspirations of the mass of the population, a majority of which comprises Buddhists? Has the sacred tooth relic become a mere "White elephant" around which religious ceremonies are conducted and brought out periodically on festival days as a part of national life but separate from a strictly secular state or has the State’s connection with the sacred tooth relic the same old significance of standing for the intriguers unity of the nation? A question that arises from the foregoing is whether the disruption of the connection effected in 1847 under the British colonial government has caused an irreversible erosion of that connection.

The deeper philosophical significance of the State’s connection with the sacred tooth relic, from the Buddhist point of view, emanates from the fact that the sacred tooth relic is a symbol not only of the founder of Buddhism, the Buddha, and the way he showed to ultimate liberation from samsara, but the ideals of good government derived from Buddhism’s social philosophy. It was that social philosophy that gave rise to, and, shaped the unique hydraulic civilization of the ancient Sinhala people and their social organization.

In focusing attention on the sacrilege committed on that fateful day 2 years ago, the purpose is not to generated ethnic or religious strife. Divisiveness and hatred are not tenets of Buddhism of which the sacred tooth relic is a symbol, for Buddhism emphasises protecting society by protecting oneself and others through the pancasila, an universally accepted model of conduct, and living in harmony with nature.

The purpose of this article is to draw attention to the continuing threat to the nation’s integrity originating from a diabolic source for the past twenty odd years, ever increasing in magnitude and momentum, drawing to itself assistance from various quarters. It is a remorseless bestial force which under the name to Tamil Liberation, blasts its way over the dead bodies of the nation’s leaders, including Tamil leaders, the last in their ‘hit’ list being so far, Neelan Tiruchelvam and Kumar Ponnambalam. To recognize this mostrous machine of annihilation and destruction for what it is and deal with it accordingly is the formidable task facing the State today.

The National Movement Against terrorism

LEGAL WATCH
Election laws and practices: Need to think ahead

by Nayana
In the month that has elapsed since the presidential election, evidence has emerged from many quarters that suggests that the level of overt and covert irregularities was greater than originally thought.

It is not for us to suggest what bearing this may have on the election petition filed by the UNP, but rather to consider the implications of these events for the future of electoral politics in this country. There is a crucial difference between a presidential and a general election which makes this consideration important.

Under our election laws, in order to render an election invalid on the grounds of general intimidation, general bribery, general treating or other circumstances, it must be shown that the majority of electors were or may have been prevented from electing the candidate whom they preferred. Likewise, in order to set aside an election on the grounds of non-compliance with the provisions of the relevant election law, it is necessary to establish that such non-compliance would have affected the result.

In a presidential election the entire Island is treated as one electorate for the purpose of the final result. Thus winning margins tend to be large in numerical terms (even if not in percentage terms) and it is proportionately more difficult to show that the result of the election would have been affected, even if there were some proven irregularities.

However, in a general election where Members of Parliament are chosen on a district basis, a few thousand votes could decide which party gets an extra seat, while a difference of just one vote would be enough to determine the order of preference between candidates. The type of incidents reported during the recently concluded presidential poll (whether or not they affected that result) appear quite sufficient to significantly distort the results of a general election in the districts in which they occur.

For the purposes of this article we will concentrate only on incidents of violence, intimidation and ballot rigging, although other issues such as alleged misuse of State resources and the media are also matters commented on by local and foreign election observers in their respective reports.

Even the International observers — the mildest of the critics — reported seeing incidents of mass impersonation. They reported seeing voters being bussed to polling stations and given poll cards. They said that they saw those persons vote, come out, remove the (supposedly) indelible ink from their fingers, receive another card and enter the polling station again.

For well-organized and very public impersonation of this nature to have taken place, it means that there was no supervision of illegal activities going on in the close vicinity of those polling stations. This indicates either a lack of Police presence or else that officers on duty (who are quite used to stopping busloads of passengers and checking for terrorist suspects) apparently did not think it necessary to check the identities of voters who arrived by the busload and received their poll cards only at the polling station. Nor, apparently, did anyone think to investigate the mass hand-washing that has been visible to foreign observers.

Irregular voting was not confined to covert impersonation. All the local monitoring groups have reported several incidents of forcible stuffing of ballot boxes by organized gangs. Following reports made by Senior Presiding officers from certain polling stations, the Commissioner of Elections is reported to have directed nearly 7500 votes to be rejected Island-wide, including over 2000 votes each from the Kandy and Matale Districts.

However such rejection occurs only when the SPOs have reported incidents of ballot rigging. Observers claim that incidents in many polling stations were not recorded by SPOs either through fear or collusion. For instance there were no adverse reports from the SPOs in the North-Western Province despite a very large number of complaints being received by election monitors. Not only was the Kurunegala District the district from which the most number of violent incidents were reported on polling day, but the NWP also witnessed assault or threats against election monitors at several places.

The recent election campaign was remarkable for the fact that no party leader thought fit to make even a token public call to their supporters to desist from violence and allow a free and fair poll. In addition, all the local election monitoring groups have noted that a series of adverse statements made against election monitors by spokespersons of the ruling party created a hostile environment in which these groups had to operate. Apart from the several incidents in the NWP referred to above, a PAFFREL monitor in Anuradhapura was so badly assaulted that he needed hospitalization. Monitors were also attacked at Dehiwela, Rambukkana and Mahiyangana.

Assault and intimidation of polling agents was widespread, with many stations only being manned by agents of one or the other of the parties. Eighty polling agents are reported to have been chased away from polling stations in the Kandy District. In the Eastern Province 18 stations are reported to have functioned with only UNP agents, while another four only had PA agents.

Another disturbing feature is the reported criticism by members of the ruling party against Police officers who opened fire on their supporters during incidents in many parts of the country. This included the deaths to two PA activists who were part of a gang that seized the ballot box from the Arachchikattuwa polling station in the Puttalam District the night before the poll. The Police admit to these incidents which they say were necessary to preserve law and order and prevent intimidation of voters.

The cavalier attitude of ruling party politicians towards the law (a feature of Sri Lankan politics irrespective of the party in power) was the subject of adverse comment by members of the International observer Group who noted that it is reflected right down to the local level where it is part of the image of being powerful.

Special mention should also be made of the Northern and Eastern Provinces where many of the unsatisfactory features of the poll were due to circumstances beyond the control of the authorities. However, two inexplicable aspects were the use of a grossly outdated electoral register resulting in the virtual disenfranchisement of an entire generation of young voters, and a considerable over-printing of polling cards for the Jaffna District.

In addition, in this election, the integrity of the postal vote has come under suspicion for the first time. Documentary evidence has been published indicating that orders were placed with the Government Printer for a large stock of additional covers after the date on which the postal vote should have been concluded and the ballot papers kept, in their sealed covers, until the day of counting.

One should also not discount the demoralizing effect of post election violence, especially when it is known that a general election has to follow by August of this year. According to the Centre for Monitoring Election Violence (CMEV) which is hitherto the only monitoring organization to have published figures of post election incidents up to 31 December, the number of incidents reported in the Central, North-Western and North-Central Provinces equalled or exceeded the figures for pre-election violence and election day violence in those same provinces. While the largest number of incidents are attributed to the ruling party, a significant number are also attributed to the UNP.

(It should be mentioned for the record that the Southern, Province had the lowest of violence before, during and after the election.)

Irrespective of differences in detail or degree of the irregularities reported by them, all the election monitors including the foreign observers have called for the establishment of an independent election commission. This is an indication that all these groups feel that under the present system there is no guarantee that the power of the ruling party (of whatever hue) will not be abused at future elections.

The PAFFREL/MFFF, statement issued at the conclusion of the election ended with these words: "The pattern of violence observed, such as the stuffing of ballot boxes etc., is similar to what has occurred in the past. We note that the locations in which the malpractices have taken place also were the same as in previous elections and the politicians involved in the abuses are the same as well. PAFFREL/MFFE is concerned that the electoral process, which should guarantee the right of every citizen to vote and to participate in elections freely and without fear, is repeatedly failing to deliver this fundamental right."

On present trends it is therefore unlikely that there will be any improvement in the situation at the next round of polls unless there is a drastic reorganization of the manner in which elections are conducted. The safety of polling agents; the degree to which the Government of the day can control the appointment of SPOs and other election staff (as they do at present); the integrity of activities that are conducted within the confines of Government institutions such as the printing of poll cards and ballot papers and the custody of postal votes; and the effectiveness and independence of the Police in apprehending the perpetrators of violent and non-violent election offences are just some of the matters that require urgent consideration.

Concerned citizens and organizations should give their minds to these problem and not wait until the heat of another election campaign begins.

Continued...

  | NEWS | EDITORIAL | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |