Autonomy and Academic Freedom of uni versities are two conventional university traditions of high esteem, respected and cherished in all democratic countries of today. It is in recognition of these two basic principles in university management that the very first official commission appointed by the British Government, the Riddell Commission (S.P. No. 6 of 1929) when recommending the establishment of the University of Ceylon declared as policy that the university to be established should be an Autonomous institution free of any kind of government control or interference from any quarters outside. Associated with the autonomy in the management of the university, Academic Freedom of the university was also enshrined in the subsequent legislation, the Ceylon University Ordinance No. 20 of 1942 that established the then University of Ceylon the same year.

Since establishment as an independent university, the University of Ceylon reaped the benefits from these two privileges both academically and administratively, bringing much credit to the university and university education in the country for the following two decades or more. Until when attempts became evident as threats to this position the university enjoyed through legislative control for political reasons in 1965. Unfortunately, such inclinations became more evident through the years that followed, culminating in a gradual curtailment of both.

Autonomy and academic freedom are two essential requirements for any efficient university system. Autonomy gives the university "the independence it needs to survive with a character and life of its own deeply rooted in the needs and nature of the people among whom it is planted "That this is essential in the interest of academic progress has been generally accepted by all great educationists of experience since the establishment of the modern universities.

Sir Walter Moberly one time Chairman of the University Grants Committee of Great Britain, once observed "universities are powerful and influential corporations and they perform functions which are of high public importance. A high degree of autonomy is absolutely necessary if the functions of universities are to be properly performed, and for the maintenance of the autonomy vigilance is always necessary. Anything that threatens the autonomy of universities must be resisted whatever form it takes. It may be political interference. It may be just tidy-minded administrators' passion for standardisation "Such opinion would seem to merit serious consideration today when attempts are becoming evident to deprive the universities of such privilege in the name of reforms to reorganise the university system.

Speaking on the autonomy of the Indian universities, the Chancellor of the University of Bombay once commented, "I have a clear conviction that the political government of this country could hardly commit a greater mistake than by attempting to convert the university into a mere office or department of the state. Any loss of dignity or independence in the university involves also a loss of dignity of the highest kind of efficiency".

The one time Chancellor of the University of Madras in supporting the autonomy of the university, expressed his views a follows." More often than not, when one speaks of the autonomy of the universities the expression is either misunderstood or misjudged. The university is an independent body and should be independent of the government in the interest of academic progress".

In England the Right Hon'ble Hubert Morrison, the Labour Government minister expressed similar views when he addressed the Commonwealth Universities Conference at Oxford in 1948 "In this country, the government does not control the universities and I am very glad that it does not. I like the independence of the universities. What I like about the university life of the country is the intellectual freedom of it, the lack of official regimental governmental control and the atmosphere".

Associated with the administrative autonomy, the universities are privileged to possess some academic independence accepted as Academic Freedom. "Universities are asylums and rallying points for independent thought, the home of the right thinking few amongst the ignorant many. They preserve the memory of hard-thought rights for truth. The universities must be the haven of refuge for all devotees of truth, who prize it above the ephemeral attractions of temporal gains". Freedom of thought and action on academic pursuits of a university must be encouraged and sustained in the interest of university education at all times.

Making reference to university autonomy and academic freedom inherited by the British universities, Lord Attlee once observed "let there be no mistake that it is a freedom without any checks and balances or that it is assort of liberty which lends itself to become a license. What is meant is that freedom to work with the full knowledge of its responsibilities to society, to state, and the world at large, a freedom that should generate a sense of discipline and sense of duty in everyone associated with the university. Universities which have fallen from such high standards which they ought to maintain unfortunately have lowered the reputation of all universities and brought universities to a position where a sweeping condemnation is sometimes made possible".

These words of wisdom merit earnest consideration not only by university academics but also by all persons involved in university affairs irrespective of political affiliations or political ideologies. "If universities were also susceptible to the varying fortunes of political parties or ministers and governments, it would be difficult for universities to fulfil their functions and to steer clear of evanescent and half-baked ideas nurture in slogans "University autonomy and academic freedom, the two privileges universities have bequeathed from the inception of modern universities deserve recognition and preservation.

The British universities are noteworthy for the cordial relationship that exists between them and the state. Neither the Ministry of Education nor any other government department has any jurisdiction or control over them. Universities are entirely autonomous in their management and their administration. They establish their own courses of study, award their own degrees according to their own regulations. They admit what students they consider right to admit and appoint all academic and non-academic staff themselves.

The autonomy is all the more remarkable in view of the financial aid received from the government. Between two thirds and three quarters of the annual recurrent expenditure as well as one hundred percent of capital expenditure comes from government funds. Such financial assistance from the state would have been accompanied by some measure of government control. But for the British universities no such thing has happened or seems likely to happen in the future. It is firstly due to the concept of university autonomy and academic freedom which is firmly entrenched in public opinion and secondly, there is a well established relationship of confidence between the universities and the government.

The University Grants Committee of Great Britain constituted in 1919 to a great extent ensure the autonomy and academic freedom of the universities that have been bestowed with from the inception of the university system by not interfering in any manner with the administrative autonomy and academic matters of the universities to which the Grants Committee allocate funds from the government. It is evident that "the University Grants Committee itself is one of the stalwart defenders of university autonomy and academic liberty. It admits that a certain amount of planning must take place in the national interest but, the principle of central planning and of academic autonomy are not irreconcilable opposites".

The Indian Government established the University Grants Commission in 1953 just after five years of independence on similar principles of the Grants Committee of Great Britain as far as the constitution and the responsibilities are concerned. Both the British University Grants Committee and the Indian University Grants Commission function as advisory bodies to the respective government on the allocation of public funds to the universities and institutions of higher education. They do not share any responsibility on administrative and academic matters of the universities.

The functions of the Grants Commission of India are stated to be:

(1) To advise the Government on the allocation of grants-in-aid from public funds to Central Universities.

(2) To advise the Government on the allocation of Grants-in-Aid to other universities and institutions of higher learning whose case for such grants may be referred to the Commission by the Government and

(3) To advise the universities and other institutions of higher learning in respect of any question referred by the Government to the Commission. "The Commission consists of persons of high academic distinction and experience who have an intimate knowledge of the problems and needs of the universities on the one hand and a strong sense of their public responsibility on the others". The primary role of the Grants Commission is one of advisory rather than control of university activities.

Although India recognised the need of a University Grants Commission to decide on the allocation of government funds to universities immediately after independence, Sri Lanka took over three decades after independence even to realise such a need. The first step taken in the direction of establishing a Grants Commission happened to be the enactment of the National Council of Higher Education (NCHE) in 1966. The National Council of Higher Education established under the authority of a Minister of Education "who was no friend of universities or university graduates "and even detested university autonomy and academic freedom, introduced measures aimed at a restriction of university autonomy and independence of management to the discontent and frustration of university academic community. The National Council of Higher Education caused much fear for a ministerial control of the universities.

The establishment of the University Grants Commission in 1978 in place of the National Council of Higher Education was thought to be a step in the right direction for development and progress of universities as evident from the functioning of University Grants Commissions elsewhere. Yet for some reason or other the University Grants Commission so established appeared to be much different from the Grants Committee of Great Britain or the Grants Commission of India the two prototype models familiar to the country, by being vested with responsibilities on a wider range of university functions other than the disbursement of government grants-in-aid to the universities. It was felt from the inception of the University Grants Commission that the functions assigned to the Commission had been excessive and even prejudicial to the independence, autonomy and academic freedom of the universities. University management under the Grants Commission all these years has not shown much change in attitude or relationship from those experienced under the former National Council of Higher Education that it replaced.

Apparently, the proposed university Reforms have also not made any endeavour to remedy this position careful analysis of the proposals gives the impression that there is a subtle attempt to consolidate the powers already vested in the University Grants Commission than to render universities more independent and autonomous.

The proposals do not indicate a comprehensible national policy on university education or planning and organising an efficient university system at a time such radical reforms are in great need. There is also the lack of positive suggestions for remedying the problems and issues that have become evident in the recent past as a result of haphazard and ad-hoc changes introduced into the system ostensibly for political advantage. One of the glaring issues is the proliferation of under provided or ill provided universities in the recent past without any consideration of the country's need. When the priority ought to be the improvement of the conditions under which the existing universities function due to lack of funds, shortage of well qualified staff, accommodation and student welfare activities, there is a proposal to establish two more universities immediately.

A striking feature of the proposed reforms is the extensive responsibilities given to the University Grants Commission on a majority of university functions some of which are purely academic or internal management functions. These reforms indicate nine major proposals under each of which many aspects of the proposals are discussed in detail. In delegating the responsibility for implementing these proposals several agencies are named and for no justifiable reason the University Grants Commission is indicated as one of the agencies for a great majority of these proposals. As a result the University Grants Commission becomes extensively involved in both academic and management functions of the universities, that could deny the right of the universities for autonomy and academic freedom. The reforms if implemented as they are, the university system could be subject to unhealthy external pressures and vested interests.

Autonomy and Academic Freedom have to be fostered if the universities are to function as centres of excellence and independent institutions. Only when the universities are given the freedom for managing their own affairs without any interference from outside agencies or individuals could the universities operate in a competent manner. Any reforms on university education must recognise the worth of these conventional and traditional attributes of autonomy and academic freedom the slightest deprivation of which could be a disaster to any successful and efficient university.

(Continued from yesterday)

The Agreement
The negotiations had an independent chairman, the American Senator George Mitchell. Those taking part included the British and Irish governments, the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP, Sinn Fein, the moderate Alliance Party and the Women's Coalition. Two parties associated with the UVF and the UDA also took part, the progressive Unionist Party and the Ulster Democratic Party.

The Agreement brokered by Mitchell was concluded on 10 April, only after direct involvement by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and his Irish counterpart, Bertie Ahern. In many respects it reflected the earlier Framework Documents, though there were noticeable moves in the Unionist direction, especially in acknowledging 'that while a substantial section of the people of Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of the people of the island of Ireland for a United Ireland, the present wish of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people'. Two points need to be noted here. Firstly, in accepting this Nationalists, especially Sinn Fein, were making a historic compromise with partition. Secondly, the basis of the Union was now firmly placed on the consent of the people – this was seen both as a guarantee to Unionists and a reassurance to Nationalists that Britain had no other interest in Northern Ireland. It enabled Sinn Fein to see the Agreement as a transitionary phase to a united Ireland. To facilitate both political traditions certain constitutional changes were to be made. On the British side, the 1920 Government of Ireland which embodied British jurisdiction and had partitioned Ireland was to be repealed. Instead, it was "declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remain part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll" For its part, the Republic of Ireland agreed to repeal Articles 2 and 3 of its 1937 Constitution which claimed jurisdiction over the whole island. It recognised 'that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means With the consent of the people, democratically expressed, both jurisdiction in the island'.

The Agreement set out new principles for the Internal government of Northern Ireland through a 108-member Assembly elected by proportional representation. Governmental responsibilities would be allocated according to party strength in the Assembly and mechanisms were got in place to ensure that key decisions would have all-party support. Key decisions would require either a "majority of those members present and voting, including a majority of the unionist and nationalist designations present and voting; or a weighted majority (60%) of members present and voting, including at leat 40% of each of the nationalist and unionist designations present and voting'." The Assembly was to have legislative and executive powers, though parliament at Westminster also retained the power to legislate for Northern Ireland. The executive was to be headed by a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister, elected on a cross-community basis. They would preside over an Executive Committee allocated to parties on the basis of the number of seats they held in the Assembly. Those elected to office had to be pledged to democratic, non-violent means.

These complex mechanisms were necessary to assure Nationalists that there would be no return to the Unionist-dominated parliamentary system which had existed between 1921 and 1972. Nationalists would not have agreed otherwise. Nationalists had their Irish identity and aspirations acknowledged through the operation of a North' South Ministerial Council, drawn from the Assembly and the government in Dublin. Its decisions were to be by agreement, an assential condition for Unionist consent. It was to deal with matters of potential all-Ireland interest such as aspects of agriculture, transport, tourism and educational qualifications. Finally, there was to be a British-Irish Council, representing the British and Irish governments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, together with the devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales. This too, would deal with such issues as transport links, cultural issues and the environment.

Further key elements dealt with human rights and equality. In particular, the British government pledged itself to 'take resolute action to promote the (Irish) language'. Other aspects were more contentious, especially for Unionists. The section on the decommissioning of arms required all parties 'to reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations, and to use any influence they have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years'. It was a crucial point for the IRA that they should not be seen to be surrendering to the British authorities. On the controversial issue of policing, the Agreement set out arrangements for an independent Commission 'to make recommendations for future policing arrangements'. This clearly involved the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which was 93% Protestant. Undoubtedly the most contentious element was the section on prisoner releases, vital if Sinn Fain, the progressive Unionists and the Ulster Democratic Party were to endorse the proposals. This set out a schedule for advancing the release dates for prisoners belonging to paramilitary organisations observing a ceasefire, and certainly within two years. Finally, it was explicitly set out that the various elements in the Agreement were 'interlocking and interdependent' — Political parties would not have the luxury of choosing which parts they accepted and which they did not.

It was a complex Agreement in which it could be argued that Nationalists had made the greater compromises. But the SDLP and the great majority of Sinn Fein endorsed it, as did the Alliance Party and the Women's Coalition. The outright rejection of the Democratic Unionists and the United Kingdom Unionists was predictable, but less so was that of other sections of unionism. The progressive Unionists and the Ulster Democratic Party gave full support, implying the backing of the UVF and UDA. But while the Ulster Unionist Party leader, David Trimble secured the backing of his party's ruling council, there was a dangerous erosion of support. Even before the negotiations were concluded, key members of his negotiating team had been unable to follow him into acceptance. Interestingly, their main objections were to the provisions on prisoner release and arms decommissioning, rather than the constitutional arrangements. This posed a serious threat to the Agreement's acceptance by the Protestant electorate.

On the Nationalist side it was immediately clear that supporters of the SDLP and Sinn Fein would vote overwhelmingly for the Agreement. But polls conducted by the British government indicated a large measure of unease amongst unionists and supporters of Trimble privately Indicated their concern over the possible outcome. In the end, it took a substantial personal commitment by British prime minister. Tony Blair to reassure Unionists over prisoner releases and arms decommissioning. When the referendum was held in Northern Ireland on 2 May, the Agreement was endorsed by 71.2% of the electorate. The result seemed to show that the unionists section of the electorate had backed the agreement albeit by a narrow margin. The elections to the Assembly, held on 25 June, broadly confirmed this picture of the parties supporting the Agreement, the Ulster unionists won 28 seats, the SDLP 24, Sinn Fein 18, Alliance 6, the progressive unionists 2, and the Women's Coalition 2. For the opponents, the Democratic unionists won 20, the United Kingdom Unionists 5, and independent Unionists 3, Potentially, the new First Minister designate, David Trimble, was in the difficult position of commanding a Unionist group of 30 against a combined Unionist opposition group of 28. This clearly reflected continuing unease in the Protestant community over the Agreement.

Even so, the referendum was the most significant electoral result in Northern Ireland's history. Nationalists had voted to work within a partitionist structure, while Unionists had endorsed an arrangement to share power and operate joint bodies with Irish Republic. A majority of Unionists had come to terms with the reality that the only effective Union was one which politicians in London could uphold and one which made Nationalists feel included. Opposition certainly remained amongst a substantial section of the Unionist population, but most Unionist politicians seemed willing to accept the verdict of the referendum. Less predictable was the reaction of extreme sections of the IRA which opposed a settlement giving less than a united Ireland it was this group, calling itself the Real IRA, which exploded a major bomb in the small town of Omagh on 15 August, killing 28 people. The widespread reaction against this action in all sections of the community forced even this group to suspend its operations. There is now no significant armed group which has not ceased its campaign. (concluded)

continued from yesterday

Chapter 8
The broad dual carriage-way street that led to the Clarion was littered with soothsayers. They congregated, especially at one end, because the only government employment agency was located there. It was a long grey, dinghy building. Behind its dirty trellis people waited with a blend of desperation and hope to find a job. Even entering the building was a measure of success for only a limited number out of the daily winding morning queue was admitted.

During the wait, the men (there were no women in unemployment queues then), spent some silver, or nickel, to cross the palms of the soothsayers, and have their fortunes read.

Raj knew them all by sight and had resisted appeals, so far, by nods or vocally, to have his sastra read. Some were well-dressed men, well shod and even well ‘tied’, the closed collar an obvious imposition in a constant humid temperature of about 30 degrees by day. They sat on folding chairs, with a framed chart of the zodiac or a drawing of the palm of a hand on the ground beside them. In their hands they bore some ancient tome written on brown ola leaves.

As one descended to the next level of the social scale there were men wearing the white Sinhala cloth and long sleeved thin cotton shirt, chewing betel leaves and squirting the red juice beside them on the pavement. Others wore sarong and shirt, squatting on the floor with a couple of peacock feathers and phials of supposedly magical oils before them. At the bottom rung came the gypsies, South Indian women, some young mothers nursing a baby at the breast. Others were young damsels, some of them fetchingly pretty, their hair oiled and combed back and tied in a knot at the back and their lips red from nature or from betel juice or cochineal. Some had designs of red painted on their palms. They were saree-clad, barefoot, and squatted on their haunches.

Raj never ceased to be amazed by the diverse clientele these humble professionals commanded. He found it hard to understand how otherwise sceptical people could imagine that these obvious charlatans could tell what lay in store for them.

There were other astrologers working in chambers who had made international reputations for themselves through accurate forecasts placed in sealed envelopes in banks of world events, changes of government, calamities and deaths of celebrities. Even if such astrologers could command respect Raj wondered how these wayside performers, these barrel organ monkeys of mystical mumbo jumbo, could cause simple and sophisticated individuals to extend their palms to them to have them read.

As he passed them daily on his way to work he could not help but notice the entire burlesque, the devices used by the soothsayers to attract custom. The baby at the exposed breast was one in the gamut of female charms. The Mephistophelian nod of the gaunt-faced man, the grasping of the arm, the arrest of the passers-by until they shook themselves free, and the introductory one-liner, offered free of charge, that sometimes got the victim by chance if it happened to coincide with the truth.

Raj recalled an evening when a young woman – always shabbily dressed in a short cloth hardly below her knees and a loose shabby blouse showing much of her breasts, known to be mad and also known to be the victim of drunken men roaming the streets hunting for cheap sex – was wandering about uttering gibberish as usual.

As she passed the soothsayers, in one her moments of clarity, she demanded in an almost scornful aside, "If you soothsayers are so good, can you tell me when I will die?"

Raj had wondered who indeed was mad.

As he went past them this morning, with only idle thoughts for company, one of the women soothsayers looked straight into his eyes and said, "You are to cross the ocean soon."

That’s bloody likely, thought Raj. He would have to save for a long time before he could afford a trip. Besides he had been recently sent to London on a kind of cursory training. No, there was no overseas trip in the offing.

Raj walked into the office of the Clarion.

There was one obstacle he had to pass each morning, an irritation perhaps – sometimes tolerable, sometimes acutely annoying – according to the prevalent mood. He had to pass the reception desk where he was required to mark his attendance. Routine, but there was the receptionist, a pimply faced youth with a misplaced and ill-timed sense of humour, not improved by a stutter, sometimes so marked that it left him breathless and flushed.

"H-h-h-hullo, R-r-r-raj, where are they ch-ch-ch-chasing you today?"

Raj smiled indulgently and never retorted because there were always visitors seated on the long leather covered couches.

He smiled and passed on, inwardly muttering, "Shut up you b-b-b-burgher b-b-b-bugger!"

Having passed this barrier, Raj half ran up the stairs and walked into the editorial department.

Raj could read atmosphere the way farmers read weather. Depression hung like a cloud over the room.

"Anything wrong?" he asked.

Two or three reporters answered at once. "Auggie’s in intensive care...massive heart attack...at a party last night."

That really was bad news. Augustine Gabriel was the paper’s, the whole group’s star reporter. It was he, more than all the other reporters in the entire group, who gave it the lofty image that he enjoyed. He was journalism’s soldier of fortune, prepared to do anything, go anywhere, take any risk for a story. He was a bachelor, though there were dozens of women slavering after him hoping to alter his civil status, then his lifestyle. He treated therm all with a mixture of scorn and contempt, as men of his looks and manner and fame were wont to do. He bedded them when it pleased him, then strutted away not so much triumphantly as with boredom for what he considered the trifle he had granted, almost grudgingly.

Strutting became him, with his big, strong erect frame, his mane of black glossy hair backing his broad brow, grey blue eyes, finely sculpted nose and mouth. He looked a young Red Indian brave.

He strode the reporting scene. All the Cabinet Ministers, without exception, were known to him personally. This was a credit to his skill as a reporter and to his engaging manner. Sinhalese politicians preferred to deal with Sinhalese journalists. Gabriel was a Tamil. Such was his stature that in spite of the boiling pot of racial turmoil and the recent trauma of riots in which thousands of Tamils had suffered and were brutally massacred, that in spite of the strained relations between the governing party and the Federal Party, Gabriel was able to talk to Bandaranaike as well as to the Tamil leader, Chelvanayakam.

"The News Editor was looking for you."

Raj was jolted into the present.

The barrel shaped Ishak looked up from under his black, bushy eyebrows and over his thick lensed glasses. He used very economical movements because of his extraordinary bulk. His girth was so wide he needed armless chairs. Being an orthodox Muslim he did not drink alcohol;- beer he did not consider an alcoholic beverage, but smoked enough for three hard-labouring wharfies.

"What are you doing today?"

"I have three appointments, and a meeting in the evening..."

"Drop everything. You have to meet the PM."

"What?"

"It’s Auggie’s appointment. At four o’clock." After a pause Ishak added, "Some fucker has to go, so don’t get swollen headed."

Raj smiled. He was pleased, and he knew Ishak was pleased as well. There never was much love lost between Ishak and Gabriel. He resented the star reporter’s lofty airs.

Raj stood there a little stunned. He had attended a few meetings at which Bandaranaike had spoken, covered Parliamentary sessions, attended one of his vaunted breakfast conferences, but had never met him for a personal interview as Prime Minister. He had obtained a brief statement on a matter pertaining to foreign affairs. But that had been a non-event.

"What are you hanging around?" Ishak asked, without even looking up. "Oh, by the way, the Managing Director wants to see you before you go to Rosmead Place."

Raj glanced at his watch. It was a little past one thirty.

He would have to leave the office by three thirty to get to the Prime Minister’s residence. He decided to see the MD at once.

He buzzed the secretary and was invited to enter. The MD’s office was a long, teak-panelled room. The floors were inlaid with expensive Burma teak. Everything smelt of wax and polish. The air-conditioning was uncomfortably cold.

The pale skinned, jelly-fleshed magnate sat at a huge desk littered with files, newspapers, magazines and documents. A coupe of ebony elephants and an exquisite marble statuette of Venus de Milo were visible above the confusion.

On his right, with her back to him, a slim, fair diminutive secretary was typing at a steel desk. As Raj entered she turned round. She looked harder and colder than the steel desk. She was clad in a saree and blouse with a band of pale white flesh showing fashionably at the waist.

"Come in, come in," said the MD in his customary staccato style. "Sit down, sit down...pity about Auggie...you must have heard...poor chap...pretty bad...had a word with the physician...has a fifty-fifty chance...will take months to recover...long leave...won’t be able to go to New York with the PM..."

Raj’s heart began to throb like a Kandyan dancer’s drum.

He noted that the MD held a black ebony letter opener in his limp, almost boneless hands.

"...want you to cultivate the old man...have spoken to him...get your passport ready...go with him to the UN..." And then he added, quite incongruously, and to Raj’s mind, quite incomprehensibly: "Remember, never sneeze aloud when overseas...carry on...come and tell me about it...right..."

He rang a small bell on his desk and an elderly peon in white livery entered, bowing obsequiously.

Raj left.

As he emerged from the air-conditioned room he reeled.

How the hell could that gypsy girl have possibly known?

But then again, it could have been a sheer coincidence, what they called a shot in the dark.

The particular feature of Sri Lankan Tamil politics is that the majority of representatives of predominately Tamil areas are permanent residents in the South. The Christian Workers Fellowship pamphlet enlightened Social Change in Ceylon published in 1967 says in this connection:

"The educated man in Jaffna is held in very high esteem. In fact it has been mainly through English education that Tamils of Jaffna origin have been able to acquire wealth, power and influence in society. It is a fact that many accredited political leaders of Jaffna reside in the South and amass their wealth in these parts. These persons are members of the Ceylonese capitalist class who are essentially Right-wing in politics. In the Jaffna Peninsula, however, they are accepted as the leaders of an oppressed Tamil minority in the country struggling for its rights. In this role the Right-wing nature of their politics in the wider national area is hereby obscured. It must be stated in this connection that the politics of Jaffna even from Donoughmore times have tended to be peninsular and communal.

The pamphlet goes on to say:

"In fact apart from the left-wing political parties, there are no parties with a truly national orientation and appeal in Jaffna politics. But the Left-wing parties, apart from one or two notable exceptions, no political leaders socially acceptable to the caste dominated society of Jaffna have arisen. Communal politics as manifest in Jaffna appears to be mainly reactionary in content. The struggle for Ôminority rightsÕ seems to be conducted in the interest of essentially the English educated and more well to do middle class sections. This brand of sterile communal politics not only helps to divert the attention of the Jaffna Tamils from the more urgent, vital and wider national tasks confronting our people. It also impedes any genuine movement towards a more equitable social order which will help to solve also the problems of communalism. There does not appear to be a sufficiently strong and organized movement yet for the emancipation of the depressed castes in the Peninsula. It is also significant that no purely Tamil speaking person whether peasant or worker has ever been elected a Member of Parliament in the whole of the Peninsula." (pp 65, 66)

Do the ordinary Tamil people want a separate State or Regional Council for themselves? Do they want to live in a Tamil Ghetto isolated from other communities?

Ms Chandrika Kumaratunga, Vice President, Sri Lanka Mahajana Party says in the course of an article she has written under the title Peace: For What to the magazine Logos published by the Centre for Society and Religion, in this connection:

"As early as 1982 October during the Presidential elections when the terrorist organization came out strongly against participation in elections, 83% of the people in the Jaffna district and 84% or 86% of the people of Vavuniya district voted for the Sinhala Buddhist candidate Mr. Kobbekaduwa. This was in spite of a Tamil candidate - Mr. Kumar Ponnambalam - contesting the elections. The 83% and 86% votes from Jaffna and Vavuniya were the largest votes the SLFP (Sri Lanka Freedom Party) received in the entire country. This we see as a very clear and definite proof that the Jaffna people do not want separatism and shows their believe in the democratic process. It is also a clear vote against terrorism" (Vol; 25, No. 3, October 1986)

This is also a very clear and definite proof that the ordinary Tamil people are not communal minded.

At the request of the Christian Churches in Sri Lanka, the World Council of Churches, Geneva sent a team of experts to Sri Lanka in 1980 "to see for themselves the situation in the country as a whole, and to make known to the world ecumenical community the country's problems and the challenges to the Churches there." The report has been published by the World Council Churches under the title Pluralist, Passion and Power. In its content and tone, the report is openly anti-Sinhalese, anti-Buddhist and pro-separatist. I have criticised this report on an earlier occasion. I must say however that it contains a few paragraphs which are factual and also give some insight to the problem.

The burden of the report is that the on-going struggle is not one between or among the ordinary people in Sri Lanka belonging as they do to a number of ethnic and religious communities and that they have an age old tradition of co-existence and tolerance. The report says for example:

"The results of the conflict has been, and continue to be, traumatic for large numbers of the population, regardless of their ethnic origin.The long-term history of Sri Lanka has been characterized by a remarkable tolerance exercised by ordianry people, who have continued to practise their religious faith - Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or Christian in a spirit of mutual respect in spite of sporadic tension and provocation arising from other sources. But constant frustration, tension and provocation have causd a gradual erosion of the framework of goodwill and mutual respect which characterized the different communities living side by side in one small island". (P. 26)

Now, who are the "extraordinary people" who, in their lust for power, "destroyed the frame work of goodwill and mutual respect which characterized the different communities in Sri Lanka" for ages?

The World Council of Churches, however, does not see the present conflict as an "ethnic" one. It sees it as a conflict caused by the denial of justice and fair-play to the many by the few who hold power and who are behind those who hold power.

"People believe themselves to be in an ethnic conflict, but the real issues - those of the conflict between power and justice - are deeper. This is what we should be addressing. And the people who are suffering are not those who can change the social structure". (P. 24)

The World Watch Institute in U.S.A., is an organization specially devoted to the research, study and analysis of social, economic affairs in the countries throughout the world. It publishes in addition to a monthly magazine an annual publication called The State of the World containing articles on subjects of international interest written by men and women who are authorities on the subjects they write.

The state of the world, 1997, carries an articles by Michael Renner entitled Tansforming Security which, among other things, has a reference to Sri Lanka. Under the significant paragraph-heading "A culture of violence has taken root in many countries" he says:

"Where ethnic tensions do exist, however, they did not rise in a vacuum. One of the continuing legalised of colonial and imperial rule is that boundaries are often arbitrary - drawn not to reflect local realities, but to serve the purposes of the imperial masters. As a result, people of the same culture, language, or ethnicity found themselves separated by international borders and grouped with people of other backgrounds and origins, irrespective of whether they had previously coexisted peacefully, at odds, or had no significant contact at all. To steady their rule, colonial administrations typically favoured one local group often a minority, over others - Tamils over Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Tutsi over Hutu in Rwanda and Burundi, Christian Arabs over Sunni and Shia Moslems in Lebanon - which generated fatal resentments.

"Following independence, civic life in many of these states continued to be split along ethnic lines, with one group ruling at the expense of the other".

It would appear that at long last the world is beginning to know the truth about the so called ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Up to now the truth has been obscured by the massive incessant and strident propaganda campaign of lies, distortions, disinformations and imaginary atrocity stories carried on by the Tamil separatist expatriates, particularly in the industrialized countries in the West. Their sob stories of discriminations, their allegations of genocide and ethnic cleansing, their concocted atrocity stories, are all designed to win the sympathy of the Christian West and to collect funds for their war against the democratically elected Government of Sri Lanka in order to set up a Tamil dominated Government not only in the Northern and Eastern Provinces but also, as Mr. S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike revealed in the course of a debate in the House of Representatives on 4th June, 1958 in the entire island. That is the dream and the vision of the separatist Tamils.

We do want peace. We want peace because this war foisted on our people by a few power hungry fascist-minded Tamil politicians in the name of liberating the Tamil people" has had the effect of eating into the vitals of our economy and retarding the development of the country and raising the quality of life of our people. The war also has brought death, misery and sorrow to hundred of thousands of innocent people including the Tamils whom the separatists seek to liberate! But we do want a peace in which Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim ghettoes will be created and enshrined in the constitution. It is neither democratic nor progressive. It will lead to the dismemberment and the disintegration of our small island.

In other words we do not want the peace of the grave.