      |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Prabhakaran’s speech is published on page 20
By D . B . S. JeyarajThe annual oration by LTTE leader Velupillai Prabakharan on the occasion of the Great Heroes (or martyrs) day last Friday, Nov. 27th is now receiving the widest possible media publicity among the Tamil Diaspora which according to the tiger supreme numbers more than eight hundred thousand. The Tamil media abroad is really going to town with the address to the nation by the "National leader". Newspapers are publishing the Tamil transcript of the speech in full. Radios are relaying the original speech by Prabakharan. "Audio Gazette" of the speech are being lapped up rapidly. In a few days time CD’s will be out and in a few weeks the video. It can be safely assumed that unless something really drastic occurs in Sri Lanka shortly, the subject that will dominate Tamil expatriates till Christmas is going to see the "Maaveerar Thinap Pechu".
Although the LTTE has released extracts of the speech in English it is advisable for any one proficient in Tamil to obtain a copy in the original Tamil. For one thing it is an aesthetic delight to read or listen to the speech in Tamil instead of English. The pitfalls of translation is easily discernible. Some nuances can only be understood clearly in the original Tamil. Also the flowery phraseology gets quite garbled in the English translation. The rhetorical flourishes that seem acceptable in Tamil tend to sound outlandish in English. The speech this time is both substantive and stylish. In fact there is a poetic quality about it and one wonders whether Puthuvai Rathnadurai the poet laureate of the LTTE had a hand in polishing it.
More important however is the fact that the English translation leaves out certain passages that are strikingly prominent in the original. The most glaring omissions were in the beginning and end of the speech. Prabakharan is passionately sentimental when delivering those passages. Although he is not an impressive speaker and was quite expressionless when reading them the composition and language of those passages struck an emotional chord. The overall impression gained by anyone who read or beard the complete version in Tamil would only have been that peace and a negotiated settlement were elusive as ever.
Instead one is amused to see the superficial but hyperactive news agencies filing innumerable stories about the peace overtures by the LTTE leader and about how hopes of peace have been raised as a result of the speech. The shallow stories of peace hopes filed by these rapid results oriented scribes are surpassed by the "informed comments" made by politicians. All that Prabakharan did was to utter the magic word peace and our so called Tamil politicians of the mainstream go into ecstasies. What is despicable about these welcoming pronouncements is that most of these persons described as ex-militants know fully well what the LTTE is all about. In private they would wax eloquent about the uncompromising determination and commitment of Prabakharan towards Eelam and how he would fight and die rather than accept something less. But the past week has seen all these Tamil leaders gushing away about the prospects of peace.
The TULF Parliamentarian of Batticaloa Joseph Pararajasingham is quoted by Reuters as having said "the long awaited response from Prabakharan has now come out. It is now up to the government and opposition leaders to take the next step". Douglas Devananda of the EPDP says: "Now again the LTTE leader has said that the doors are open for talks. IT should be considered positively’’. At face value these Tamil Parliamentarians seem to suggest that the LTTE leader has opened the door for peace and is amenable to a solution. Does it mean then that hitherto Prabakharan had never been for peace and is changing stance only now? Of course not! The LTTE has engaged in several peace talks in the past. In fact the rationale for LTTE fighting itself is that all avenues for peace had been closed by various Sinhala regimes.
No, the LTTE and Prabakharan have always paid lip service to the concept of peace and negotiations. Only what they sought to gain from talks was something tangible and great that was beyond the scope of any Sinala oriented government to concede at least at this point of time. On the other hand the ideological commitment and motivation of Prabakharan and his cadres towards the goal of Tamil Eelam was also far too great to be abandoned for something lesser. With such a hiatus prevailing no serious negotiation could have succeeded if and when it tackled substantive issues. But then none of the talks entered into by the LTTE with various parties ever discussed substantive issues concerning alternative systems of governance. Instead what has been happening is that all talks in which the LTTE engaged in have focused on different issues ranging from the removal of the sixth amendment to the removal of the Pooneryn camp.
The latest great heroes day address by Prabakharan does speak of the LTTE’s willingness to engage in dialogue. He reiterates that they were always amenable to peaceful negotiations and blames the Sinhala governments for unleashing war. While stating that he is not stipulating any precondition for peace Prabakharan also says that a climate of peace and goodwill must be crested and a congenial environment evolved for satisfactory peace negotiations to begin. He says that the day to day needs of the people must be addressed first and that the suffering people cannot wait indefinitely until a solution is evolved for their hardship to cease.
These viewpoints evoke a sense of Deja Vu. This was the same position taken by the LTTE during the talks with the Chandrika government. "Andraadappirachanaigal" (Day to day problems) before "Adippadaipirachanaigal" (fundamental problems) was the credo then. The Kumaratunga government responded to those terms and did not touch on the fundamental issues during talks. After the talks collapsed LTTE propagandists had a field day blaming Kumaratunga for the failure. One charge made against her was that instead of addressing fundamental political issues her government was only dealing with trivial issues. She was trying to hoodwink the Tamil masses by trying to send food and essential items to Jaffna and buy over the Tamils the LTTE charged. Was it for food that the Tamil people launched their struggle they queried.
Now what do we have? Like the phantom climbing the Murunga tree again and again in the Vikramadhithyan fable Mr. Prabakharan too is climbing his own Murunga tree again by insisting that the day to day problems must be resolved before discussing substantive issues. The LTTE lobby will now endorse him wholeheartedly conveniently forgetting their bitter criticism of Kumaratunga for the same reason. In a hypothetical situation we may see talks commence on day to day issues. If and when those talks flounder we’ll see the LTTE lobby blaming the government again for not being serious and frittering away valuable time on non-essential issues concerning the trivial needs of the people.
Prabakharan’s hypocrisy and cynicism is also patent when he talks about the need for the immediate alleviation of the people’s suffering. Their plight is so pathetic that they can hardly wait for negotiations to progress gradually and the solution arrived at be implemented laments Prabakharan. Therefore it is important that the day to day needs be remedied first he says. It was on the same basis that talks were conducted three years ago too, But having expressed concern for the abject plight of his people what does this so called "national leader" do? He plunges them into another round of a savage war that increases their suffering. A people who could not wait for some months to get relief were compelled to suffer more grief by having war thrust on them! That is the real index of the concern the great leader has for his people.
This year’s "Maveerar" day speech too refers to the readiness for peace and conditional prerequisites. "We hold the view that political negotiations cannot be free, fair and just if the government utilizes the military aggression on our soil and the restrictions imposed on the economic life of our people as political pressures. We are prepared to engage in initial talks to discuss the removal of such pressures and to work out a basic framework for political negotiations" said Prabakharan. So we come to a replay of the 1995 scenario again. Then the LTTE controlled greater territory. It wanted only the Pooneryn camp to be removed then. Now the entire peninsula and chunks of the Wanni are under military control. What now. Is the army to withdraw from all those areas captured after 1995 to create the normalcy conditions necessary for talks ?
The LTTE leader’s concern for his people is also selective and fractured. In 1995 the concern was for all Tamil people living in the north. During "Riviresa" the LTTE engineered an exodus and wanted the people to relocate to the Wanni. Those who complied became "People", in the eyes of Velupillai Prabakharan. Those who stayed on in the peninsula or returned there became " non people". Those people are now being viewed an a "subhuman species" by the LTTE. Under the pretext of depriving the armed forces of supplies the LTTE has interdicted smooth passage of food and goods to the peninsula. Air travel has been curtailed after it shot down the passenger plane. All opportunities for rehabilitation in Jaffna were thwarted by the Tigers. So nowadays people while those living in the tiger controlled areas retain their "peoplehood" yet.
But this concept of people and the insistence that military aggression on ‘’Eelam" soil has to be removed to create the correct conditions for talks has a regional bias too, "Tamil Eelam" after all is supposed to comprise the northern and eastern provinces. The north - east merger is supposedly a non - negotiable issue for the LTTE . But then why is Mr . Prabakharan talking only of the north in terms of Eelam soil? He says that military aggression on our soil has to be removed before meaningful talks . But then the armed forces are present in the Eastern Province too. In fact the army and the Special Task Force are well entrenched in the littoral areas of the East known as ‘’Eluvankarai" or the "shore of the rising sun". Why is the presence of the armed forces in the east not an issue that amounts to "aggression"? One is puzzled by the LTTE logic. Is only northern soil Eelam soil?
Furthermore this year’s great heroes day speech betrays another form of regional bias too. Prabakharan refers to "Chandrika’s political project of establishing Sinhala state administration in the occupied Jaffna peninsula withthe help of the Tamil quislings being shattered". He says "we cannot allow the Sinhala aggressive army to occupy even an inch of our homeland nor will we permit Sinhala state administrative functions in the occupied Tamil lands." Again this attitude begs the question why only Jaffna.
The political logic an enunciated by Mr. Prabakharan should extend to other areas of the so called Tamil Eelam and not Jaffna alone. Batticaloa has a mayor; Trincomalee and Vavuniya have Urban Councils. Civil administrative structures are prevalent in the east and lower Wanni. The LTTE has not targeted those structures. The tigers have not said anything about the "Sinhala state administrative functions" in those places. So once again the question to be posed is only Jaffna peninsula Thamil Eelam.
Apart from the conditions to be created as a prerequisite for talks there is also some indirect references to self - determination and identity. This in essence is, reassertion of the resolutions presented at the negotiations at Thimphu the capital of Bhutan in 1985. Again the underlying logic of the Tamil group" in presenting those demands was not with a view to seek a negotiated settlement but to place the Colombo government in an unenviable position. The demands were formulated in order to provoke the UNP government to reject them and thereby bring an end to the Thimphu talks. It succeeded then. This was at a time when no Tamil group had disowned the Eelam demand and therefore understandable. But resurrecting the Thimphu demands in any form now cannot be a constructive contribution towards negotiations settlement in a united Sri Lanka. In fact such manoeuvres can only be perceived as disruptive of the negotiating process.
Thus it seems quite apparent that while the LTTE leader talks of the doors to peace being open he has also outlined some implicit stipulations that would be hard for any government let alone the Kumaratunga regime to accede to at this juncture. Given the track record of the LTTE the PA government cannot take the risk of agreeing to its requests, withdrawing the army and commencing negotiations. There would be tremendous Sinhala backlash that may cause political convulsions within the armed forces itself. Sadly the Kumaratunga government cannot even pretend to commence negotiations at least for the sake of calling the LTTE bluff.
There is only one possibility for Kumaratunga to commence negotiations with the LTTE on Tiger terms. That is she must have trust and confidence in the LTTE to believe that the Tigers will really and truly stick it out at the negotiating table till a solution is reached. But she mistrust the LTTE on this account. One cannot blame her entirely for this as the LTTE has burnt her once. Even now the Tigers hate Chandrika more than any other Sinhala political leader. She knows it. If she extends the olive branch they will grasp it and commence talks. After a while they will sabotage it and start the war again. That will mean the political demise of Kumaratunga. One can be sure that Mr. Wickremasinghe who is urging her to talk to the LTTE now will reverse his position and say she should have talked to the Tigers.
Against this backdrop it is certainly perplexing to see persons like Pararajasingham and Devananda urging the government to respond to the LTTE leader’s offer. The reality is that there is no offer and only the illusion of an offer leading to peace. The experienced Tamil politicians know this. But perhaps they thought that even a brief respite during talks for the suffering Tamil people would have been welcome. But Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremasinghe’s position after the great heroes day is hilarious.
According to an APP report Ranil is quoted on the issue as having said "I would call this a very significant and a more positive development.... The LTTE offer requires a response from the government. Talks can start without conditions on either side. If the talks progress well then you can take other issues", Mr. Wickremasinghe is also reported as having said that the government has no alternative but to go in for talks to end the political and military stalemate. He also said that the government’s proposed power sharing plan in the form of a political package aimed at turning Sri Lanka to a de-facto federal state was unacceptable. "The package as far as we are concerned is dead. All you have to do is give it a decent burial. Even the LTTE has outrightly rejected the package. So they will have to discuss something else with the Tigers," Wickremasinghe said.
Now Mr. Wickremasinghe is not political novice. He has been a cabinet minister for 15 years, Prime minister for a year, and Opposition Leader for 4 years. He also knows the attributes of the LTTE. So he knows that any government that seeks to reach a negotiated settlement with the Tigers has to offer substantive concessions. But he and his party have refused to support the Kumaratunga government’s devolution package because it would create quasi-federalism. In short the UNP objection is to the Tamil side being given substantially powers at the periphery. The UNP does not object to the package because it gives too little to the Tamils but because it gives too much. In that context is there any chance for the tigers whose sights are set on goals far in excess of the devolution package to reach an agreement?
Ranil indulges in an obfuscating exercise that is hardly becoming of the person he is when he says ‘’even the LTTE has rejected the package". There is no reference to the causes for the LTTE reaction. The Tigers rejected the package as it falls far short of Tamil aspirations according to them. Wickremasinghe objects as the package gives far too much. So what kind of meaningful talks are possible now? Mr. Wickremasinghe knows fully well that no meaningful talks are possible in the current context and is urging Kumaratunga to talk to the tigers only to score cheap political points. But then Kumaratunga on the other hand goes on alienating the UNP further while fully realising that bipartisan consensus is essential.
Thus the scenario can only be described as gloomy. The LTTE and UNP have seen to it that Kumaratunga’s politico-military project does not work well. The government has placed itself in a position where it has no option but to go on with the war. The peace lobby is not powerful enough to pressurise the warring parties as well as opposition parties into co-operating towards a peaceful settlement. Two factors are essential for lasting peace. Firstly Sinhala consensus in the South on the extent of Tamil rights to be recognized. Secondly genuine willingness on the part of the LTTE to accept negotiated settlement. This can only be possible through pressure by the Tamils themselves. Such a prospect seems quite bleak. All this means that the war will grind on indefinitely.
Velupillai Prabakharan’s Great Heroes Day address only indicates that the LTTE is ready for a long, long war. There is no sign of desperation in his speech as perceived by Indian diplomats. In fact this column got the impression that the LTTE leader was tremendously confident when making his address. Incidentally the LTTE observed the main function in Mulliyawalai in the Mullaithevu district. The salute was over at 6.06 pm and Prabakharan commenced his address minute later. Similar functions were observed in other parts of the Wanni too. This -is the first time the LTTE observed great heroes day in such widespread fashion after withdrawing from the peninsula. The highlight of the function was the showering of flowers on cemeteries by aircraft belonging to the newly established LTTE sky tigers.
The LTTE also recorded officially that 13,355 Tigers have been killed in 16 years of strife. This means that from an LTTE perspective the sacrifices of the movement towards the cause is increasing. All these people died for Eelam and not a regional assembly or provincial council. Thus it would become increasingly difficult for Prabakharan or any senior LTTE leader to opt for a political settlement within a united Sri Lanka. Prabakharan himself stated during his speech that the Tamil people are paying a tremendous price because of the war. But he emphasised that such a price was worth paying rather than living as permanent slaves. This indicated that he is determined to prolong the war in pursuit of his objectives regardless of the people’s plight.
Prabakharan also ended his speech with three separate statements. Firstly he said "Let us continue with our idealistic war in the firm belief that only the establishment of a separate Tamil State would provide a permanent solution for the Tamil people."
Secondly he said "Let us continue with our struggle with the unshakeable faith that only a nation prepared to bear any burden of hardship will finally achieve liberation".
Thirdly he said: "Let us continue to wage our armed struggle with determined resolve while paying tribute to the memory of our martyred great heroes who sacrificed their precious lives for our freedom and remain as the spiritual strength of our nation".
In this context journalists and politicians who talk of hopes of peace are only deluding themselves and the nation. The glimmer at the end of the tunnel is not emanating from the halo of the angel of peace but from the nostrils of the fire breathing dragon of war, there is no imminent prospect for peace but only an illusion that peace is in the offing.
Cat’s Eye
Give peace a chance!Talk of peace is infectious and few, except the leader of the opposition have been able to resist the peace bug that has been going around. This time, talk about peace comes from a civil society exhausted by the Government’s claim that it is fighting a war for peace, a claim which now more than ever appears to be the task of Sisyphus condemned to role a giant boulder up a hill in hell forever.
Cats Eye thinks that this is a good time to take stock of the array of the peace lobby and raise some of the vexed issues that surround the peace process and the devolution package. Moreover, it suggests that given the failures of past peace processes there is a need to articulate a genuinely critical and alternative approach to building and sustaining peace. And "peace talks" should start as merely an agreement to talk — without conditions being attached.
• Devolution Package
Ever since we recognized that there was a need for a political rather than a military solution to the armed conflict in Sri Lanka, attention has focused on legal issues and frameworks for sharing power with the minorities/regions. The concern in national debate over the peace package has been to preserve the unity of the nation-state, while defusing the grievances of the minorities - a noble exercise. To a great extent the political package partakes of traditional security concerns, where security is defined as national security, and where the protection of the nation-state, its borders, territory, sovereignty, and unity (whether in the federal or unitary form), is taken to be pre-eminent. Human life and security and local problems are essentially marginal to this perspective. Thus, a whole level of social and economic problems and issues which in the first instance gave rise to the conflict (poverty, youth frustration, political violence), or have subsequently arisen from the conflict (ethnic cleansing, human displacement), have been ignored in what has effectively become a bureaucratic and legalistic approach to end the war - namely the devolution package.Moreover, the devolution package has been hijacked and stymied by political parties seeking to consolidate their ethnic-based constituencies. While the two dominant parties of the majority community squabble over the extent of concessions to be made to minorities in the name of preserving the "rights" of the majority Sinhalese, the minority parties are attempting to consolidate their ethnic constituencies as ethnic territories and enclaves (cf. Tamil enclave in north and east, Muslim enclave in Potthuvil/Samanthurai, and, the Sinhalas have the rest). This is the primary reason that the devolution package which was to bring peace is now another source of the conflict.
Of course, the move to consolidate ethnic territories also stems from a felt sense of insecurity of the various communities. However, the problem is that the creation of ethnic majority territories envisaged in the devolution process might further entrench a dangerous form of conflictive ethnic-based identity politics on which the various political parties now thrive. It is confrontational ethnic politics which in the first instance gave rise to the armed conflict, the ethnic cleansing of territories, and the de-segregation of previously mixed communities in the north and east.
• Women & Peace
The Women’s Coalition for Peace has urged that parties involved in promoting a peace package seek to advance a more human centered view of security which would complement/supplement existing devolution proposals and processes by focusing the conditions of groups which remain marginal and invisible in the existing peace process e.g., women, children displaced persons. It also suggests that efforts be made to de-communalize/de-ethnicize the political process by concentrating on building a culture of ethno-religious coexistence by focusing on those who have been marginal to the security of the nation-state. It is also time to develop a critique of the political violence in the south and make links to the absence of women’s participation in the national political parties and processes, and positively work for reservations, in Parliament 0and local bodies for women.In recent months, after the Kilinochichi debacle there has been a distinct movement towards a peaceful settlement of the conflict in the North and East. A new presence, which surprised everyone was the intervention of members of the business community whom no one could dismiss as peaceniks, traitors or any of the other bad words used on those who for many years, have worked for human rights, devolution and peace. The coming together of all peace forces under an Alliance for Peace was also a welcome event.
Many have suffered from the war, including young men in armed conflict from both sides, civilians in general and women and children in particular. As the Women’s Coalition for Peace says:
"Women have suffered disproportionately due to the escalation of generalized violence and the militarization of Sri Lankan society. They have been subject to rape and other forms of sexual abuse particularly at check points. They have been traumatized by the loss of family members, their mobility severely curtailed by the deteriorating security situation, and consequently have found it increasingly difficult to go about their everyday lives, engage in income generating activities, and support and sustain themselves and their families. The deteriorating transport, health, and educational services in the war zones makes it increasingly difficult for women heads of households to support their children"
First conviction for rape as genocide
Last month, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) sitting in Arusha, handed down the first conviction on genocide by any international court or tribunal, when it found a former Rwandan mayor Jean Paul Akayesu guilty of nine counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. This is also the first time an international court has found the crime of rape to be an act of genocide —when it is committed with the intention to destroy a particular group - and other forms of sexual violence to be war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is also the first time that an International war crimes tribunal has found a civilian leader criminally responsible for acts of rape and sexual violence committed by other persons.Thousands of Tutsi women were specifically targeted for all manner of sexual abuse by Hutu militia groups, soldiers of the Rwandan Army (FAR), and by their neighbours during the Rwandan genocide. They were raped, beaten and held in sexual slavery whereby some of them endured enforced pregnancies. Many of these women were subjected to the most terrible torture before meeting their final fate, which was death. In the Akayesu trial, several Tutsi women testified to being raped within the precincts of the Taba Commune where they had initially gone to seek shelter. They testified that they were raped in the presence of the accused, whose role it appeared was to encourage and to cheer the rapists on by his words as well as by virtue of his authority as mayor.
Rape in International Law
Rape has always existed as a crime in international law. After the Second World War, the Nuremberg Tribunal, which was a military tribunal set up to prosecute war criminals, recognised rape as a crime against humanity but did not prosecute anyone for it. However, the Tokyo Tribunal did in fact prosecute and convict rape as a crime against humanity. Rape is a violation under the Geneva Conventions of 1948 and 1949. It is also recognised under the Torture Convention of 1984. The problem in prosecuting rape has rested mainly in patriarchal attitudes that have trivialised crimes against women and treated such violations as mere outrages against women’s personal dignity. Rape has long been considered a "private crime" or "incidental crime" gaining wide acceptance as just one of those acts that occur in circumstances of war; women have been treated as spoils of war for the victorious armies or conquering groups. The fact that rapes are so widespread in such situations has also tended to reduce the significance of the crime in a twisted kind of way.The Akayesu decision thus represents a gigantic step forward in the protection of women’s human rights during times of armed conflict. The campaign to bring the additional charges of rape and sexual violence against Akayesu was spearheaded by a coalition of women’s human rights NGOs which included 35 Rwandan women’s groups. The groups were co-ordinated by the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, Montreal. These groups must surely be an inspiration to human rights and women’s groups in Sri Lanka.
The warning against ‘Hardness of Heart’
By Jehan PereraThe Bishop of Mannar’s recent statement to a delegation of local level polit icians from the Matara district that he believes the LTTE will drop the dema nd for a separate state if there is a southern consensus on the Thimpu princ iples is yet another indication of the steady movement towards a viable solu tion to the ethnic conflict.
Bishop Rayappu Joseph was interpreting the let ter written by the LTTE leader Prabakaran to the South African president Nel son Mandela.
In this letter, Mr Prabakaran attributed the concept of a sepa rate state to the Sri Lankan government.
He said the Tamils asked for self- determination, the government called it separation.
The clear implication was that the two concepts were not the same.
The ongoing war in the north-east, and the governmental recapture of Jaffna,that has led to severely escalating costs ever since the PA took office see ms to have had an effect on the consciousness of people both in the north an d south.
In the north, it has led to a willingness to disavow separation, i n favour of a demand for the recognition of the Thimpu principles.
Five yea rs ago, few civic leaders in the north would have dared say anything publicl y against the goal of a separate state.
The LTTE slogan, found on their pub lications and letterheads, that $B%a(JThe thirst of the Tigers is Tamil Eelam$B%b(J wo uld have have been sufficient to reduce them to a discreet silence.
But today, the ground realities are such, that an independent Tamil Eelam is not seen as a viable option at this time at least in the eyes of many people in the north.
All that they see is that the war is dragging on and on, and unless it is settled they are doomed to live miserable lives in refugee camp s or suffering under economic blockades.
Even the LTTE has to take this fac tor into consideration, and change their policies accordingly.
On the other hand, the signal lack of success of the government$B%f(Js military e ffort after the capture of Jaffna nearly three years ago, has also given a c lear message to the people in the south that eliminating the LTTE, or reduci ng it to the level of a nuisance, is not at all feasible in the present cont ext.
The military ground realities have made it clear to the two sides that their continued struggle on the military batttlefield will be inconclusive. There is no solution possible but only a political one.
At this time it is therefore opportune to think awhile on the supposedly unchanging nature of t he LTTE, especially for those who believe that no change for the better can be expected of it.
In the Bishop’s House of Manner is a little book left on a table in the corr idor in front of the guest rooms.
It is titled "The Challenge of Peace:
Go d’s Promise and Our Response,
A Pastoral Letter on War and Peace," by the N ational Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States of America. The publication date is May 1983.
The 1980s were a time of great division and tension in the world.
The cold war was still continuing and there was the ever present threat of nuclear wa r.
The Soviet juggernaut was expanding Marxist doctrine and dictatorship th roughout the world.
President Reagan of the United States was driven to cal l the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire" for it was more than a mere country, bu t a coalition of countries, wedded together by the mighty "Red Army" and bac ked by the ideology of Marxism.
The Catholic Bishops of the United States were fully aware of the nature of the Soviet Union, the threat it posed to the United States, and the antipath ies it aroused in the American people.
They introduced their topic by sayin g, "Questions of war and peace have a profoundly moral dimension which respo nsible Christians cannot ignore.
They are questions of life and death.
The fact that they are also political is no excuse for denying the Church’s obli gation to provide its members with the help they need in forming their consc iences.
We must learn together to make correct and responsible moral judgme nts.
We are called to move from discussion to witness and action."
THE CHALLENGE OF PEACE
The Pastoral Letter that forms the core of the book, "The Challenge of Peace " is nearly a hundred pages in length, and is a testament to the hard work p ut in by the Catholic Bishops of the United States to deal with the foremost problem of their times.They knew where their priorities lay, but they also knew that they were walking a minefield.
And so they wrote, "In preparing t his letter, we have seen the range of strongly held opinions in the Catholic community—on questions of fact and judgment concerning the issues of war an d peace.
We urge mutual respect among individuals and groups in the Church as this letter is analysed and discussed.
We need in the Church not only co nviction and commitment, but also civility and charity."
There is much that can be derived from a close study of this Pastoral Letter .
For our purposes just one paragraph will suffice.
Despite their awarenes s of the nature of the Soviet regime, the US bishops were prepared to go bey ond these appearances to the most fundamental of truths.
They pointed out t hat however bleak a situation might be, and however evil another might be, t here is always hope of change, because the hand of God is at work.
"As Bishops," they wrote, "we are concerned with issues which go beyond dipl omatic requirements.
It is of some value to keep raising in the realm of th e political debate, truths which ground our involvement in the affairs of na tions and peoples.
Diplomatic dialogue usually sees the other as a potentia l or real adversary.
Soviet behaviour in some cases merits the adjective re prehensible.
But the Soviet people and their leaders are human beings creat ed in the image and likeness of God."
"To believe we are condemned in the future only to what has been the past of US-Soviet relations is to under-estimate both our human potential for creati ve diplomacy and God’s action in our midst which can open the way to changes we could barely imagine. We do not intend to foster illusory ideas that the road ahead in superpower relations will be devoid of tension or that peace w ill be easily achieved.
But we do warn against $B%d(Jhardness of heart$B%f%d(Jwhich ca n close us or others to the changes needed to make the future different from the past."
The belief that the LTTE will never change its character and its ways has en abled the government to justify the ongoing costly war as a necessary one, e ven though it gives every indication of being an unwinnable one and has impo sed severe costs on all the people of the country.
The belief that the gove rnment (and opposition) will never offer the Tamil people an honourable sett lement that is better than the (flawed and abused) 13th Amendment is used by the LTTE to justify their continuation of the war, even though it has caused the most terrible destruction to the Tamil people themselves.
In each of these cases, one party$B%f(Js belief in the $B%a(Jhardness of heart$B%b(J of the other, has served to justify the $B%a(Jhardness of heart$B%b(J in themselves.
We need to break out of this vicious cycle.
Not even five years after the US bishop s wrote their pastoral letter, their predictions of a change for the better, pioneered by people of courage and vision, began to come true.
Change began to occur within the Soviet empire.
A more liberal spirit came, and with it came Mikhail Gorbachev, Lech Walessa and Vaclav Havel.
Surely what was poss ible within the iron curtain is also possible in Sri Lanka, both in the sout h and north.
Perspective
The PA’s newest ‘Paappakaraya’s
By C. A. ChadrapremaZounds! Who would believe it? I have become the main topic of conversation all over Colombo. The latest Sex Guru to hit the front pages of newspapers. The hottest thing since Bhagwan Rajneesh. Free sex and orgies and all that,...After that front page news item in the Sunday Observer for the second day running and the headlines in the "Silumina" I dont need to write about anybody else. I am a topic of conversation myself. Media men rarely become newsmakers themselves - and I am one of those rare ones. Usually, for a newspaper columnist to make it to the headlines, he has to get killed first. But here I am still very much alive and kicking and in the headlines too. In all humility, I must remind the readers of the Island that this is the first time in the newspaper history of this country that a book has become the subject of a newspaper HEADLINE. Lesser works may have made it to the front page but NEVER to the headlines!
People may be led to believe that the PA government is out for my blood. But as a matter of fact, despite the front page news items and the vast coverage - Last Sunday’s Silumina alone had not just one but THREE articles about yours truly. YES SIR! THREE articles in a single issue of a NATIONAL NEWSPAPER - I have good reason to believe that it is not the PA government that is behind all that calumny but those denizens of the Premadasa Centre. The government has allowed them to use State facilities to get at their enemies. The column "Kotupavura" in last Sunday’s Silumina, is indicative of things to come. The columnist interestingly enough lambasts me for having criticised Premadasa! I could imagine if they had whacked me for having criticised Chandrika or Mrs B or SWRD. But lo and behold! The Silumina Sounds just like it used to during the days of the ‘SRIMATH MADNESS’ The fury whith which the writer has come at me for criticising Preme, the very man the Vijaya Kumaratunga Assasination Commission had accused of being behind the murder of the incumbent President’s husband, would be baffling to most of the PA rank and file. Why is the PA allowing the Premadasa Centre to use their facilities?
The answer is simple. Over the past several months, the Premadasa family and the Cooray clique has been veering more and more towards the PA. Not that they are going to be taken into the PA, but it is just that they are being used by the PA as their newest paapakaraya’s. Back in 1994, the PA had plenty of youth to do their dirty work for them. Putting up posters, thuggery etc was done at the mere drop of a hat - so to speak because the streets were crawling with people who wanted to see a change and wanted the UNP out. Today, however, there’s nobody like that for the PA to get their dirty work done by. Their latest recruits are the vagabonds who have been kicked out of the UNP. Haw Haw! The discards are in the proper frame of mind to do anykind of dirty work, the only motive being REVENGE. And the PA politico’s themselves are enjoying the proverbial Sinhala "kaalakanni santhosaya" by seeing these once - powerful UNP politicians who lorded it over the nation - now reduced to putting up posters for the PA and generally doing their dirty work and running behind the SLFP for vehicles, money press coverage etc.
The Cooray faction has now become the lap dogs of the PA. I have reliably learnt that those who had done the actual pasting of the posters in Matara against Rajitha Senaratne (remember the famous Uyanwatte ‘kunuharapa’ debate?) were discarded elements from the UNP. They have become "paappakaraya’s" for the PA. The homeless vagabonds in the Premadasa Centre obviously think they are wreaking havoc on the UNP by attacking ME. But the fact is that I dont have any role at all in the party proper. My association with the UNP only goes so far as knowing quite a number of key UNP members,... but then I know many members of the PA as well. And then again, I have been a political activist on and off for tha past sixteen years,... I have to know SOMEBODY! My book "Kolapata Samajaya" is at last getting the kind of attention it deserves. The Silumina reports that some "senior members of the UNP" - by which they refer to those homeless vagabonds who have taken refuge in the Premadasa Centre - are going to send copies of my book to all the temples in the country including the Venerable Mahanayakes of the Asgiriya and Malwathu chapters. According to the Sunday Observer, my book is no longer available in the bookshops - all sold out! But if they need copies to send to the temples, I can give them some copes at a concessionary rate. The denizens of the Premadasa Centre know how to get in touch with me. Please do contact me if you need more copies to send to the Maha Sangha - Why waste money on photocopying?
Since the government newspapers have been so kind as to give me front page and headline coverage, they might oblige me with an "adults only" live debate on Rupavahini and ITN..... AND I OPENLY CHALLENGE ANYBODY WHO THINKS HE CAN DEBUNK MY BOOK TO COME FOWARD! The denizens of the Premadasa Centre are not going to take on the challenge. They know nothing but to worship Premadasa and to compare Preme to Marx, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Che Guevara and Vijaya Kumaratunga! What a bloody joke! Lord Almighty! Imagine comparing Preme to Marx and Vijaya Kumaratunga. Marx and Vijaya must be turning in their graves!
The UNP cannot even think of contesting an election with the shadow of Premadasa hanging over it. So the Premadasa loyalists had to be removed. They were an abiding menace to the democratic system so long as they were in the UNP. Now thank the "hatarawaran deviyo" that danger has been removed. They have been booted out, purged, shown the door and what not,...haw haw! Today, the UNP is a respectable party which anybody can join without any feeling of shame. The Premadasa Centre is hopping mad with me because they think I had something to do with the misfortunes that have befallen them. No doubt I did, because I was the first to attack the whole edifice of Premadasaism in the aftermath of the defeat of 1994. My stress was that the party had to exorcise its own image if it was to make a come back. That was hardly anything new. It is commonsense. Even if I didnt say it, the whole thing would have been obvious to anybody with a modicum of political savy. Look at that issue of Premadasa giving arms to the LTTE. It has continued to PLAGUE the UNP TEN whole years after the incident took place. How can any party face the public with a past like that hanging over them? The truth of this argument is however lost of the Cooray loyalists. They see this whole episode as a case of somebody having taken food (caviar) from their mouths.
Now they are utilising the Government newspapers to try and launch a primordial Sinhala Buddhist reaction against me and my book - "Budu ammo menna apey sanskruthiya kelesanayoooo!" - kind of stuff. According to the headline report in last Sunday’s Silumina, Sirisena Cooray himself had handed over copies of my book to the Venerable Mahanayake theros. Are the Ven Mahanayake Theros going to accept SIRISENA COORAY as a qualified champion of the Sinhala Buddhists? Haw Haw! that will be the day! If Mr Cooray is going to be taken seriously as a champion of the Buddhist cause why not appoint Sotthi Upali to the dayaka sabha and give higher ordination to "Thatta Some" as well? Sorry folks, I’ll have to stop now; I’ve got a cramp after laughing too hard,...Haw Haw Haw Ho Ho,...
A problem of history revisited II
By Nalin de SilvaPeople of Mr. Naganathan’s ilk are not sure of what they are talking about. According to some like Gnanapragasar the Nagas were Tamils and had lived in this country from time immemorial. Some think that the Sinhala people came in the 6th century B.C. and conquered the Island from those original Tamils. There is no historical evidence for this what so ever as Dr. Indrapalan has shown in his Ph. D. thesis. Mr. Naganathan, it appears that, subscribes to what may be called the residual Naga theory. However it is not clear what he is really implying. It could mean that some Nagas were absorbed into the Sinhala nation, but the others remained as Nagas, or it may be that of the tribes Yaksha, Naga, Deva, Rakshasas, the tribes other than the Nagas, together with the Aryans who came around the 6th century B.C. went into form the Sinhala nation but the Nagas continued as Nagas. But Mr. Naganathan cannot present a consistent picture.
For example as I have already mentioned he talks of Saddhatissa and his son Khallatanaga and the rest to establish his residual Naga theory. As I have shown, the fact that Saddhatissa had a son called Khallatanaga proves neither that there were Tamils then nor that the father, the son or both were Nagas. Mr. Naganathan also appears to believe that Saddhatissa was Sinhala. Is he trying to imply that the mother of Khallatanaga was a Naga? Even if it was the case it does not make Khallatanaga a Tamil king. I will come to a more general version of this problem later.
Mr. Naganathan’s next version tells us that the ‘Sri Lankan Tamils, by and large, are not aliens but natives of the soil, being as much mutual descendants of the indigenous Hela (Eela) people, with the difference that the one were acculturated and adopted a Prakrit of Sanskrit as language and Buddhism as religion, and the other Tamil and Saivism, respectively.’ He proceeds: ‘Having said this, I must allow for the fact that the early "Tamils" in Sri Lanka were (as in S. India) profoundly Jain and Buddhist. Hence, as I pointed out previously, they would have gone to form the non- Tweedledum Tweedledee population of Buddhist residents of the country, who were not Sinhala -speaking.’
This is not a bad hypotheses if not for the fact that there is no evidence to substantiate it. The all-important question is what is the culture and the history that these non-Sinhala Buddhists have created in this country say from the time of Sena Guttika? Dr. Indrapalan has conclusively shown that there were no Tamil settlements, whether Buddhist, Jaina or any other, in this country before the tenth century and he categorically states that the early history is that of the Sinhala people. Archaeologists and Historians such as Drs. Paranavithana and Nilakanta Sastri are of the same view. When confronted with facts all that Mr. Naganathan can do is to respond with statements like "Dr. Indrapalan can go and fly a kite." Mr. Naganathan in order to refute Dr. Indrapalan says in his own style that there are several ‘noble’ families including that of his mother’s who "trace their descent to Cholan chiefs who arrived with the expansion of the Chola empire."
In fact as I have said on many occasions there would not have been even Senas and Guttikas if not for the Mahavansaya, which happens to be the only source of relief for people of Mr. Naganathan’s ilk. Not only that there were no Tamils in Sri Lanka in early times there is no evidence to show that the Tamils in South India then were predominantly Buddhists or Jains. This is what Dr. Nilakanta Sastri has to say on this matter in his ‘A History of South India’ (second edition). "The exact contents of these inscriptions still remain obscure, but a few facts emerge from tentative studies of them. We can say, for instance, that among the donors of monuments were a husbandman (kutumbika) of Ceylon ( Ila), besides a woman, merchants (vanikar), and members of the Karani caste. ........... Yet it seems easy to exaggerate their social and religious significance; there is no evidence that the Tamil people in general had accepted Jainism or Buddhism in this early period; and the evidence from the literature of the succeeding age, that of the Sangam, shows the Vedic religion of sacrifice and some forms of popular Hinduism entrenched in the affections of the people and their rulers." (Pg.87)
It should be remembered that Ila is derived from Sihala (References in my article on the 12th of November) and that the kutumbika had gone to South India from the Sihaladeepa. I must also add that the Sangam period according to Dr. Nilakanta Sastri is the first three or four centuries A.D. (Pg. 110). On the question of the ancestors of Mr. Naganathan all I can do is to quote Dr. Nilakanta Sastri, so that the readers can come to their own judgement. " The rise of the imperial Cholas of the line of Vijayalaya may be dated from the middle of the ninth century A.D. As they emerged from their obscurity, (after the Sangam period- my emphasis) they soon displaced the remnants of Pallava power to the north of their capital Tanjore, and subdued the Pandya and Chera countries in the south and invaded Ceylon." (Pg.5). Mr. Naganathan’s claim, that his mother’s family descended from a Chola chief who arrived with the expansion of the Chola empire, is not in contradiction with the conclusion of Dr. Indrapalan, that there were no Tamil settlements in Sri Lanka before the tenth century. However, Dr. Nilakanta Sastri says that the Cholas invaded Sri Lanka and this means that the Chola chiefs would have arrived in this country as invaders.
Mr. Naganathan and people of his ilk try to create the impression that since some of the Sinhala kings either had names ending with Siva or Naga while some others had connections to dynasties in Pandya and Kalinga countries, Tamil/ Dravida kings have ruled Sri Lanka together with Sinhala kings intermittently. Even if one assumes that there have been Tamil/Dravida kings occupying the throne it does not make the kingdom a Tamil kingdom. The present ruling family in England, the Windsors, have all sorts of connections with the other, let us say Royal or Ksathriya, families in Europe. In fact it is said that Ms. Diana Spencer was one of the few English to be married to an heir to the throne in the Windsor family. But that did not make the Windsors Germans, French, Greeks or any other nationality. They were and are considered as English kings and queens for the simple reason that they are the kings and queens of the English people. In other words they sat on the English throne. The person who sits on the English throne is an English king or queen irrespective of his or her ancestral connections. The Royals and the Ksathriyas, whether they are from the west or the east have had a tradition of getting wives and husbands from similar families irrespective of the country of origin.
Parakramabahus and Nissankamallas may have had Pandya and Kalinga connections. That is irrelevant as far as the throne is considered. They sat on the Sinhala throne as Sinhala kings. It was Parakramabahu in one of his battles asked for a Sinhala sword while Nissankamalla famous for his inscriptions had a stone inscription in Sinhala erected in Rameswaram in respect of his visit to South India. (P. B. Rambukwella: Commentary on Sinhala Kingship, Pg. 79).It is not the dynasty that matters but the throne. In any case, for the information of Mr. Naganathan and the rest, Kalinga, which came under the Asokan empire, is roughly, present Orissa and was not a Dravida country.
Even the Vaduga kings, originally from present Andra Pradesh, sat on the Sinhala throne, and yes, as Buddhists whether Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe looked like Tweedledum and Tweedledee or not. In fact even George III had to undertake the task of protecting Buddhism through what is known as the Kandyan Convention before he could make any claim whatsoever to the Sinhala throne or the kingdom of Sinhale. Of course the English, being the perfect gentlemen they are, had no respect for the convention.
Now let us look at the early history of the Tamils in general. What I give below is only a summary and I may give more details in some of the future articles depending on the availability of space and time. There are some people who think that the pre-Aryan history in India (and Sri Lanka) is Dravidian. This is far from truth. The tribes, who lived in this part of the world before the Aryans arrived were not Dravidian. In fact the Dravidians have come to India (South) later than the Aryans.
I quote again from ‘A History of South India’. " It must be admitted that much of this evidence on which the old approach to the Dravidian problem was based is vague and circumstantial, and furnishes no reliable framework. Not so the recent and very plausible attempt of Fuerer-Haimendorf to equate the Dravidian-speakers with the iron using Megalithic folk who came to South India from the west by sea, perhaps leaving colonies along the coast in the course of their migration -which may account for the Megaliths near Karachi and Brahui in Baluchistan. He thinks that an immigration of Dravidian speakers about 500 B.C. would allow sufficient time for the development of the early Tamil literature of the Sangam." (Pg. 62).
However Dr. Nilakanta Sastri does not agree with Fuerer Haimendorf and he suggests that the Dravidians arrived in South India more or less at the same time as the Aryans came to North India. But he himself says that " it is evident that starting somewhere about 1000 B.C. the movement of the Aryans into the South proceeded more or less steadily and peacefully, and had reached its completion sometime before the establishment of the Mauryan empire which included in its fold all India except the extreme South." (Pg.67).
Now Dr. Paranavithana in his book ‘Sinhalayo’ states: "The culture represented by the megalithic monuments cannot have developed from that of the Stone Age, for the two were not separated from each other by an appreciable interval of time. Therefore, it has been inferred that the Dravidian people, the bearers of the megalithic culture, came to South India from elsewhere. Megaliths with the same characteristics as are distinctive of the South Indian monuments, have been found in Western Asia. It has therefore been suggested that the Dravidian people migrated to South India from a region, still undetermined, in Western Asia, and that they sojourned for some time in the region around Karacci in Sindh, where groups of megaliths similar to those in South India have been reported.
Aryan culture had been introduced to South India before the arrival of the Dravidians; and three kingdoms, Pandya, Cola and Cera, had been founded somewhat earlier than the establishment of a kingdom of Indo-Aryan culture in Ceylon. The invading Dravidians, apparently, imposed their dominion on these kingdoms which had been founded before their advent, and continued their names." (Pg. 8).
Though there may be disagreements over the period, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Dravidians arrived in South India after the Aryans. It was the Aryan kingdoms Pandya, Cola and Cera which became Dravidian most probably around the time of the Mauryan empire. Dravidianisation of South India has come after its Aryanisation and no wander that the people stuck to most of the gods in the Vedic religions even after Dravidianisation.
In Sri Lanka the same process could have taken place. However, it did not happen that way and the man responsible for the turn of events was none other than Dutugemunu. With the recent findings in the excavations in Anuradhapura by Dr. Shiran Deraniyagala, there cannot be any doubt as to the arrival of the Aryans in this country somewhere around the 6th century B.C. A Sinhala civilisation based on the Aryan culture as well as the culture of the Yakshas and Nagas was established and during the time of king Devanampiya Tissa the Sinhala people became Buddhists. Soon after, the first wave of Dravidians arrived in this country. As Dr. Paranavithana has mentioned in his ‘Sinhalayo’ the Dravidians were almost succesful.
"The few megalithic monuments and urn-burials discovered in Ceylon are obviously an overflow from South India. The archaeological evidence is supported by literary sources. The Dravidian peoples influenced the course of the Island’s history about the same time they gained mastery over the South Indian kingdoms, or shortly afterwards. Within three or four decades from the death of Devanampiya Tissa, Dravidian invaders made an attempt to impose their dominion over Ceylon, and almost succeeded. The first Dravidian attack on Ceylon recorded in the Chronicles is said to have been led by Sena and Guttika, described as merchant mariners who dealt in horses. They appear to have come direct from the Sindhu region, which was noted in ancient days for its fine breed of horses". (Pg.9).
Mr. Naganathan seems to believe that it is necessary to have Dravidians in a country so that a Dravidian invader can rule that country after conquering. The Dravidianisation of India itself proves the fallacy of that argument. If it is generalised to any conqueror then it would have been necessary to have a Portuguese population in advance, in this country for the Portuguese conquerors to rule the coastal areas for more than hundred years.
Leaving aside that type of argument it is clear that from the time of Suratissa (247-237 B.C.) to Valagamba (89-77 B.C.) there have been at least three attempts to Dravidianise this country and during a period of 148 years Sena Guttika (22 yrs.), Elara (44 yrs.) and the five Dravida kings(14 yrs.) have ruled Anuradhapura for 80 years. We must not forget that Bhalluka’s ( who came after Elara ) was another attempt. That was one of the most crucial periods in this country. The Sinhala civilisation (Aryanised Yaksha Naga) had to struggle very hard not to allow Sri Lanka taking the same path as South India and end up as a Dravidian country. It should be emphasised that after the victory of Valagamba there were no invasions for a period of about 520 years as Mr. Rambukwella and others have pointed out
As Dr. Paranavithana and others have observed the Dravidians have come to South India through Sindhu region. It is probable that not only Sena Guttika but even Elara, Bhalluka and the five Dravida kings came from the same region. They would have been part of waves of Dravidian arrivals in South India and Sri Lanka. The fact there were no invasions after the victory of Valagamba could imply that these Dravidian arrivals stopped by that time and also the Dravidian states in formation in South India were not strong enough to invade Sri Lanka. The next stage begins after the formation of the Dravidian states and it is beleived that the Seven Dravida kings who invaded in 431 A.C. were Kalabharas.
The histories of South India and Sri Lanka are undoubtedly interconnected. Both South India and Sri Lanka were Aryanised. Then South India was Dravidianised. But the Sinhala Buddhist consciousness imparted by the king Dutugemunu and the others was able to resist the Dravidianisation process in Sri Lanka not only up to the time of five Dravida kings who would have come directly from Sindhu region as those Dravidians who came to South India, but even after the formation of the Dravidian states in South India. Whether we like it or not we have to admit that fact. However much Mr. Naganathan ant the others of his ilk may try to Dravidianise a non- Dravida history they will not succeed.
Bouquets from the air for Prabhakaran’s birthday party
By Our Defence CorrespondentOn the night of Friday, Nov. 26, 1998, the Voice of the Tigers radio, broadcasting from a secret site in the Wanni, made a startling announcement.
Giving a colorful commentary on special events held that day to mark the LTTE’s annual Nov. 26 Heroes’ Day, which is also the Tiger supremo’s birthday, the Voice of the Tigers said that "the Air Tigers sprayed flowers from two aircraft of the LTTE flying low in the Wanni region over the Maveerar (martyrs) cemeteries and a large number of people witnessed the scene happily.’’
Within hours, the news was broadcast worldwide by the Internet, specifically by the pro-LTTE Tamilnet website, which quoted the Voice of the Tigers. International news agencies picked up the story some time later, and sent it to an even wider audience. For the first time in the world’s history, a terrorist group had successfully managed to launch its own air force. The fact that that the words "Air Tigers’’ were used is significant, since it means clearly that this is now a formal unit of the LTTE’s vast organization, on par with the Sea Tigers, Black Tigers, Black Sea Tigers, Charles Anthony Brigade, and others.
The 16-year edge that the armed forces had, the use of aircraft, is no more. The radio announcement was the first time that the LTTE publicly commented on its acquisition of aircraft. But the manner in which the LTTE made this formal announcement clearly shows that they wanted to show off their new capability. It is quite likely that they have only one or two light planes or helicopters, which would not be at all effective in a battle. The intention of the LTTE’s announcement appears to have been to gain a psychological advantage over the forces, as well as gain a massive propaganda edge in raising funds abroad. But no longer can the armed forces pretend that the repeated sightings by personnel of all three forces are merely mysteries, which defy solving, like UFO’s from other worlds. But what is particularly amazing is that the forces have taken few concrete steps to date, to find and destroy these aircraft before they are used. This is despite the fact that the government as far back as 1991, first acknowledged that the Tigers had got their hands on aircraft.
At a Cabinet media briefing in late 1991, presided over by the then Minister of Industries, Science and Technology Ranil Wickremasinghe, who was the Cabinet spokesman, the spokesman for the Joint Operations Command, Colonel Sarath Munasinghe (now a Major General) announced during his regular outlining of weekly skirmishes, that Sia Marcetti planes of the Sri Lanka Air Force had bombed and destroyed a runway at Iranamadu. The runway had been clearly visible from the air.
Munasinghe claimed then that the runway had been destroyed, but ominously, he made no mention of any LTTE aircraft. Neither did intelligence ever learn what happened to the plane, or planes. They were not sighted. That the Tigers had at least one plane then is without a doubt. Nobody in their right mind would build a runway without first getting a plane. The aircraft was probably smuggled into the country dismantled, from whatever country it was purchased. The possibility that the LTTE had prepared the runway to receive a plane from abroad can be almost ignored, since no small plane has the range to reach Sri Lanka from any country but India ad the Maldives. So then, the Tigers had a plane, or planes, back in 1991, and also obviously had trained pilots. The armed forces knew it, the government knew it, and the Tigers knew that the secret was out.
It must be mentioned that the air force tried to do something back then, buying seven supersonic F-7 jet fighters from China. The government even acknowledged that their purpose was to shoot down any threat from the air. But nothing was seen or heard of the LTTE planes for years. The F-7’s, based at China Bay in Trincomalee, were used for the task of bombing other enemy targets. Over the next several years, the LTTE at various times repaired their airfield, and the air force bombed it each time. But no planes were seen.
Various unconfirmed sightings were reported by civilians, of aircraft over the north, but these were generally dismissed as having been of SLAF planes. Civilian reports were considered rather unreliable. The army and navy also reported a few mysterious sightings, but none came from officers, and all the reported were very vague as to what it could have been.
But in September of 1997, fourteen months ago, as this column reported exclusively then, an unarmed transport helicopter of the Sri Lanka Air Force spotted a mystery light plane over the Wanni in daylight. The sighting, by officers of the air force, was the first real evidence that the LTTE was actually flying. The only real precaution taken at the time was to install anti aircraft guns on several tall buildings around Temple Trees, a secret given away days later by state newspapers which splashed photos of the guns for all the world to see. Anti aircraft guns were also present at many functions which were attended by President Chandrika Kumaratunga, including the Golden Jubilee independence celebration this year at parliament grounds, where Prince Charles was the chief guest.
Still, the Tigers made no offensive move with their plane. As this column commented then, they were probably training more pilots, and waiting for more planes before revealing their secret weapon. With more immediate challenges on land, sea and air, the forces quietly forgot the matter. But seven weeks ago, an unknown helicopter was sighted by ground troops, again in the Wanni. This column reported the incident exclusively. (MYSTERY ‘COPTER OVER MANKULAM, Sept. 30, 1998).
On that occasion, a division commander in the north issued a general alert to his troops on the matter, proving conclusively that the whole thing was very serious. That sighting was the first indication that the Tigers had got their hands on a helicopter. Up to then, all sightings had been of planes. Things got far more serious on November 13, when a warship of the Sri Lanka Navy off the western coast of the Jaffna Peninsula detected an unidentified flying object, opened fire, but missed. Happening at night, only lights were seen, but the object definitely showed up on the boat’s radar. Four days later, no less than five SLN warships sighted what they believed was a helicopter, both visually and by radar, again in the darkness, off the eastern coast of the peninsula. But the forces are still not taking enough notice. As we said in our November 21, 1998 column (UFO’s in the north shoot on sight):
"One of the most effective things to do would be to warn the public throughout the island, and request that any sightings be reported immediately by telephone to the relevant authorities. Not only has this not been done, but also if a civilian sees such a plane, he wouldn’t even know whom to report it to. Probably, he would call the local police station, which would ask him to come and make a written complaint! The report would get lost in some complaint book.’’ `
"What the armed forces need to do now is to hunt down where the aircraft is being kept. The site could then be bombed out of existence from the air.’’ The million-rupee question is: Where will the Air Tigers strike? Perhaps they will use the aircraft in a conventional battle, supporting their cadres by bombing and strafing army positions. But in daylight they would be no match for the MI-24 Hind gunships of the SLAF, or the Kfir jets. Perhaps they will be used to attack navy gunboats, but this is extremely risky, since warships have sufficient gunpower to protect themselves. Maybe the targets will be big camps like Jaffna, Elephant Pass, Trincomalee, etc. But the damage would not be much to these places, apart from the psychological impact on morale.
The most frightening possibility, as this column mentioned in September of 1997, is that the planes will be used to attack Colombo. It’s not such a long flight to Colombo from the Wanni, being about 200 kilometers as the crow flies. That’s well within any aircraft’s range. It is more than likely that such a mission would be piloted by suicide cadres, making the trip a one-way one, and doing away with the need to escape. In any case, the government, and the armed forces, need to wake up and do much more. Merely placing anti aircraft guns around parliament, as was done last week isn’t going to help much. END.
Prabhakaran on war and peace in Sri Lanka
Prabhakaran’s speech as it appeared on Eelam News (Internet). It is published verbatim.Mr. V. Pirapaharan the leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in his message to mark the anniversary of the Heroes’ Day, blamed the growing entrenchment of Sinhala - Buddhist chauvinism and militarism in Sri Lankan politics as stumbling blocks for a negotiated political settlement of the Tamil ethnic conflict.
The LTTE leader lamented that the racist attitudes, approaches and policies of the Sinhala governing elites have not radically changed over the last half-a-century while many of the intractable ethnic conflicts of the world have been resolved by the process of peace negotiations and reconciliation. The rigid and irreconcilable position of the Sri Lankan Government, Mr. Pirapaharan noted, is being encouraged and reinforced by the large scale financial aid and military assistance provided by some foreign countries who seem to disregard the monumental tragedy faced by the Tamil people by Sinhala state oppression.
The leader of the Tamil Tigers declared that the LTTE is prepared for a negotiated political settlement if peace talks are mediated by a third party. Mr. Pirapaharan said that peace negotiations cannot take place under the prevailing conditions of war, violence and oppression. The LTTE, he said, prefers to hold talks in an atmosphere of peace and normalcy, in a congenial environment free from military aggression, occupation and economic blockades imposed on the Tamil homeland. He explained that peace talks cannot be free, fair and just if the Sri Lanka Government utilizes military aggression and economic strangulation as political pressures on the Tamil community.
The following are extracts from Mr. Pirapaharan’s Heroes’ Day message:
"While the whole world has radically transformed and moving on the path of peace, progress and harmony and preparing itself to embrace the new millennium Sri Lanka is still caught up in a turbulent conflict. The Tamil national question continues to torment the Island as a burning issue fuelled by war and violence. Why is it that the Tamil ethnic conflict, with a prolonged history of more than half-a-century, continues to be an insurmountable problem while the world is undergoing change, resolving tensions and conflicts?
The Tamil people are demanding none other than their inalienable rights. Therefore, political justice is on their side. What are we demanding? What are we struggling for?
We aspire to live peace fully with freedom and dignity, without the interference of anyone, in our own soil; in our Motherland where we are born and bred; in our own historical homeland which belongs to us. We too, are human beings. We constitute ourselves as a human society possessing the basic rights of human beings. We are a national formation with a distinct language, culture and history. We, therefore, demand that we should be recognized as a community of people, as a social formation with distinct characteristics. We have the right to determine our political status. On the basis of the right, we aspire to choose freely a political model suited to us to govern ourselves. This is what our people are demanding and fighting for. The Sinhala nation has been denying this just and civilized demand. It is precisely for this reason that the Sinhala state has been oppressing and suppressing our people. Successive Sri Lanka Governments have neither integrated or assimilated our people within the unitary system nor allowed our people the right to secede. Instead, they have always attempted to repress and subjugate our people. It is for this reason we have been compelled to fight a political struggle for the last fifty years. Though the forms of our struggle have changed in accordance with the historical compulsions, we continue to fight for political rights, for our right to live in freedom. Now the Tamil struggle has expanded and escalated into a war between two nations.
It is none other than the anti-Tamil attitude of Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism that has turned Sri Lanka into a blazing cauldron of violence. The Tamil national question arose as historical product of this racist oppression.
The world has changed with the passage of time. Similarly the politics of the world also has changed. But the politics of the Sinhala nation has not changed. It is unfortunate that the Sinhala politicians have not realized this fact. Fantasies that arose from ancient mythology have grown and developed into hegemonic ideas which exert tremendous impact on the Sinhala political and intellectual world. As a consequence the sinhala nation lacks the ability to comprehend objectively the very basis as well as the rationale behind the Tamil issue and to deel with the problem humanly. Over the years our people have been shedding tears of blood under the oppressive grip of sinhala chauvinism. We are deeply saddened by the fact that their long standing suffering has not yet touch the conscience of the world community. Apart from this apathtic attitude shown by the international community towards the problems of our people, the massive financial and military assistance provided to Sri Lanka by foreign countries has also exacervated their tragic plight. The assistance provided by foreign countries has also encouraged the rigid, irreconcilable and bellicose attitude of the Sinhala chauvinists. The world community has always fought for the cause of the oppressed and it has always raised its voice of protest or intervened whenever there have been incidents of human rights violations, crimes against humanity or repression of minority nations in any part of the world. But we are dismayed to note that the international community is observing a muted silence over the colossal tragedy faced by the Eelam Tamils. Encouraged by the economic aid, military assistance, political, moral and diplomatic backing gained from international countries, Sinhala chauvinists have been adopting a genocidal policy against the Tamils with single-minded ruthlessness and arrogance. We are aware of the fact that the international community is misguided by the sophisticated misinformation campaign carried out by Sri Lanka. It is unfortunate that the world community has uncritically assimilated the preposterious theories advanced by the Sri Lankan state (i.e. war for peace) to ligitimize its military campaign against the Tamils. Neverthelss, facts about the plight of the Tamils have also found their way to the international arena. Atrocities and injustices committed against the Tamil people for the last several decades have been well documented and submitted to international forums. International human rights organisations have expressed serious concern that the state oppression against the Tamil has reached genocidal proportions. It is well known internationally that more than sixty thousand innocent Tamil civilians have been brutally done to death over the years by the terror and violence unleashed by the racist state in the Tamil homeland. Further more, more than eight hundred thousand Tamils, who fled the country and sought refuge all over the world, bear testimony as living witness to the barbaric nature of the Sinhala state oppression. The world is aware of all these facts. Yet, we are surprised and deeply saddened to note that this monumental human tragedy has not yet aroused the concern of world community.
We are well aware that in the present world order every country pursues its own national and commercial interests. Yet, the civilized world has always given primacy to the universal values of human rights and freedoms. What dismays us is that the countries which lead the civilized world are reluctant to raise their voices against the uncivilized forms of oppression unleashed against the Tamils. Neverthless, we have not lost hope. One day the truths that are buried deeply in the mass graves of Tamil Eelam will emerge from slumber and reveal the true face of Sinhala chauvinism. Only then the tragic story of our people will touch the heart of the world. Until such time, Eelam Tamils living all over the world should continue their campaign relentlessly about the tragic existential conditions of our people in the Tamil homeland with the objective of arousing the conscience of humanity.
So far, not a single voice of rationality is heard from the Sinhala national against the war. None so far has made a plea to put an end to the war and resolve the problem by peaceful means. From politicians to the monks, from intellectuals to the journalists, every one calls for the intensifications of the war. The Sinhala nation wants to continue the war to subjugate the Tamil nation.
Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country, a nation that follows the teachings of the Compassionate One who preached the noble ideals of love, truth and enlightenment. We are surprised as to how the evil of racism and militarism has raised its ugly head in a Buddhist society that thrived on the philosophy of "dharma".
Today the war has expanded and escalated into a full-fledged conflgration in which armed forces of the two nations are confronting each other. The Sinhala nation is engaged in war of aggression to occupy Tamils land and to subjugate the Tamil people. We are fighting to protect our people and liberate our soil from alien aggression. The Sinhala nation is engaged in a war of injustice where as we are engaged in a liberation struggle in which justice is on our side.
Chandrika’s government, which has reached the peak in oppressing the Tamils is determined to escalate and continue the war. Her government is bent on prosecuting the war through the military campaign have demoralized the army, brought massive destruction of life and property and shattered the economy of the country. Chandrika’s military project has crumbled and failed to achieve any of its strategic objectives.The fundamental objective of the war is to defeat and destroy the Liberation Tigers. But the LTTE has not been defeated but rather has grown immensely in strength acquiring wider experience in the art of modern warfare and turned out to be an invincible force. The wanni battles caused a serious of debacles and massive casualties to the Sinhala armed forces. The ‘Jayasikuru battles, which was undertaken with the grand design to open the road to Jaffna, has prolonged for more than a year and half and reached an impasse with the fall of Killinochchi.
Chandrika’s political project of establishing Sinhala state administration in the occupied Jaffna peninsula with the help of the Tamil quislings is also being shattered . We cannot allow the Sinhala aggressive army to occupy even an inch of our homeland nor will we permit Sinhala state administrative functions in the occupied Tamil lands. We are shedding blood and fighting a deadly struggle with the primary objective of liberating our motherland which is the very foundation of the national existence and economic life of our people. Therefore we cannot permit the foot print of the sinhala aggressors to remain embedded on our sacred soil.
We do not believe that Chandrika, who has become the author of the most blood strained chapter in the history of oppression of the Tamils, will bring peace to the country by resolving the Tamil national issue by peaceful means. She is a firm believer in a military solution and lives in an illusion that political conflicts can be solved by military means. She is also a prisoner of the Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinistic ideology. One cannot therefore expect a leadership dominated by such thinking to be humane and compassionate enough to do justice to the Tamils.
We have not close the doors for peace. We are open to the civilized method of resolving conflicts through rational dialogue. Since the Sinhala leadership lacks the political will and sincerity to resolve the problem we favour third party mediation for political negotiations. But we are not prepared to accept any pre-conditions for political dialogue. We want the political negotiations to be held in an atmosphere of peace and normalcy, free from the conditions of war, military aggression and economic blockades. We are not stipulating any pre-conditions for peace talks. We are suggesting the creation of a climate of peace and goodwill to hold peace talks, a congenial environment in which our people must be free from the heavy burden of suffering imposed on them. We hold the view that political negotiations cannot be free, fair and just if the Government utlizes the military aggression on our soil and the restrictions imposed on the economic life of our people as political pressures. We are prepared to engage in initial talks to discuss the removal of such pressures and to workout a basic frame work for political negotiations.
Our people are facing unbearable suffering in the form of death, destruction, displacement, hunger and starvation. They live as prisoners in their own homeland, facing daily, various forms of military atrocities. Our people want their day-to-day urgent problems resolved immediately. They cannot wait over an indefinite time until the peace talks resume and the ethnic conflict is discussed, resolved and the solution implemented. They want the war to come to an end and the occupation army that torments them to withdraw and their urgent existential problems addressed immediately. Is Chandrika’s Government prepared to take a bold step to deal with the immediate essential problems of our people and resume political negotiations in a congenial climate of peace and goodwill. If not, the possibility for peace and a peaceful negotiated political settlement to the ethnic conflict will become remote.
We do not anticipate that the hawkish and racist attitude of Sinhala chauvinism will undergo fundamental transformation. If such change does not take place Sinhala chauvinism will bear the responsibility for creating the concrete historical conditions for the birth of independent Tamil state".
(English translation of the news released by LTTE International Secretariat, 211 Katherine Road, London E6 1BU, United Kingdom. )
