Panel Discussion on Sri Lanka : Broadering and Disclosure on Peace and Security, organised by the Sigur Center for Asia Studies af the Elliott School of International Centre for Scholars held on 9 April 2004 in Washington DC

Sri Lanka: Broadening the Discourse on Peace and Security - Some critical facets

Prof. Shantha K. Hennayake, Department of Geography, University of Peradeniya

This is the text of the presentation made by Dr. Shantha K. Hennayake, Visiting Professor of University of Kentucky at the Panel Discussion on Sri Lanka: Broadening the Discourse on Peace and Security organized by the Sigur Center for Asia Studies of the Elliott School of International Affairs of the George Washington University in collaboration with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars held on April 9, 2004 in Washington D.C. Karl F. Inderfurth, former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs inaugurated the session and it was attended by scholars on Sri Lanka and diplomats from US and India

One of the fundamental reasons for the inability to resolve the ethnonationalist crisis in Sri Lanka is the failure to see the ground realities of the problem and instead basing all analysis, interventions and so called solutions on partial interpretations made by various groups with vested interests. A lasting solution is only possible if and when all stakeholders are willing to genuinely take the ground realities into account. Towards this end I have prepared a statement on the Realities of Sri Lanka Today” (this statement is annexed at the end of this article).

Five aspects relevant to the ethnonationalist crisis in Sri Lanka today need our attention in order to understand its current status and the involvement of external players. They are

2. Challenge to the Monolithic Terrorist group LTTE and LTTE defined Tamil nation.

Sri Lankan ethnonationalist problem has been reduced to an “ethnic problem” between an “oppressive” Sinhalese majority and an “innocent” Tamil minority. This oversimplification is an outright erroneous interpretation of the problem but is commonly found in both political and intellectual writings on Sri Lanka. In this misrepresentation, or misimagination “Sri Lanka” is conveniently replaced with “Sinhalese” and thus Sri Lanka state is read as “Sinhalese state”, Sri Lankan government is read as “Sinhalese governments” and Sri Lankan political parties is read as “Sinhalese political parties”. This kind of superficial imagination is same as saying that the United State is a “White Christian state”. Although the material reality of the United State does not lend support to such an assertion, an extremist interpretation can be made to justify this claim if we follow the same logic that is applied to misrepresent Sri Lankan state as a “Sinhalese state”. The material and political reality of Sri Lanka is that never during its post-colonial history have Sinhalese been an anti-minority or anti-Tamil. However, the Sinhalese have always been anti-separatist and anti-terrorist irrespective of its sources as clearly reveal by the response to exclusively Sinhalese led JVP terrorism in both 1971 and 1989 as well as to exclusively Tamil terrorism since late mid 1980s. Anyone who interpret this anti-terrorism of Sinhalese as anti-Tamil, then it is a confession that Tamil ethnonationalism is nothing but terrorism.

Challenge to the Monolithic Terrorist group LTTE and LTTE defined Tamil nation.

The LTTE terrorism has depended on two types of monoloithisims. First as a terrorist organization it project itself as an indivisible and solid organization supremely committed to the Tamil ethnonationalist cause and second ideologically LTTE maintained that Tamil nation is constituted entirety of the “contiguous” and “indivisible” land of the Northern and Eastern provinces labeled as “Tamil homeland”. However, the recent defiance by Karuna, the self-declared leader of the Liberation Tigers of South Eelam (LTSE) has fundamentally and irrevocably questions the continuing validity of both types of monolithisms.

Sri Lankan Tamil ethnonationalism has been created and maintained by Jaffna Tamils. Sri Lankan Tamil ethnonationalist politics represent the eclectic experience of Jaffna Tamils in all three spheres e.g. the leaders, the grievances and the aspirations. In total contrast to Jaffna, eastern Sri Lanka centered on Batticaloa has been uniquely multi ethnic on the one hand and maintained its own politics independent of Jaffna centered Tamil ethnonationalist politics on the other until LTTE terrorism came to dominate Batticaloa. However, Batticaloa Tamil politics has during both the democratic and terrorist eras of Tamil ethnonationalism has been apprehensive of “Jaffna domination”. Further, Batticaloa politics has been fundamentally based on “eastern regionalism” than on Tamil ethnonationalism. Most interestingly unlike self-isolation and extremism promoted by Jaffna centered Tamil ethnonationalist politics, Batticaloa Tamil politics has been politically accommodative and worked closely with the national politics and have actively taken part in governing the country. The most recent fratricidal civil war between LTTE and Liberation Tigers of Southern Eelam LTSE is the clearest manifestation of the crumbling of LTTE monolithism and the rise of Batticaloa regionalism.

Why have the western countries engaged in legitimizing the LTTE from its early days and in a more resolutely since their active engagement in Sri Lanka after the signing of the MOU between Ranil Wickremasinghe and V. Prabhakaran?

The primary reason for this is the western myth that LTTE “represent” Tamils. To the best of my knowledge “representation” is a term emanating from democratic discourse and representation become a reality only through democratically held elections. LTTE is never elected. If LTTE is the representation of Tamils, then Hitler is the representation of Germans and Osama bin Laden is the representation of world Muslims! The LTTE was able to hoodwink the west by playing the “underdog” card using attractive jargon of civil rights movement, holocaust and Marxism. Thus LTTE argues that LTTE is an inevitable product of “Sinhalese discrimination”, “genocides/fratricides” and “oppression”. Another parallel phenomenon is the intellectual justification of LTTE defined ethnonationalist agenda. This has been carried out primarily by the expatriates Tamils living comfortably in the west performing “ethnic duty” – a self imposed obligation to do something for the “suffering brethrens” at home.

The LTTE desperately need international recognition and legitimation to establish territorial autonomy over the “Tamil homeland”. Towards this, the LTTE’s latest project is to get everyone including the western countries to accept that LTTE is the “sole representative” of Tamils. It appears that the western countries have fatuously fallen into this trap set up by the LTTE while being totally ignorant of non-LTTE Tamil voices emanating from the Tamil society itself. For example, the leader of one of the Tamil political parties, Eelam Peoples’ Democratic Party which has been represented in the Parliament since mid 1990s and did secure a seat in Jaffna at 2004 election at all odds against him due to open election violence and rigging carried out by the LTTE has stated in reference to the destruction caused by the LTTE that “LTTE is the worst thing that happened to the Tamils”. The leader of the Tamil United Liberation Front Mr. Anadasagari, dejectedly commented that his “life is worth more than the vote” when he was prevented by the LTTE to cast his own vote at the 2004 election. The LTTE’s contempt toward Mr. Anandasagari was caused by his defiance against the LTTE’ claim to be the sole representative of Tamils, while most other TULF rank and file meekly accepted the LTTE position. Then, the University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) a group of Tamil intellectuals initially attached to the Jaffna University who have been warning the world and actively reporting the violence and destruction caused by LTTE against the Tamils themselves have stated that there is a need for the Tamils to “save Tamil nation from self-destruction” caused by the LTTE and its uncritical acceptance. It is important to remember one of the founding members of the UTHR-J, a women medical professor was assassinated by the LTTE and the others have gone into hiding in Colombo. The latest reports of UTHR –J continue to highlights the terror that has been unleashed on Tamils even after the signing of MOU. Then Karuna, who has been labeled variously as a leader (by LTSE carder), rebel (by foreign media), eastern commander (by LTSE), renegade (by western media), traitor (by LTTE), challenger to LTTE (by Sinhalese) refers to “northern domination, discrimination” practiced by LTTE against the eastern Tamils. Mr. Laxman Kadirgamer, the present foreign minister of Sri Lanka, a Tamil, was very largely responsible in the late 1990s in persuading the foreign countries including the US which have become propaganda centers as well as fund raising centers for the LTTE terrorism to proscribe it. What all these have announced to the world is that LTTE is and has never been the sole representative of the Tamils. It is certainly sad and sadistic that western countries who preach high ideals of democracy and human rights have miserably failed the Sri Lanka in general and Sri Lankan Tamils in particular in giving democratic status and legitimacy to a terrorist organization.

These western countries have argued on number of occasions that the Ceasefire Agreement and the MOU as signs of LTTE moving in the direction of democracy! This hypocritical stand isan outcome of them deliberately disregarding the ground realities in Sri Lanka. Since the MOU was signed about 2 years ago, the LTTE terrorism against the Sri Lankan state and the Sinhalese has certainly stopped. But LTTE terrorism against the Tamils continued unabated. Do the western countries think that Tamil life is less important, expendable and that Tamil human rights is of a lesser category or that Tamils are second class citizens? Reported facts indicate that during the period since MOU was signed LTTE has carried over 60 assassinations in the government (at the time it was UNP government) controlled areas and about the same number of assassinations in the LTTE areas. UTHR –J recent reports detail the gruesome nature of these LTTE atrocities. UNICEF is on record indicating the continuation and in fact escalation of conscription of child soldiers. Karuna of the LTSE has recently gone on record saying that since MOU was signed LTTE has accepted 11 shiploads of arms. These are certainly not the moves towards democracy.

Then the LTTE’s role in the 2004 election which is well known and recorded by election monitors both local and international is full of assassinations, attempted assassinations, intimidation, stuffing ballot boxes, impersonations, preventing others from voting are a disgrace to the Tamils. Accepting the 2004 election verdict in the North which returned 22 TNA members who are nothing but LTTE extensions can only be interpreted as treating Tamil society as irrelevant at best and worthless at worst by the western countries on the one hand and also continuing legitimation of the LTTE by them on the other.

The question that begs an answer here is why does the West legitimize the terrorist organization LTTE. Three main reasons can be identified for this geopolitically dangerous stand. First is the western ignorance and partiality towards the LTTE as clearly shown by the reactions of Norway, United Kingdom. The LTTE propaganda has worked very effectively and efficiently, surpassing the lethargic and politically controlled Sri Lankan diplomatic mission in these countries. Second, the effective and powerful lobbying by the LTTE and its expatriate Tamil sympathizers in the western countries has been able to paint a totally wrong and Tamilized version of events in Sri Lanka. While the Sri Lankan diplomatic missions have been idling, the LTTE lobbyists have been very successful in persuading the governments in Norway, Canada, UK and even the United States to be sympathetic towards LTTE. For example, the Boston Tamil ethnonationalist lobby led by leading Tamil academics once persuaded the state legislature of Massachusetts to pass a resolution in favor of a Tamil state. Third reason is the pure political greed and expediency of the western politicians who have to appease the Tamils (who have sought refugee status in these countries and have now become citizens) in their electorates to maintain their power. This has become nakedly clear in Toronto, Canada, which is nicknamed little Jaffna due to high concentration of Tamils over 70,000, and in Australia, Norway, and United Kingdom. A recent bitter debate between two Australian legislators one an LTTE apologist coming from an electorate with a sizable Tamil population and the other a more sensible politicians was the case in point. The political expediency at the cost of reason is not a phenomenon limited to Sri Lanka!

LTTE demand is that Tamil state should be created within the land area of the Northern and Eastern Provinces. Together these two provinces contain not just 1/3 land of Sri Lanka but also 2/3 of its coastline. The LTTE is demanding this for a mere 8.6% of the population (Tamil population in the two provinces as a percentage of total population) of Sri Lanka. The most dangerous development here is the LTTE want this to become an exclusively a Tamil area with no space Sinhalese who have been living here for over two millennia and the Muslims.

While LTTE continue with its extremist and exclusive demand through ethnic cleansing practices the spatial pattern of ethnicity in Sri Lanka is very different, accommodative and mix. Sri Lanka has always been spatially inter-ethnic. Today there is no Division (administrative unit in Sri Lanka) which is 100% Sinhalese. Tamils and Muslims live among the Sinhalese peacefully and amicably. The Easter Province remain one of the most ethnically mixed provinces of the country with almost equal proportion of all the three major ethnic groups- Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslisms.

One of the most interesting developments in Sri Lanka is that more Tamils live among Sinhalese today than ever before in the history of this island. Tamils are fleeing from the “safe” LTTE areas into the “unsafe” Sinhalese areas! This is one of the clearest examples of extremism and falsity of LTTE’s interpretation of empirical reality of Sri Lanka. Approximately 1/3 of all the Sri Lankan Tamils live outside the so called “Tamil homeland” in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. In 1981, before the terrorist era of Tamil ethnonationalism, 608,144 or 32% of Tamils lived outside the Northern and Eastern provinces. If the LTTE and Tamil extremist rhetoric of Tamils being discriminated and prosecuted in Sinhalese areas is right then one would expect the Tamils to flee the Sinhalese areas into the safety of LTTE controlled areas. But behavior of the Sri Lankan Tamils have not only proved LTTE and Tamil apologists wrong it questions the continuing validity of the concept of “Tamil homeland”. In 2001, about 736,480 0r 32.8% of Tamils ( this is only a conservative estimate and the actual figure could be much higher) live outside the Northern and Eastern Provinces. This is an absolute increase 128,340 Sri Lankan Tamils in Sinhalese areas in the interim. Thus, the establishment of an exclusive Tamil region could leave 32% of Tamils outside of it. What would happen to them in the event of an establishment of an exclusively Tamil state in the Northern and Eastern provinces? It is quite possible it could lead to ethnic calamity that has never been experienced in Sri Lanka and it could also instigate mass exodus similar to post-partition crisis in Indian mainland. Then the problem on maintaining a hate-boundary between these two regions could be a disastrous for Sri Lanka and its citizens. Ethnic ghettoization is something that should be discouraged for the sake of peaceful life of future generations of this country.

Recently, the term “international community” has come into popular use in Sri Lanka. In reality it only refers to those countries who have for the reasons stated earlier taken a keen interest, in not partiality towards LTTE, in Sri Lankan affairs. I find a fundamental difference between this so called “international community” and our neighbour India.

Sri Lanka is a small state located inside the sphere of influence of India. Sri Lanka is better off not forgetting this and every time Sri Lanka did forget it was reminded to Sri Lanka in disturbing ways. It is no secret that the LTTE terrorism is in fact the prize Sri Lanka paying for the geopolitical blunders made by the UNP leader J. R. Jayawardena in the 1980s by antagonizing India and aligning with the US and West both of which conveniently abandoned JR when their support was most needed to counter LTTE terrorism. It is a pity that next generation of UNP leaders have not learnt lesson from “Yankee Dickey” as JR was nicknamed.

Indian policy towards Sri Lanka at all times has been pragmatic and based on Indian national interests and since the failure of IPKF and assassination of Rajiv Gandhi Indian national interests and Sri Lankan national interests seem to have merged. India does not want an exclusive Tamil separate state in Sri Lanka as it could rekindle not only “vishala Tamilnadu” (see annexed map) but it could unleash a new wave of ethnic nationalism in Nagaland to Khalistan to Kashmir to Telegana. However, western approach to Sri Lanka is based on western interests and LTTE sympathy based largely on ignorance and or bias as stated earlier. Sri Lankans thus have over the last two years developed suspicion and even contempt towards approach of the “international community”. The western impartiality has been seriously questioned in Sri Lanka by everyone but UNP and LTTE. The “international community” failed miserably in convincing that they are impartial, balanced and honest. For example, Norway instead of being an “honest broker” became a “naked supporter” of the LTTE by gifting this terrorist organization high powered transmission equipment. When Norway’s engagement in this secret deal was revealed the Norwegian embassy gave a shallow if not ridiculous answer and the UNP government went with it as it has been hellbent on appeasing the LTTE.

During the period since the signing of the MOU, all members of the “international community” simply kept a blind eye to LTTE violations most of which are nothing but terrorist acts of LTTE such as assassinations and also the strengthening the military or should I say “terrorist” capacity of LTTE. US is the only state that sustained its pressure against the LTTE to desist from terrorism but LTTE simply ignored US diplomatic statements. However, LTTE seem to second guess the nature of US involvement in supporting Sri Lanka’s fight against terrorism and for this reasons and perhaps this reason alone the LTTE seem to be hesitant to unleash terror once again. However, US pressure on LTTE was ridiculed by pro-LTTE writers as an US attempt of hectoring the LTTE and LTTE itself directly blamed the US. The rest of the “international community” did not make even a statement against the terrorist activities of the LTTE but legitimized the LTTE by a frenzied official and diplomatic visits and handshakes with the terrorist leaders, in effect, encouraging LTTE terrorism.

In this context, if LTTE unleash terror against Sri Lanka in the future with the help of the newly acquired weaponry during the ceasefire apparently monitored by Norway, the “international community” should assume responsibility and be held accountable. While the “international community” preached democratic ideals it practiced support for LTTE terrorism in Sri Lanka. In spite of LTTE being proscribed in United Kingdom, its theoretician, a UK citizen live and operate LTTE activities in London and he is not hiding. LTTE in spite of being labeled a FTO in US, its legal advisor operate from New York and he is not hiding either. I do not know whether US is breaking its own laws relating to FTOs. The end product of all these was nothing but the colossal and embarrassing electoral defeat of the United National Party which made all these international blunders possible. The UNP went blind and danced to the tune of the “international community” to the total neglect of its electoral base in Sri Lanka. Part of the blame for the UNP defeat goes to destinations outside Sri Lanka. UNP leaders and some of its international supporters simply forgot that people’s will is greater than leaders’ agreements done openly or in secrecy.

However, in contrast to the behavior of the “international community’ India practice its policy. It has proscribed LTTE and does not, at least openly, dance with LTTE. India separate Tamil ethnonationalism from LTTE separatism an elementary logic which the west has simply failed to comprehend. India and right thinking Sri Lankans of all ethnic groups, except perhaps UNP leadership knows that LTTE hides behind Tamil ethnonationalism and plays the terrorist game. India and right thinking Sri Lankan citizens, once again except perhaps UNP leadership, know that LTTE is not Tamil ethnonationalism or “sole representatives” and in fact they are not “representatives” at all.

“International community” has no policy towards Sri Lanka in spite of various announcements that they occasionally make indicating are committed to a united Sri Lanka. Every one of these announcement also place the legitimate democratic state of Sri Lanka in par with the international terrorist organization – the LTTE by requesting the “two parties” to refrain from war! What happens in Sri Lanka will have no effect on this “international community”. If Sri Lanka is separated into two states today, tomorrow the “international community’ will simply issue yet another “diplomatic statement” accepting the separation. That is the commitment of the “international community” towards present Sri Lanka. For the “international community” Sri Lanka is not significant if it breaks into two, three or even more pieces. This is the geopolitical reality that the present and future leaders of Sri Lanka need to understand.

But for India Sri Lanka matters and what happens to Sri Lanka has a direct bearing on national integrity of India. Given this India has a declared policy towards Sri Lanka -no separate Tamil state would be allowed in Sri Lanka. India has also stated that a devolution system that is “no more or no less” than what is practiced in India would be the best solution for Sri Lanka. Given this Sri Lanka is best advised to work with India in resolving the current crisis than blindly following the “international community” who have in fact strengthened the LTTE terrorism under the guise of trying to resolve the crisis in the country. Geopolitical reality is that no member of the “international community” will defy India or Indian leaders. India is a powerful country and the leaders are seriously committed to its national interests unlike some of the Sri Lankan leaders who have put their party and ego over and above national interests.

The last point I want to emphasize is that terrorism is a menace irrespective of its origin, location, authors, perpetrators, targets and objectives. There can be no acceptable terrorism anywhere in the world. Terrorists are terrorists until they openly declare terrorism out and practice democracy democratically. Under Sri Lankan and even international law those who directly and indirectly support and encourage terrorism are criminals if not terrorists themselves. Terrorism cannot be cannot be eradicated by rewarding it with legitimacy or hard currency. These are the lessons that Sri Lanka and the “international community” should learn in trying to resolve the ethnonationalist crisis in Sri Lanka.

Prof. Shantha K. Hennayake, Department of Geography, University of Peradeniya

1. A separatist war waged in the name of Sri Lankan Tamil ethnonationalism by the terrorist group LTTE against the Sri Lankan state.

2. International support and sympathy for the LTTE which is trying hard to win legitimacy

3. Tamil ethnonationalism is a political problem created by the power hungry expedient politics of UNP, SLFP and Tamil ethnonationalist parties.

4 LTTE was nurtured and made strong by India to pressurize Sri Lanka to change its pro-US anti-Indian policy in early and mid 1980s.

7 No Sinhalese and Muslims live in LTTE controlled areas due to ethnic cleansing

10 Official and unofficial work in Tamil areas are done in Tamil which is an official language

13. LTTE controls parts of Kilinochchi, Vavunia and Mullaitivu and Trincomallee Districts and LTSE controls parts of Batticaloa and Ampara districts

19. No political freedom, democracy of respect for human rights in the LTTE or LTSE

23 LTTE is not the sole representative of Tamils; in fact they are not representatives at all.

24. It is a small state and within the sphere of influence of Indian geopolitics.

25. What happens in Sri Lanka has no significant impact on national interests of US or West.

26. Token ban of LTTE in USA, UK, Australia but LTTE and its fronts operate freely and openly

27. Hypocrisy of “international community” in legitimizing LTTE as the sole representative of Tamils and thus maintaining silence on its continuing terror.

28. India is the only country that opposes a separate state in Sri Lanka as it challenges its national interests. Other states pay only a lip service to the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.

[1] This is the text of the presentation made by Dr. Shantha K. Hennayake, Visiting Professor of University of Kentucky at the Panel Discussion on Sri Lanka: Broadening the Discourse on Peace and Security organized by the Sigur Center for Asia Studies of the Elliott School of International Affairs of the George Washington University in collaboration with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars held on April 9, 2004 in Washington D.C. Karl F. Inderfurth, former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs inaugurated the session and it was attended by scholars on Sri Lanka and diplomats from US and India.