PROF WILSON RECYCLES FATHER-IN-LAW’S
POLITICS
SOURCE: "THE ISLAND (SUNDAY) 8 JUNE 1997
BY, H L D MAHINDAPALA
Of all the Tamil scholars who have entered the North - South debate Prof.A.J.Wilson has acquired a sizeable degree of academic respectability not only because he held two chairs in political science and authored several books but also because his informed writings are derived from his close contacts at the highest levels of a broad section of the old political establishment. These connections, however, have also disadvantaged him because, often times, he has not been able to distance himself from his closeness to the personalities involved in the unfolding events that bedevilled Sri Lankan politics. Besides, Tamil scholars, by and large, have tied themselves to the political agenda of the north. Working furiously at the ideological frontiers they have managed to (1) blacken the image of the south, particularly by targeting Sinhala - Buddhism and (2) project the nation that the 11 per cent minority of north - the most privileged community from colonial days - was oppressed by the 75 per cent of the Sinhala - Buddhist majority. This simplistic presentation of a complex inter-ethnic relationship was dressed up in academic grab by various Tamil scholars to establish and extend the frontiers of Tamil separatism. A recognisable feature of Prof. Wilson’s career has been his pioneering role as an indefatigable mental worker committed to push the Tamil political frontier defined by his father-in-law, S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, to the possible extremities of separatism.
Anthropologists
Tamil anthropologists, political scientists and historians occupying chairs in prestigious universities of the west propagated this pro Tamil political line partly to strengthen their claims for (a) the continuation of acquired privileges under the British raj and (b) partly for the accumulation of additional privileges for their community through the mobilisation of foreign opinion. Of course, at various levels their emotional reactions to the events of the south (eg. Prof. Stanley Tambiah’s experiences of the 1958 riots in Gal Oya), their personal commitment to the Tamil leadership (eg. Prof. Wilson’s relationship with his father-in-law, S. J. V. Chelvanayakam), their communal hubris to establish for the stateless 70 million Tamils of the world at least one state which they could call their own, their over floated sense of self importance arising from n unwarranted claim of superior talents, and their exaggerated role in Sri Lankan history, tended to colour their thinking. Some even built centres (eg. Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam) to pursue northern politics through funding of selected intellectuals sheltered inside the thatched patio of the International; Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES). Among the academics in the Tamil diaspora, Prof. Sinappah Arasaratnam, the historian, has tried his best to avoid the common pitfalls though he has not succeeded completely.
Myths
The results is a failure to divorce themselves from the myths they had created for themselves which had no solid basis either in history or geography. They were basically latter-day myths manipulated to sustain a political culture of a caste elite gasping for breath in its dying days. This created a "peninsularity of the mind" with strong emotional attachments to preserve the decadent order of Jaffna intact under the sick and decrepiat dispensation of a racist elite. Prof. Wilson’s comments of the proposed draft constitution (Sunday Island, May 25,1997 - p.15) is representative of his emotional and personal commitment to a past which has no future. Having painted himself into the ideological corner constructed by S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, his father-in-law, it certainly may not be east for him to jump out of it. However, Prof. Wilson’s writings cannot be dismissed as idiosyncrasies of a retired professor of political science. His comments have serious implications because they are designed to push the Tamil community to insist on their demands at the expense of other communities. As these implications affect the interests of all communities due attention must be paid to consider some aspects of his comments.
The main theme that runs through his comments is that the Centre in Colombo has too much power which reduces the Regions to a position of inferiority. This according to him, will give the leverage to the Supreme Court to reinforce the supremacy of the Centre reducing the Regions to a state of "constitutional inferiority". What Prof. Wilson wants is parity of constitutional status between the Centre and the Regions - a cry which began as far back as 1920 with the coming of the manning constitutional reforms. In other words, he continues to play the old tune of the Tamil Oliver Twist: the more you give the more they want. This political line is typical of the northern upper-caste elite which began with a demand for a seat in the Western Province in the 1920’s and expanded into "50-50" under G. G. Ponnambalam and then metamorphosed into Federalism under his junior political rival, S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, who is the Vadukoddai Resolution of 1976 declared war on the south and went down the haemorrhaging track of an elusive Eelam. Of course, it took a long time (not to mention a round- the-world lobbying trip) for Appapillai Amithalingam, the upper - caste successor to Chelvanayakam, to come down to earth and declare that they cannot get Eelam because the international community - in particular India - will not accede to the division of Sri Lanka. But they raised false expectations and, in doing some misled the entire Tamil community, most of whom followed the Pied Pipe of Jaffna, Chelvanayakam, until they drowned in the bloody pools of their own violence.
sacrifices
I shall come to this aspect later because Prof. Wilson refers to the sacrifices made by the Tamils. But, in the meantime, without buying into the pros and cons of the "G. L. Peiris package", let me deal with only one aspect of the draft constitutional arrangements for the Regions. prof. Wilson objects to the introduction of Executive Committee system for the Regions and, with his usual thoroughness, quotes the relevant sources (Ivor Jennings and Governor Caldecott) to argue why this old State Council system is not suitable for the Regions. he leans towards a Westminster model where the Chief Minister, based on the collective responsibility of a tightly run cabinet by a Prime Minister, wields power from his centre instead of diffusing it among heads of each Executive Committee who would have the capacity to flex their muscles to undermine the authority of a Chief Minister. The Executive Committee system fragments power. The Westminster system centralises power in the hands of the omnipotent Chief Minister who invariably will be a Tamil. Obviously, if power is concentrated in the hands of a Tamil Chief Minister, there is a greater potential for the Tamil leadership to maintain overall political control which is mostly likely to be vitiated under the fissiparous decentralisation of power inherent in the Executive Committee system.
Not alarmist
Oddly enough, Prof. Wilson was not so alarmist about the Executive Committee system which crept in to the Gaullist Second Republic.In his book, The Gaullist system in Asia - The Constitution of Sri Lanka (1978) -he wrote somewhat approvingly of the executive Committee system: "No commentator to date has compared the executive committees relating to the different ministers under the pre-independence Donoughmore constitution (1931 - 47 ) to the French legislative committees parallelling the various ministries in the Third, Fourth and Fifth Republics. These executive committees. depending on the personality of their minister (who were their chairmen) determined and dictated policy though the more forceful ministers were successful in enforcing their views.
The committees wielded considerable power over the machinery of government and bureaucracy. Efforts were made in the post - independence phase to reintroduce the system in an attentuated form. One objective was to provide the private member with a sense of importance. But more significantly the intention was to institutionalise consensus politics."
Surely, Prof. Wilson can not be opposed to consensual politics in the Regions? Or giving a sense of importance to individual members who are generally overshadowed and subdued by the Westminster model? Or could it be that the Executive Committees, with their "considerable power over the machinery of government and bureaucracy", is worrying him because such power could threaten the communal base of the Tamil leadership which needs the Westminster model to maintain its upper-caste hegemony in the north? Perhaps, the gun of Mr. Prabhakaran has humbled them now. The greatest achievement of Mr. Prabhakaran is in dismantling the caste structure that oppressed the depressed castes of Jaffna. But once the Vellalas return to power under the new constitutional arrangements will no this Executive Committee system prevent them from reverting to a new and subtle form castism that dehumanised Jaffna?
Apart from the caste factor prof. Wilson has to contend with the other ethnic minority group in the Regions. naturally, Prof. Wilson, who has been the shadowy figure behind his father-in-law in defining, planning and implementing the divisive politics of Sri Lanka, harps on the need for unity between the Muslim and Tamil communities. This certainly cannot be because there has been a sudden transformation in thinking of the Tamil elite to promote the interests of the Muslims who were massacred mercilessly in the ethnic cleansing progroms of the Hindu Tamils. He is seeking the help of the Muslims because of the need to mount a common front to strengthen the constitutional power base for the Tamils. Besides, in the overall strategy of the Tamils it is important to eliminate, or weaken, the strength of the other minorities who will necessarily demand their share of the regional cake, resulting in an inevitable challenge to the hegemony of the Tamils. The Executive Committee system divides and shares political and administrative power. Under the Westminster model all power is concentrated in the hands of the Chief Minister and the Muslims will be dependent on the mercies of a Tamil Chief Minister. Now if Prof. Wilson succeeds in undermining the Executive Committee system he will kill two birds with one stone. How? Because undermining the executive Committee system is another way of undermining the Muslims by removing all administrative and political powers that may come their way under the Executive Committee system.
There are several other aspects of prof. Wilson’s comments which need scrutinising. But limitations of space makes it necessary to focus on the political agenda of Prof. Wilson hidden under his academic cap and gown. One paragraph that reveals the naked politics of prof. Wilson reads like this:. "Secondly, let no one pretend to think that the substance of these proposals (in the draft constitution) is a great bonanza conferred on the long-suffering and terrorised Tamil people. The Tamil people who had died in their thousands will look askance at the measly concessions and will be sure to ask the question: "Is this all that we stood for and suffered against the jack boot of the Sinhalese army?" here Prof. Wilson had dropped his academic cool and objectivity and turned into a fire-breathing propagandist for his father-in-law’s separatist politics. But since the party of his father-in-law, the TULF, has conceded (rather late in the day) that the political myth of creating an Eelam has been abandoned, the focus must necessarily turn to Prof. Wilson’s pitiful cries about " the long-suffering and terrorised Tamil people". the first question to ask is: who led them into this ruinous and long-suffering route? Who made the declaration of war against the Sinhala- Buddhist in the Vaddukoddai Resolution of 1976? If the Jaffna Tamils declared was on the Sinhalese who,is responsible for the bleeding and suffering that flowed from the aggressive decision?
Briefly, Prof. Wilson’s contention amounts to a claim that the Tamils have the right to declare war but they should not, in any way, suffer the consequences of that war. The moral responsibility of such an immoral and catastrophic decision falls fairly and squarely on the shoulder of his father-in-law who presided over the trends that led to the fatal Vadukkodai Resolution. It will not be surprising if Prof. Wilson tries to wriggle out of this. But the blood that flowed from this heinous decision will stain the hands of both his father-in-law and his own. Not all the poojas and the cleansing rituals of Jaffna will wash this bloody stain away from the Tamil leadership. One possible answer he may throw up is that it is through violence that the could not get through the democratic process. This is an argument to be dealt with later of he comes up with that excuse.
Anyway, the argument that the Tamils must be given what they demand because they have sacrificed so must is a puerile argument for an academic. It is an argument that appeals to politicians and to some section of Tamil diasporas, partly to legitimise their unrealistic and unreasonable demands but more importantly to divert attention from the inhuman violence committed in their name. However, if Prof.
Wilson believes in this argument seriously then he must also consider the sacrifices made by the Sinhalese to safeguard the lives and rights of all communities, including the Tamils who have been hunted by the Tiger terrorists. The Sinhalese people, who had died in their thousands have a right to look askance at any divisive move, and surely as the sun rises tomorrow, ask the question: "Did we sacrifice or lives to hand over on a platter a racist state based on the myths of a "home-land"? (Without footnoting it, acknowledgment must be made for borrowing some phrase from Prof. Wilson’s question of a similar kind in relation to the Tamils.) Though it may sound a cynical way of measuring the value of sacrifice, it is also necessary to ask, in the light of the selfrighteous claims of sacrifice made by Prof. Wilson: Which sacrifice is greater? It is the self-serving sacrifice of Tamils seeking a racist enclave like the "home-lands" of the depraved apart hied system that collapsed with the fall of the racist supremacists? Or the sacrifices of those whose aim is to protect all communities? Besides, the Sinhalese have been sacrificing their lives down the ages to protect their identity, their culture, their civilisation from the murderous Dravidian marauders who have repeatedly attacked them. How come Prof. Wilson ignores those sacrifices and relates only to the sacrifices made by a war mongering mob? Does this mean that only Tamils lives are sacred and pohers are not worth counting? That is what his arguments amounts to when he talks only of the sacrifices made be the Tamils, to say the least, is totally unworthy of a professor of political science.
There is also another aspect to this argument of ‘suffering and the terrorising of the Tamil; people" which he and his pro-Tamil scholars have scrupulously avoided because it is not only embarrassing but also knocks out the moral base from their accusations of the so called Sinhala oppression. The most agonising suffering and terrorising of the Tamil people took place in two phases. Firs, the terrorising of the Tamil people was institutionalised and perpetuated for three centuries by the Tamil Vellala caste. Second , their own self-proclaimed "liberator", Mr.Velupillai Prabhakaran, transformed the old upper-caste fascism into his own brand of political fascism based on his personality cult.
According to reports of the University Teachers Human Rights (Jaffna) the LTTE ran concentration camps to imprison and torture over 4000 Tamil dissidents. The entire Tamil leadership fathered by Prof. Wilson’s father-in-law had to flee their "homeland" and seek refuge in the south which they had consistently denigrated and condemned as the land of the"jack-booted oppressors". Mr.Amirthalingam, who was lauded by Prof. Wilson as "the Subas Chandra Bose of the Ceylon Tamils", (I bid -p.ix), (it is doubtful whether the Indian Tamils would agree to garland him with this accolade) was slaughtered by the political children bred by his father-in-law. Separatist politics Chelvanayakam depopulated Jaffna and sent most of them into exile. Above all, the vindictive politics of the "Tamil liberators", their ruthless extrusions, their establishment of a fascist regime, their ethnic cleansing which drove 20,000 Muslims and an equal amount of Sinhalese from Jaffna and other crimes were never put under academic microscope of the Tamil scholars who fanned out to occupy key positions in the Western diaspora. So it is not surprising to find that the recurring theme in Prof. Wilson’s writings continues to be a recycled version of his father-in-law ‘s separatist slogans. He even went before the American Congress and promised them bases in their Eelam in exchange for American support. With such unabashed partisanship, it is realistic to expect a fair degree of objectivity from him of the Sri Lankan crisis?
The legacy left behind by Prof. Wilson’s father-in-law’s politics is projected by him as a force that gave dignity to the Tamils. This is a highly debatable issue. But Prof. Wilson’s academic endeavours have been to crown his father-in-law as the "father of the of the Tamil nation". What is certain and visible is that
Chelvanayakam’s legacy has left the Tamils in a plight which he never lived to see. What is more, there is no doubt that the political children be bred would have killed "the father of the Tamil nation" to make for the "the sole representative of the Tamils" - and that too would have been probably condoned in grim silency by the in-laws and the children . From their pusillanimous political perch, it is only the violence of the Sinhala-Buddhist that had been scrutinised minutely becauseonly that one-eyed view will give them some political mileage. This is written not to condone in any way the lunatic fringe of the Sinhala masses that went on the rampage against innocent Tamils, nor to cover up the excesses of the ill-trained Sinhala forces which were forced to confront the Tamil people because of the folly of the Tamil leadership that thrust was upon them. On balance, however, it could be argued that ethnic violence in Sri Lanka never reached the brutal depths of Bosnia or Zaire. Nor was violence and discrimination institutionalised as in South Africa, or by the racist whites in America. Nor did genocidal violence reach the abhorrent levels of Australia where Aboriginal children were removed to be civilised by the white Christian society, or where the entire population of Aborigines in of Tasmania was wiped out by the white settlers. Above all the Sinhala - Buddhist never practised any kind of discrimination or violence against any community as the Tamil- Hindu Vellala chastises who denied their own people the basic rights to live with a modicum of human dignity. When your own leaders reduce your own people to a sub human level and force them to be slaves for over three centuries then that suffering and terrorising can not be, in any way, compared to the temporary "jackboots of the Sinhala army" which, incidentally, are proving to be more humane than the Tiger terrorists who occupied Jaffna for a brief moment.
Prof. Tambiah examined the Buddhist society of the south and put it to the moral test in his controversial book, Buddhism Betrayed. He summed up his anti- Sinhala- Buddhist emotions in the cover
picture. It will have to be more subtle that the demagogic posture of a Buddhist monk. Despite that, such controversies are good and it is deeply regrettable that some bone head in the PA government has decided to ban it. But academics like Prof. Tambiah, who are supposed to be objective and pursue knowledge for the sake of finding the truth , also have a moral responsibility to explore the other side of the story where dehumanising forces of the northern caste elite prevented and destroyed Jaffna society to breed political monsters who refuse to enter the democratic process of, even when they are in it, refuse to coexist harmoniously by agreeing to accept a political and constitutional arrangement which is fair by all communities.
To unravel the complexities of the Sri Lankan crisis it is imperative that the two streams that flowed from the north and the south be explored comprehensively. Not only the northern scholars but even the scholars from the south (perhaps, with the exception of the foremost historian, Prof. K. M. De Silva ) have failed to view the two intersecting and interwrining forces that met- sometimes with catastrophic ferocity - at certain historical confluences and spilled over, sucking the nation into the murky depths of despair. Though prof. Tambaih has taken one-eyed view of an emotionally disturbed Tamil, it must be noted, in fairness to him, that he is not for the dismantling of the Sri Lankan state of satisfy the arrogant aspirations of only one community. All communities have aspirations and a lasting solution -particularly in the Sri Lankan context - can be worked out only if the aspirations of all communities are met. But Prof. Wilson whose communal biases prevent him from rising to a sense of fairness to all communities continues to plug his father-in-law’s line of separatism.
The basic flaw in Prof. Wilson is that his political thinking is linked inextricably to his personal an emotional relationship with his father-in-law. In his original memorial lecture, expanded later into a biography, he has attempted to project his father-in-law as a political saint who deserves the veneration of all Tamils. His biography is virtually a hagiography of a chauvinist of the extreme kind who, in reality, worsened inter-ethnic relations to a point of no return. the glorification of Chelvanayakam as "the father of the nation" is based essentially on the founds that he waged a relentless campaign against the Sinhala - Buddhists of the south. But S. W. R. D. Bandaranayake who is undoubtedly, the greatest liberal produced by SLFP - a party that claimed to be the chosen vehicle of the Sinhala - Buddhist forces - is portrayed as a communalist who failed to stem the tide of Sinhala forces. Though both Chelvanayakam and Bandaranayake led the identical forces of the two communities, almost in the identical fashion, only Bandaranayake is crucified as a chauvinist. No one blames Chelvanayakam for failing to restrain his communalism. Clearly, the urgency of the mounting pressures of the time, arising from the electoral system, pushed both into a catastrophic confrontation. Bandaranayake couldn’t back off for the same reasons that Chelvanayakam could not back off. Both had to satisfy and electorate which were on their backs. But the subsequent judgement passed on both vary because Bandaranayake was supposed to perform the miracle that Chelvanayakam could not, or was not supposed, to do. Pursuing Tamil communalism is liberating. But pursuing Sinhala communalism is chauvinistic.
Consider, the forces unleashed by both, Bandaranayake unleashed Sinhala - Buddhism in 1956 - a force, despite sporadic outbursts, did not reach unmanageable proportions. Exactly twenty years later (1976) Chelvanayakam unleashed his forces at Vaddukoddai which burst out with all the virulent venom of racism and went spinning out of control, leading to death and destruction. Bandaranayake is blamed for not controlling the forceshe released. Who is to be blamed for the forces released by Chelvanayakam? Bandaranayake ? That will be their argument which has to dealt with separately. However, if Bandaranayake is held responsible for the post 1956 violence then it is only fair that Chelvanayakam should be held responsible for the posy - 1976 violence. He and his party endorsed it jubilantly. If he had exercised his authority and intervened at Vaddukkoddai he too could have prevented the worsening of the inter-ethnic relations which, despite the twists and turns, had all the signs of advancing towards and reasonable solution. Instead he committed the worst political crime of the century when he endorsed a blood letting that has led his people into the hell of suffering. it is clear that the institution of his Vaddukodai violence has brought upon the Tamil people a suffering which exceeds, by far, all the violent out bursts of the south in the post 1956 phase.
One way of covering up his Vadukkodai violence and virulent chauvinism is to make him look like
the "father of that Tamil nation". the man who projected a Gandhian image (more so through his debilitated physical condition) is exonerated and elevated even after he chose the path of violence which brought suffering to his own people and the nation as a whole, whilst Bandaranayake who did his best within the available limited and dwindling powers to contain the forces he unleashed is branded as a weak chauvinist. This judgement is based on the questionable judgement of "them" vs "us" which helps to point the finger at " them" and make mythic cult figures out of "us". leaving the external factors aside for a while, there is better test to assess the right to be the "father of the Tamil nation". Here Prof. Wilson has to answer the question why this benign "father of the Tamil nation" failed to effectively wage a domestic war to rescue his own children from being oppressed by his elitist class. Along with his arrogant and intransigent mentor, G. G. Ponnambalam, they exploited and thrived on the pernicious caser system which created the most evil society in South Asia. After Sir Ponnambalam Arunchelam, the first and last liberal of northern politics, Jaffna descended into virulent communalism which ended in producing either opportunistic political hermaphrodites like Mr. Kumar Ponnambalan, or fascist avatars like Mr. Prabhakaran.
This is the record of northern politics which flowed into national politics dragging all communities into the bleeding vortex of violence., The relicts role payed by the Jaffna leadership, particularly by G. G.Ponnambalam and his acolyte, Chelvanayakan , who broke away from "G. G." to pursue more extremist racism, are either covered up or glossed over in hagiographies which service neither objective scholarship nor communal relations. Prof. Wilson either lacks the compassion or the objectivity to throw up his hands in horror like Prof. Rajan Hoole and ask: "How could such evil monstrosities come out from the womb of Jaffna?’ In this poisoned climate of ethnic relations, it is rare to find and intellectual like Prof. Rajan Hoole and Dr.Ragini Tiranagama, both of whom had the moral courage to go beyond the racist prejudices of Tamil academics like Prof. Wilson. Prof. Hoole could see both side. Dr.Tiranagama sacrificed her life for the cause of peace and human rights. Prof. Hoole had to seek refuge in south. These are not victims of "the jack boots of the Sinhala army". These are victim of the monstrosities bred by Chelvanayakam’s racist politics which were dressed up by his son-in-law as "sub-nationalism". But unfortunately, Tamil scholars in the diasporas chose to point the finger only - I repeat, only - at the south ignoring the virulent stream of chasterst racism that flowed from the north and poisoned the pool of national policits. Perhaps, we have to await the arrival of another generation of Tamil scholars to present a balance account of the complex story that went wrong in post independent Sri Lanka.
P.S:
Judging from Prof. Wilson’s past performances this could be even read as a preview of his book Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism Origins and Development which is in the press. It could be safely predicted that he will put the blame entirely on "Sinhala- Buddhist chauvinists", headed probably by S. W. R. D. Bandaranayake, and recycle his earlier claim to project his father-in-law as the "father of Tamil nationalism". His dogged ambition has been to force this thesis down the throats of the Tamils, hoping to give Chelvanayakam a prominent place in Tamil history. Whether the future generations or Mr.Prabhakaran’s generation will accept this constructions of his is questionable.
The younger generation of Tamilssee Chelvanayakam’s elitist casteism as a miserable failure. They know that his politics never solved any of the internal or external problems of Jaffna. If he failed then did Mr.Valupillai Prabhakaran succeed? If he deals with Mr.Prabhakaran comprehensively that will be the only new perspective in his book. But will he dare to make a serious assessment of Mr.Prabhakaran’s role? Or will he skirt around the issue? He certainly can not elevate Mr> Prabhakaran above the hallowed status given by him to his father-in-law. Where does this leave Prof. Wilson? In the middle of nowhere?.