20 August, 2019

Blog

Ethnic Conflict, LTTE And Future

By Imtiyaz Razak 

Dr. Imtiyaz Razak

It is now crystal clear that the Sinhala leaders will never put forward a just resolution to the Tamil national question. Therefore, we are not prepared to place our trust in the impossible and walk along the same old futile path…. We therefore ask the international community and the countries of the world that respect justice to recognize our freedom struggle.” This is the key sections of the annual Heroes’ Day statement delivered by the slain leader of the disabled Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), V. Pirapaharan.

Serious Sri Lanka watchers would agree that such a statement represents not only the Tamil disappointments and distrust, but also it effectively exposes the duplicity of five decades old southern Sinhalese politics, which categorically refused to do meaningful political business with the Tamil leaders who represent the North and East Tamils.  Moderates The Tamil Tigers, who mirrored the Sinhala political establishment in its dealing with dissent and pluralism, unquestionably are the deadly elements of the Sri Lanka society. Whether the Tamil Tigers, for that matter, violent Tamil nationalists are freedom fighters as they claim themselves or deadly terrorists as the Sri Lanka governments describe, history will answer it. My point here is that the birth of Tamil Tiger movement had roots in Sri Lanka’s history and its anti-Tamil agendas. It is important to point that there was not an overnight decision among the ordinary Tamils to approve the agendas of the Tamil Tigers: the failure of Sri Lankan polity to meet the demands of the Tamil moderates was a key foundation for the origin of the Tamil extremism in Sri Lanka. Instead of listening to the Tamil leaders and accommodating their reasonable demands, the Sinhalese ruling leaders of the time assaulted and stoned the Tamils and their leaders, and even hired the Sinhalese to become butchers to kill innocent Tamils and moderate leaders. One needs to realize that successive governments since 1956 controlled by the Sinhalese miserably failed to engage the Tamil moderates such as the Federal Party (FP).

The FP sought a comprehensive solution without jeopardizing the unity of Sri Lanka. However, Sinhalese collective, competitive chauvinism turned a blind eye to the Tamil moderates. Sadly, the choice of the Sinhala political class to use violence, effectively scratched the Tamil trust in the political system and encouraged some Tamils to adopt violence. Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe, a former Premier of Sri Lanka during his visit to the United States echoed this truth. He pointed out that “the Tamils tried peaceful protests which soon degenerated into violence. With the underlying grievances being unattended the stage was set for terrorist groups to emerge (“Our Approach for a Better Tomorrow Free from Terrorism,” Daily News, July 25, 2002.) This helps us to understand the birth of Tamil violent movements, particularly the Tamil Tigers in the end of 1970. The Sinhalese ruling leaders, however, did not freeze their election-oriented ethnic outbidding policies. They incessantly formulated emotional policies to win the sympathy of the Sinhalese. A significant portion of Tamils in the North even after the end of the brutal war, think that they are being treated unfairly and their lands are being occupied by the Sinhala army. Colombo’s steady failure to engage Tamils and the Moors in the so-called post-war period to negotiate what political scientists call ‘consociational democracy’ to ease ethnic tensions explains Sinhala political class’ political goals.

What is more ironic is that in Sri Lanka, even after 30 years of conflict, after victimizing thousands of Sri Lankans, mostly Tamils, the Sinhalese political class is still refusing to recognize that minorities, including the Moors, whose political leaders actively support Sinhala political class, have legitimate grievances that require reasonable political solution. In fact, the Sinala political class is deliberately refusing to understand the problems of the Tamils and Moors; because they do not want to challenge the kind of political culture they created to outbid their opponents. To consolidate this narrow political culture, they utilize 5th century Mahavamsa, which plays a key role in the formation of Sinhala elite mobilization. According to Mahavamsa, Sinhalese people are the preservers of Buddhism and the entire island is the sacred home of the Sinhalese and of Buddhism.

Separation may not be a desirable solution for the Sri Lanka’s ethnic civil war which killed more than 100,000 people of the island’s 21 millions. In other words, separation may trigger further instability. But when a particular community is continuously being denied their rights and share, and become prisoners of the majority/dominant community, then there must be a solution to arrest unhealthy political situation and to give justice to the marginalized. However, desire for a partition could be challenged if the ruling elites show real willingness to think and act beyond the ethnic emotions, and commitments to share the powers with the minorities. That is to say, their must be effective power sharing mechanisms both at the center and the regions. This would more likely undermine the agendas of the Tamil nationalists, provided there is a domestic and international political willingness to implement the agreement.

Moreover, it is politically incorrect to demand a particular community to forcefully cohabit with the majority. Also, when there is no space for political accommodation and citizenship for the minorities who claim geographical domination in a certain areas of the country, separation is highly likely. Like Pirapakaran, there are many Tamils, who think that “uncompromising stance of Sinhala chauvinism” would never deliver justice to the Tamils.
Therefore, when the Tamils say “the uncompromising stance of Sinhala chauvinism has left us with no other option but an independent state for the people of Tamil Eelam,” it is highly demonstrating their frustration both with the impartial delivery of democratic system and the Sinhalese ruling elites.

The best alternative to the partition is, as above mentioned, serious political formulas which would go beyond the failed unitary state structure. Such a political formulas may  probably provide a political space to cohabit with other groups, while maintaining their own identity and values. The basic logic of unity is acceptance. When we prepare to accept choices made by others regardless of their ethnic/religious identity, we not only win their trust, but also their loyalty to the common goals. On the other hand, polity may trigger violence and instability when we shove our preferences on others. Unity and peace among the different groups, by and large, occur when there is a sprit for respect, self-determination, and freedom, in other words, tensions between the different ethnic groups can disappear when the state offers the space for the minorities to build their lost trust, and to uphold their citizenship through the political autonomy.

Sinhala political class needs to engage Tamil leaders as well as Moors to seek justice. Absence of justice often triggers tensions and rivalry. A political solution to the conflict is one way to gain justice. Ethnic leaders can emerge in absence of justice, decent peace and opportunities. Colombo should not forget the roots of the conflict that gave birth to the LTTE. Elections are part of healthy democracy, but what dignifies democracy is culture of pluralism and justice in which masses would enjoy true political, social and cultural autonomy.

(Dr.  A. R. M. Imtiyaz’ research and teaching are mainly focused on ethnic politics. He has published widely in peer-reviewed international journals. He currently teaches at the Asian Studies/Department of Political Science, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA.)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    If a company failed to achieve success, the management is replaced. The country is ruled by Sinhala majority for the last 60 years. There is no point blaming the Tigers. Tigers were the creation of Sinhala state. If the country was managed well then the dissent will be politically resolved just and fair. Continue this path and there will be more tigers and lions rising up in the near future.You need leaders with foresight. The progress should be compared after 5 years. GDP, inflation, education, employment should be measured and the party should be thrown out, if the results were not adequate.

  • 0
    0

    State of two nation theory in unaccpecatable to people of Sri lanka.
    The policy of LTTE is contituantion of MYTH of Homeland concept of SJV since 1949.FP,TULF and TNA form of struggle are differant; one in apperance non-viloance and other are armed struugle;but both undermine soverginity Indepandenace and democracy of peopel of Sri Lanka.
    Since 1949, leading Tamil political party was anti-esablishment and not join national politics of contriubuation for path of capitaist developement.
    The Tamil politicans are mainly composition of class of petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie pro-imperialism outfits.They ever-never RESRSETANATIVE OF NATIOAL CHARCTER OF SRI LANKAN IDENTITY.
    Tamil politiacl class and parties agenda was base on seperatism and secessionism of a peculair features of colonial or semi-colonial of reactionatires nature of bourgeoise.
    This feaature of set of policies against aspriation people of Tamils in an Island.
    So-called anti-Tamil political class seek foreing assiatanse and metrial and and ideolgical support from Imperialist to cerated two country in island of Sri Lankan since 1948.LTTE as armed bandit carry out such mission during 30 years of war.
    But Indian big bourgeoisie of Tamils in Tamil Nadu totally oppossed and unaccpectable TAMIL NADU for homeland or seperate STATE.
    The Indian Ruilng class and BIG bourgeoisie and politiacl class decided not surrender NATIONAL SOVERIGINITY TO IMPERIALISM POWER.
    In other menning Tamil bourgeoise of TAMIL NADU DECIDEDC NOT creat INDEPANDANCE TAMIL state are SEPARATED FROM THE REPUBLICE OF INDIA.Indian Tamils bourgeoise are more national, progressive and democrtaic far-reaching thinking of PEOPLE OF INDIA.
    Needless to say Island’s Tamil bourgeoisie of left and right wing groupes as whole are more conservative, orthdox, anti-democrtaic and anti-people of Island.

    • 0
      0

      what the f… are you saying

  • 0
    0

    Please correct or read as so-called Tamil politiacl class-deleated (anti)

  • 0
    0

    What is this discriminations that some Tamils are always talking about? Tamils are better off than most of others in the country. There are more health and educational facilities in Tamil areas than in Sinhala areas. Stop grumbling and get on with your lives. You are now even better off now that the Tigers are finished. Stop grumbling you whining grumbling dumbos. Do not create problems for the others.

  • 1
    0

    Show me Tamil moderates? They are all nothing but bunch of racists asking for pound of flesh. Trying to create mythical Eelaam. Jaffna was a small town ship for centuries and that is all. You cannot claim a 1/3 of the country living in a small town.

  • 0
    0

    Sri Lanka is in a strategic location, but the Sinhalese and Tamil leaders are not smart enough to rule the country. Few powerful countries want to influance Sri lanka for their own interests, but Sri Lankan leaders are not smart enough to deal with those powerful countries. The country is in wrong hands. Therefore, Sri Lanka will never become like Singapore, the fools can only dream about making Sri Lanka as wonder of Asia, but it will never come to pass.

    Sri Lankan are the enemy for themselves, the Tamils and Sinhalese are extremely clever when it comes to eliminating the smart Sri Lankans. This is why they are fighting since the independence. The fools who have been fighting since 1948 and killed more than 100000 people, yet they call themselves as wonder of Asia. It is nothing but an insult to the other Asians.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.