{"id":101744,"date":"2013-08-22T11:03:27","date_gmt":"2013-08-22T05:33:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?p=101744"},"modified":"2013-08-25T18:16:27","modified_gmt":"2013-08-25T12:46:27","slug":"long-war-cold-peace-revaluation-of-the-past-and-reconciliation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/long-war-cold-peace-revaluation-of-the-past-and-reconciliation\/","title":{"rendered":"Long War, Cold Peace: Revaluation Of The Past And Reconciliation"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Godfrey Gunatilleke<\/a><\/span> –<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Dr Godfrey Gunatilleke<\/p><\/div>\n

\u201cSri Lanka faces a crisis of transition and transformation\u2026 Sri Lanka has been unable to make the transition from war to sustainable peace; from what I believe was fundamentally a just war to a just peace.<\/em><\/p>\n

The crisis is at least in part a crisis of the post war discourse. \u2026 The discourse has not been of a character which can facilitate the transition from just war to just peace…\u00a0 Those who maintain it was a just war fail to call for a just peace a peace with justice for the Tamil community. The Tamils for their part have failed to make a clean break from their recent past of sympathy for secessionism and terrorism. There is no post war discourse which combines a strong position in defense of the war with a strong drive for a sustainable peace on a new basis of a fairly re-drawn ethnic compact.\u201d<\/em> (\u2018Long War, Cold Peace<\/em>\u2019 Vijitha Yapa, 2013, P 34)<\/p>\n

The two sessions of the Marga Institute\u2019s Panel Discussion on Dr Dayan Jayatilleka<\/a><\/span>\u2019s book \u201cLong War Cold Peace<\/a><\/span>\u201d have been organized under the titles \u201cWas it a just war?\u201d and \u201cCan we have a just peace?\u201d. \u00a0Those who have read the book will appreciate the appropriateness of these titles \u00a0for the two \u00a0main parts of Dr Jayatilleka\u2019s \u00a0book – \u00a0\u00a0first , \u00a0his \u00a0analysis\u00a0 of \u00a0\u00a0the ethnic conflict as it escalated to the war with the LTTE<\/a><\/span> \u2013 the Thirty Year War as he calls it– \u00a0and \u00a0second, his perspective on the complex\u00a0 issues of post war \u00a0politics and reconciliation.\u00a0 The excerpt from his book reproduced above will help us to focus on some of the key issues\u00a0\u00a0 raised by him in his book \u2013 issues which are fundamental to the processes that must shape the future of post war Sri Lanka.<\/p>\n

The first two chapters or the first part deal with all the complex processes and outcomes of Sri Lankan politics during the Thirty year war \u2013 from the flawed democratic part to the anti-systemic violent part. There is a brief overview of the policies and events which led to the rise of youth militancy, in which he \u201cdeconstructs\u201d as it were, the notion of \u201croot causes\u201d. \u201c\u2018Who is responsible?\u2019 for what happened\u201d he says \u201cis the standard question. Depending on one\u2019s persuasion and proclivity one identifies either Sinhala chauvinism or Tamil ultra \u2013 nationalism. But the truth is, it is not \u2018either \/or\u2019 it is \u2018and\/and\u2019 \u201d. The causes of the conflict in one period are not the causes in the other. In the spiral of violence perpetrator and victim change places time and again.\u00a0 This statement of the author defines the\u00a0\u00a0 approach taken in the entirety of his narrative and analysis. The spotlight is constantly moving to focus on the excesses, violations and mistakes of all the actors involved in the conflict- Sinhala and Tamil state and non- state. After this overview the author, enters into the main narrative of the Thirty Years War beginning with an assessment of Prabhakaran<\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

At this point it would be appropriate to comment on the credentials of the book we have selected as the framework for our panel discussion. \u00a0\u201cLong War and Cold Peace\u201d has the authenticity of an account given by a witness who had intimate knowledge of what he writes. He compels our attention by the first hand knowledge that comes from an intense personal involvement in some of the political processes he describes. His analysis is also a personal testimony, testimony of a committed actor, a brilliant student who in his youth at the height of his academic achievement opted for political action against the prevailing system, with full knowledge of the personal risks involved. At the same time, the book has the intellectual integrity of a piece of research carried out with analytical skills and scholarly erudition of a rare quality. \u00a0The evidence and information is assembled from a wide variety of sources to include all parties to the conflict which makes his analysis both comprehensive and inclusive. \u00a0\u00a0Dr Jayatilleka draws lessons from contemporary conflicts across the globe \u2013 from Chechnya to El Salvador from IRA and Hezbollah to the Shining Path. \u00a0In the comparative analysis he makes he points out the false analogies that are often made and emphasizes the specificities of the Sri Lankan case.<\/p>\n

His scholarly reach, the capacity to strengthen his argument with reference to the eminent thinkers and scholars in the relevant field is effortless and masterly.\u00a0 \u00a0The theoretical and scholarly analysis is \u00a0\u00a0interspersed with insights from literature on the human condition, producing a rare combination of the intellect and the imaginative sensibility. As a result, the moral and human dimension of his writing comes across with a high credibility.\u00a0 The final product Dr Jayatilleka\u2019s book is a hybrid of an unusual kind. It is\u00a0 the work of a scholar who has\u00a0 explored the full range of theory and\u00a0 knowledge in his field ; in parts\u00a0 it has\u00a0 the\u00a0 personal involvement\u00a0 of\u00a0 an\u00a0 autobiography ; for\u00a0 example his concluding cameo on Che Guevara\u00a0 is a nostalgic recollection of a role model.\u00a0 The book reads at times like an extended oration delivered with passion. But in all these\u00a0 forms, the\u00a0\u00a0 book never fails to\u00a0 hold our attention and engage\u00a0 us\u00a0\u00a0 fully;\u00a0 in all\u00a0 its variety the book\u00a0 raises\u00a0 major substantial\u00a0 issues\u00a0 that are central to the\u00a0 post war future of\u00a0 Sri Lankan society . Dr Jayatilleka examines these issues within a theoretical framework and a system of values which\u00a0\u00a0 take into account the full range of the global discourse on conflict and human rights. The frame of reference the author uses are the core human values that have been at the heart of that discourse. The author therefore asks us to engage not only with the authenticity of his account of the conflict and the war and his interpretation of its genesis and the course it took; he also wants us to engage with the moral positions he takes and the ethical judgments he makes.<\/p>\n

The \u00a0main purpose\u00a0 of the \u00a0Panel Discussions organized by the Marga Institute\u00a0 is \u00a0to use the analysis in Dr Jayatilleka\u2019s \u00a0book \u00a0as the basis\u00a0 for an\u00a0 inquiry \u00a0into the two main challenges that Sri Lankan society faces \u00a0– truth and accountability in regard to the past and the post war process of reconciliation\u00a0 and national unity . The way in which Dr Jayatilleka has framed the issues for the post war discourse point to some of the intractable problems on reaching a consensus on what the past has been and what the future should be.<\/p>\n

In the first two chapters of the book \u00a0\u00a0Dr Jayatilleka reconstructs for us the long agony of the Thirty Years War. The author reminds us that the Economist<\/em> in 1989 described Sri Lanka as \u201cthe bloodiest place on earth\u201d (p29).<\/p>\n

The first challenge then is for all communities to come to terms with this past, to reach a common understanding of the past and the lessons learnt from it. How did the conflict arise? What was the nature of the war we fought? How is the truth about the past and accountability for it relevant to a future\u00a0\u00a0 of peaceful co-existence?\u00a0 \u00a0In moving forward to the desired future, all communities\u00a0 carry with them the burden\u00a0 of the past\u00a0 They each need to\u00a0 seek \u00a0unflinchingly for the truth and\u00a0 accountability\u00a0 regarding the past and together\u00a0 they need \u00a0a process of liberation from the past.<\/p>\n

Dayan\u2019s analysis in the first two chapters poses this challenge to all of us with a masterly command of the subject. His argument for even those who may strongly disagree with him, calls for a serious re- examination of many of the approaches taken by political leaders and civil society activists in dealing with the ethnic conflict and the war with the LTTE.<\/p>\n

The first part of the book is about the war which\u00a0\u00a0 Dr Jayatilleka\u00a0\u00a0 defines as essentially \u201ca just war\u201d against the LTTE and how the war became a long war. Dr Jayatilleka gives us an informed account of the evolution of Tamil militancy and how LTTE gained its monopoly. This section with its details of the brutal violence the Tamil militants inflicted on each other is a chamber of horrors that is difficult to contemplate. It is essential reading for all those who continue in their adulation of the LTTE. This part of the book takes us through the Indo Lanka Accord, the Premadasa<\/a><\/span> period, the negotiations and war during the Chandrika Bandaranaike<\/a><\/span> regime and the ceasefire. In each of these the author dissects\u00a0 what he describes as the \u201c lack of clarity\u201d (quoting Lenin ), the confusion in the approach to\u00a0 the ethnic conflict and the\u00a0 war with the LTTE , the failure\u00a0 to distinguish\u00a0 between the two and recognize\u00a0 the true character of the LTTE.\u00a0 As a result what was essentially a just war became a long war leaving a long trail of blood and terror.<\/p>\n

In answer to the question he poses \u201ccould or all of this been avoided or ended better?\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0He goes on (in pages 379 -386) to compile a compendium of what he considers were the grievous errors that might have been avoided on both sides \u2013 Sinhala and Tamil. It is an incisive piece of analysis and even if we may not agree with all of it,\u00a0\u00a0 it helps us to identify the pitfalls that lie ahead and the fundamental readjustments that are needed on the part of both the Sinhala and Tamil communities and their leaderships.<\/p>\n

The author provides a summary of his main critique of the policies that led to the war in the following statement: \u201cSri Lanka\u2019s tragic conflict was a failure of perspectives, of values. The liberals and progressives did not understand the zero sum character of the game with a player such as the Tigers They did not realize, faced with a movement with the character of the LTTE, the game can only be zero sum; one wins or loses and the victory of the one is the defeat of the other.\u201d This conclusion is drawn from the 13 propositions or theses he presents regarding the nature of the conflict Sri Lanka faced \u00a0\u00a0with the LTTE. Some of the key propositions are reproduced below:<\/p>\n