2009   2008   2007   2006   2005   2004   2003

Extremism, Inflexibility et al; - A Word About It

The talk of the town is that the Liberation Tigers have rejected the "development and rehabilitation structure" presented to them by the government in response to the Tamil Nation's call for an 'interim administrative structure'. Those quarters that were cynically critical of the Liberation Tigers' decision to suspend their participation in peace talks, have now raised their cynicism to a higher pitch. All these criticisms, cynical though, are based generally on the Tigers' 'inflexibility' and 'extremism'. For these reasons it has became necessary to deal in-depth about the current impasse vis-à-vis the Tamil nation's perception of the entire exercise.

When the Tamil people who have suffered immensely under oppressive Shihala regimes, placed before a supposedly accommodative government, their need for collective freedom and dignity, who decides the parameters of 'inflexibility' and 'extremism'? Is that decision based on 'not hurting' the oppressor's goodwill? Or is it based on a just premise to regain the rights of the 'oppressed'? These are important questions that one should not forget. Discussion on the current impasse, should therefore be based on a clear understanding of these questions.

The United National Front government was voted to power on a mandate endorsed by the Sri Lankan electorate, the manifesto openly expressing a stand to bring about a resolution of the Tamil's national problem with an interim administration structure as a forerunner. Having commenced negotiations with a government that was mandated thus and while going ahead with the negotiations, didn't the Tamil people have the right to ask for unconditionally an 'interim administrative structure' from the beginning itself? Yet the Tamil Nation with the noble intention of building mutual confidence, opted to accept a 'sub-committee' arrangement, with a very much lesser powerful mechanism than the interim administrative structure. The original intention with which these sub-committees were structured, was to demilitarize, bring about normalcy, rehabilitation and meeting immediate humanitarian needs. These, it must be stressed, are not solutions per se for the long-standing problems of the Tamil people. In actuality these sub-committees were intended to create a conducive atmosphere that would build confidence, the vital foundation for political negotiations to find a lasting solution.

An year and a half have passed since and isn't it time to think about what has happened to these sub-committees! Has not 'militarisation' been accelerated rather than 'de-militarisation' ? Hasn't the day to day life of the civilian been subject to more hardships than becoming 'normal'? The Military to vacate public buildings within a maximum 160 days, a pious promise in the cease fire agreement, has still not been fulfilled though one and a half years have passed since the signing of the Agreement. Our question is why is it that nobody is bold enough to call this 'extremism'. Why aren't people honest enough to call the prioritization of military interest against humanitarian needs as 'inflexibility'. The failure of the first sub-committee was solely due to the government's military heads, instead of fulfilling the promises in the ceasefire agreement to bring about normalcy, upholding the military interest and thereby acting in an 'extremist' and 'inflexible' manner.

The fate of the second sub-committee to look into the immediate humanitarian and rehabilitation needs is no different from the first. That this sub-committee was unable to accomplish anything relative to rehabilitation and resettlement is a pointer to the fact that the 'confidence building measures' acknowledged at the very beginning itself as essential for progress in political negotiations, has been totally nullified. Not a single project has been satisfactorily worked out to resettle the internally displaced people. What prevents many of these cynics to call this as 'inflexible'? Inability to provide immediate humanitarian assistance to hundreds of thousands of people in the North and East has not drawn the attention of these cynics and call it 'extremism'. The Tamil people, from the commencement of negotiations, had all the opportunity to bargain for an interim administrative structure. But instead they agreed for the 'sub-committee' believing that it is a viable alternative. Gradual dysfunction of this sub-committee and it's name-sake existence made the Tamil people raise the question as to how this exercise is going to build confidence which is necessary to take the negotiation process forward.

One should be bold enough to accept the reality that the Tamil Nation was forced into the military option only because of the extremist and inflexible attitudes adopted by the Sinhala regimes during the past fifty years or so. It is only after examining carefully the political vicissitudes that the Tamil Nation opted for the interim administration. If anybody elects to classify this as extremism, then what the majority of the people in the South voted for and mandated, is also extremism. If anybody ventures to call the Tamil option as 'inflexible' then again it is an 'inflexibility' proclaimed publicly in the election manifesto by the party in power. The flexibility exercise by the Tamil Nation in agreeing for a mechanism with lesser scope has proved to them that the option was not viable in that the sub-committee failed to deliver. And therefore the Tamil Nation has now decided to insist on the only viable and meaningful alternative which is the interim administrative structure.

The Liberation Tigers have been compelled to reject the 'development-oriented structure' put forward by the government through their experience of the latest history. The Tamil people do not consider it appropriate for the Liberation Tigers to go from country to country with the begging bowl without first having come to a consensual understanding with the government as to the ways of resolving urgent humanitarian and rehabilitation needs. The questions uppermost in the minds of the Tamil people are: How are the funds going to be distributed? What is the mechanism in place for the disbursement? The interim administrative structure put forward by the Liberation Tigers is the practical alternative; the Tamil people opt as answers to the above questions. The most popular argument against this option that is floating around now is that the present constitution does not permit legitimate space for the interim administration. The important question now is whether the Tamil people are expected to sacrifice their freedom and democratic rights only to preserve a constitution that has been described as a 'monstrous constitution' by no less a person than the Executive Head of the State. The next question and the most important one at that, is on what moral grounds are those who opposed the present constitution as one that destroys the democratic rights of the citizenry in the south, be used as an instrument to suppress the democratic rights of the citizenry in the North-East. If the determined will to alleviate the hardships of a nation of people who faced a cruel war and in that process, after one and a half years of negotiations if an interim structure as minimum requirement is being called for and that being sadistically termed as inflexible, one has to conclude that it is that inflexibility that has safeguarded the Tamil people from being removed away from the National polity on a collective genocidal program.

An interim administrative structure is not one that has been hatched in secrecy by the Liberation Tigers. It is a democratic proposal endorsed by an electoral mandate but put to rest by the government. A measure agreed upon in the most flexible manner to build confidence, cannot be and should not be utilized to portray a pseudo - friendly consensus to collect aid. Interim administration, in fact, is a basic foundation to prioritize the understanding that would be the life line to supply energy to the final resolution process of the conflict. It is a stark truth that the half a century history of the Tamils has been constructed with many a deceptive promises of the Sinhala regimes. The Tamil Nation therefore is determined that the future too does not become prey to the same history of deception. It is for this reason that the Tamil Nation has thought it fit to place the problems in the open and in the right perspective whenever it becomes necessary.

12 June 2003

Print this

Email this