MOHAMED AYUB   Courtesy Daily mirror

---

President Dissanayake’s hesitancy over participation in the commemoration contrasts with his party’s historical pro-military stance, particularly during the post-ceasefire period when they shaped public opinion favouring military action against the LTTE

---

Speculation arose as to why the president skipped the commemoration, with some citing that he wanted to appease the collective tamil community and the diaspora who supported the NPP during the previous elections

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has caused a controversy with his apparently reluctant participation in the National War Heroes Commemoration held at the National War Heroes commemoration cenotaph near Parliament in Sri Jayewardenepura Kotte on May 19. 

The controversy erupted once the announcement was made by the government that the event would be held under the aegis of Deputy Minister of Defence Major General (Rtd.) Aruna Jayasekara, a few days before the event. The social media was filled with critical comments about the non-participation of the President, who is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. 

Some people made wild speculations that the President was going to skip the commemoration of armed forces and police personnel killed in the separatist war to please the Tamil diaspora and the Tamils who supported the National People’s Power (NPP) at the last Presidential and Parliamentary elections. 

The President finally arrived at the cenotaph at the Parliament ground, apparently due to the pressure from critics and delivered a speech which went against tradition, again irritating some people in the southern parts of the country. 

However, Foreign Affairs Minister, Vijitha Herath, during a televised interview stated on last Wednesday that the announcement indicating the unavailability of the President at the event was just a communication error and he was scheduled to attend the commemoration. 

Nobody would have taken this statement without a pinch of salt, as it was said that the name of the President was missing in the invitation for the event as well. On the other hand, had it been a communication error, the authorities should have corrected it, without the President partaking in the ceremony as if everything was in order. 

Those who decided initially against the President’s participation should have understood that it was under the government of the NPP led by President Dissanayake that the event was to be held and he cannot disown any merit or demerit of the event, irrespective of his participation or absence. 

The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), the main party in the NPP coalition and the Sihala Urumaya (SU), which was rechristened as Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) in 2004, were in the forefront in shaping the public opinion in support of military action against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), especially after the collapse of the ceasefire agreement and the peace talks between Ranil Wickremesinghe’s UNP government and the LTTE in 2003. The two parties kept the momentum of this public opinion up. until the end of the separatist war in 2009.

That public opinion was greatly instrumental to the triumph of the armed forces over the LTTE and the latter, in turn, strengthened the former. Every year, the ritual-like commemoration of this war victory appeased public opinion. Hence, the JVP leaders should have realised that trivialising this commemoration event would prompt the public opinion that they had built up to go against themselves.

What ultimately happened was the controversy over President’s participation served as a boost to those elements that had politically vanished after the recent Presidential election, to reappear. 

A day prior to this memorial event every year, Tamil political parties and civil society organisations hold their own commemorations for their loved ones killed in the war, in many parts of Northern and Eastern provinces. They have named this event Mullivaikkal Day” as the last battle of the separatist war that was fought and the highest number of people were killed in the littoral of Mullivaikkal in Mullaitivu District in May 2009. 

While the Sri Jayewardenepura event every year is being held in a triumphant mood, the one in Mullivaikkal is being marked by wailings of hundreds of mothers who have lost their sons and daughters in the war. This manifests the truth that silencing the guns is a far cry from real peace. 

The ethnic problem and the resultant armed conflict have been politicised to the core from the beginning by all parties, including those representing the Tamils, the community that was affected most by the strife. This is manifested by the conflicting stances of these parties on various issues related to the core issue, the ethnic problem. 

All Opposition parties, including the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), stood against the 6th Amendment to the Constitution, which provided for the public representatives and public officials to take an oath against secessionism, when it was adopted by the UNP government in 1983. However, the same SLFP never thought to abrogate it when they came to power. 

Similarly, the same Opposition parties fought tooth and nail against the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1987 and the resultant provincial councils, on the grounds that those councils would end up in the division of the country. However, the SLFP under its administration in 1995 and 2000 brought in a proposal and a draft Constitution which had provided for the replacement of the unitary state with a Union of regions.” 

These two drafts were opposed, in turn, by the UNP, which claimed that such federal solutions would divide the country, but the irony continued. The party agreed with the LTTE in December 2002 to explore a federal solution to the ethnic problem.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa grabbed the total credit for the war victory in 2009 and has been using it as a trump card at successive elections. He even incarcerated the war-winning army commander, the then General Sarath Fonseka and deprived him of his pension and medals for challenging him at the 2010 Presidential election. On the other hand, the UNP and the JVP also utilised the war victory for politics by fielding Fonseka as the Opposition candidate in the same election. 

Everybody in the north as well as the south stands for peace, but only on their conditions. Some southerners want northerners to accept their dominance in exchange for peace, while for most northerners, peace would usher in a federal system of their choice, which is close to a separate state. 

A third group recommends an in-between solution, which they believe can heal the wounds of the past. During the televised interview referred to above, Vijitha Herath was questioned about the allegation that President Dissanayake did not mention the term war heroes” in his speech at the War Heroes commemoration and he replied that one should not use words that might hurt others. He also stated that although his party respected and valued the sacrifices, including the supreme sacrifice made by the armed forces for the country, when one refers to a victory, those who were defeated would be hurt. This balancing act on the part of the NPP is no doubt going to be a gigantic task.