By Raj Gonsalkorale
We
cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
– Albert Einstein
Sri Lanka is in dire economic strife, its politicians are
a discredited lot, and are produced by a system that perpetuates corruption,
inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Inter community harmony is as facile as the
cloak of ritualism that passes as Buddhism. A new governance model is needed
that meets the inherent psyche of its people, and which lessens the power of
politicians and enhances the real power of people.
It is strongly suggested that the concept of a Union of
Regions authored by late Dr Neelan Tiruchelvam is given serious consideration.
Dr Tiruchelvam was murdered by the LTTE for bringing forth this proposal, but
mercifully the murderous LTTE is no more. The climate is right to revisit this
proposal and build on it to introduce a governance model that can take the
country towards the future and not to its dark past. People are sick and tired
of the current system and what it produces as politicians. The system has to
change if it is to produce the undoubted talent that the country has, and which
remains and will remain silent on account of the flaws in the current system.
Tamil ethnic conflict
At the outset, readers could perhaps consider the
possibility, some might say the reality, that the ethnic issue involving the
Tamil and Sinhala communities in Sri Lanka was created by the leaders of these
two communities, and not by the Sinhala & Tamil communities in the country.
True, they had grievances but at the time of the creation of the contemporary issue,
which one could identify with the British colonial period, they were not unmanageable
and compared to what it became over time, miniscule in extent and intensity. It
could be argued that a mole hill became a mountain over time, and a volcanic
mountain that that. It erupted in 1983 in the hands of the then government. The
rest, as they say, is history.
To the best of the writer’s knowledge, Sinhala and Tamil
people have not engaged in any major conflict between them even during the
times of Kings and Queens of the country.
The island is replete with a history of invasions from India from time
to time to gain control of local Kingdoms, conquer territory and battles fought
by the country’s Kings to defeat invaders.
The population of the country comprises of migrants mainly
from India who arrived at different times throughout history with the
indigenous people of the country being the Aadi Vasi people or the Veddah’s.
In this context, the rest are all occupiers who have made the island their
home.
But, has it been the home for Tamils in recent times?
Their ethnicity has rendered them targets for violence. State sponsored goons demonstrated
in 1983 in no uncertain terms that Tamils were not safe in the country, except
in areas where they were the majority. It also sent rightful signals to the
Tamil community that the State could repeat such inhuman acts whenever and
wherever they chose.
In looking for a solution to the conflict, what perhaps is
paramount is how Tamils could be safe in their homes and workplaces wherever
they live in the country. This has to be the aspiration of all Sri Lankans.
Tamils of Sri Lanka
In contemporary Sri Lanka, it needs to be mentioned that
in any discussion concerning the Tamil ethnic issue in Sri Lanka, there are
different aspirational dimensions amongst the Tamils that needs to be
considered depending on the Tamil group concerned, that is, whether it is the group referred to as Sri
Lankan Tamils who are the Tamils from India with a very long history in the
island, in particular the Northern part of the island, or the more recent
arrivals from India who are domiciled mostly in the central part of the country,
who are also referred to as plantation Tamils.
All are Sri Lankan Tamils now but the ethnic issue that
has drained the country for decades concerns the former category, although the
latter category too has their grievances and aspirations.
The Tamil community in Sri Lanka is not a homogenous
community, although both groups have faced issues in common, primarily with
regard to their safety and security in the country.
The writer wishes to suggest a discussion on a way forward
for all Tamils, and the country as a whole, having regarded some of the reasons
that were responsible for creating the problem, and as Einstein said, to
explore a way forward with a mindset that the problems cannot be solved with
the same thinking that were used to create the problem.
No doubt many people and groups contributed, wittingly or
unwittingly, to creating the problem beginning with the British Colonialists.
Tamil politicians as well Sinhala politicians too contributed to creating the
problem, and some, still continue to do so. One can add sections of the Maha
Sangha too for adding fuel to the fire and from a contemporary perspective,
that they still influence the perpetuation of the problem. Then, there is the
powerful Tamil Diaspora, or at least a section of it, which continues to
perpetuate the problem. The first point for discussion could be that the
factors that contributed, and, used to create the problem, are still being used
to as the basis to find a solution to the contemporary situation, and whether
this is what the country should be doing.
Governance models that have failed
One can argue that the context to the problem creation had
some differences during the colonial and post-colonial period, when, during the
colonial period, the Sri Lankan Tamil and Sinhalese politicians were more
concerned about a common enemy, the British colonialists, rather than each
other, although seeds were being sown towards the creation of the problem.
Much has been written, still being written, discussed and
debated about a solution that the Sri Lankan Tamils in the North and East are seeking
based primarily on self-determination for Tamils living in the North and the
East, within a merged province.
The goal of self-determination for the North and East
within the framework of the political governance model introduced by the
British colonialists, the Westminster model, is a phenomenon that had little
relevance prior to that as the governance models that preceded the Westminster
model were decentralised, lose structures. On the whole, for a variety of
reasons, there were varying degrees of ipso facto self-determination for
Kingdoms and other forms of governance bodies that existed within the
island.
In the context of this historical perspective, the British
colonial masters, and the country’s Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim political elite
who worked with them to introduce the Donoughmore constitution followed by the
Soulbury constitution, removed the inherent, historical nature of governance in
the country. Sri Lankans continued on this trajectory when introducing the 1972
and 1978 constitutions.
Fissures began to appear in these models after
independence, and Sinhala, and primarily Buddhist, domination of governance led
to widening of these fissures. Attempts were made by some political leaders to
address these fissures with proposals like regional councils
(Bandaranaike/Chelvanayakam Pact), District Councils (Senanayake/Chelvanayakam
Pact) and the Union of Regions bill (Kumaratunga/Tiruchelvam proposals) and
finally the introduction of Provincial Councils at the behest of India.
Enter the LTTE
In the absence of an acceptable solution to the conflict, the
problem escalated to violent means of achieving a separate State within the
island as the solution. While there cannot be any justification for this
violence perpetrated by the LTTE, which became the sole armed as well as the
unarmed political group campaigning for Tamil” demands, the fundamental
aspirational mindset amongst Tamils in the North and East was never understood
or addressed.
During the period of LTTE dominance, efforts were made by
various parties to find a negotiated solution. The most noteworthy of all was
the effort by Norway to mediate between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government
to find such a solution. It failed, and the full scale war between the LTTE and
the Sri Lankan government Armed forces saw the military demise of the LTTE in
2009.
In a very interesting
and revealing article titled Let Us Be Clear On What We Buried In Nandikadal
Lagoon by Sanjeewa Ranaweera published in the Colombo Telegraph on the 26th
of July 2021 (https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/let-us-be-clear-that-what-we-buried-in-nandikadal-lagoon/), the Norwegian led
peace process is comprehensively summarised. The role played by Eric Solheim is
also examined and an interview with him also included as part of the article.
The article as well as
the Solheim interview portrays the dynamics and thinking of the LTTE leader
Prabakaran, and the political ideologue and Prabakaran’s adviser and confidante
Anton Balasingham, and the highlights strategies adopted by Ranil Wickramasinghe,
then Prime Minister, to find a peaceful solution to the conflict.
One is not sure
whether these strategies were aimed at finding a solution to the conflict with
the LTTE, or whether they were directed towards finding a solution to the
conflict with the Tamils and their aspirations. The reason for saying this is
because if the objective of the strategy was the latter, then, there would have
been an acceptance that the LTTE was the sole representative of the Tamils as
no other Tamil political entity from Sri Lanka was associated with the effort
made by Prime Minister Wickramasinghe. Such an acceptance would have meant an
acceptance of the LTTE political philosophy as well as their violent tactics.
This is mentioned not as a critique of the effort, but to highlight it as one
of the many problems that were created in the perpetuation of the ethnic
conflict. It is also revealing that Anton Balasingham had reportedly been
consistently taking the position that a solution had to be found through
negotiation and not through violent means.
The future direction?
Given this backdrop,
and moving forward to the future rather than looking backwards to the past to
look for a solution, and with the benefit of hindsight, a solution has to be
found which stands the test of time in a future that will be so different to
the past when the problem was created in the first place.
The future will be one of currently unimaginable
technology, innovation and life styles. Governance models will change and those
governing will have to change. Most of the types currently in political
governance will become Dinosaurs when looking at the future. Some may say they
already are!
Religious traditions, cultural traditions of course will
continue as they have for centuries, albeit perhaps with less conviction as it
is already happening.
In respect of political governance models in Sri Lanka so
far, they have fundamentally failed to chart a peaceful, contented path towards
the future. There is mistrust and degrees of animosity amongst communities and
a decline in values.
The primary community conflict is with the Tamil community
and this can only be addressed through a governance mechanism that provides a
degree of self-determination, not just for its sake, but because the models
that does not provide it, but which have been tried and tested, have failed to
ensure the safety and security of the Tamil community and even the Muslim
community, and affected the country as a whole.
In this context, it is strongly suggested that the
conceptual framework of the Union of Regions model authored by late Dr Neelan
Tiruchelvam is considered as the framework to move onto the future.
It will assist in negating the negatives of the provincial
council system including ineffective, costly duplication and lessen the
politicisation of administrative activity.
Regional governments within the framework of a national
governance model, provided its primary function would be to engage in policy
settings to maximise resources in the region both material and human, and to
ensure the safety and security of people in the region, by people from the
region, would address the issue of self-determination substantially, and assist
in decentralising governance power far more effectively than the current model.
Personality centric, highly centralised models will not
work and Sri Lanka will be saddled with all associated drawbacks in its attempt
to move onto the future. Hopefully, it will dawn on the current set of
politicians that the model in operation has been diminished because of them, and
by them, and the model has precluded efficient, honest and credible persons
from participating in the model.
A new model based on the framework of a Union of Regions
should not replicate the negatives of the current system. The thinking should
be directed to the future and not the baggage of the past or even the present.
Courtesy Island newspaper, Sri Lanka
