Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

by V. S. Nadarajah

The time has come for people of Sri Lanka to determine their future, and the options are very clear. The country can descend to a level of complete financial and economic ruin and fragmentation into two or more warring factions with continuing war and conflict leading to bankruptcy and anarchy. It is not an exaggeration to say that the end of 2001 had realized such a situation. The turning point was the parliamentary elections in December, resulting in a new government with plans to end the ethnic conflict.

The alternative scenario is a reunification of Sri Lanka as a united nation with an end to war and conflict between north and south, ushering in a period of peace and prosperity for all, possibly to equal or surpass the Asian tigers such as Malaysia and Singapore.

Being mindful of living in an imperfect world, achievement of success in this regard may be considered a reasonable prospect in the long term rather than medium to short term.

The question of success or failure in realizing the second option as against the first depends on several factors, most importantly on the behaviour and attitude of leaders of the two major ethnic groups. It is also a matter that is too important to leave to the whims and fancies of a few individuals or the opportunistic and chauvinist tendencies of the few. The country is poised delicately after being drawn back from the brink of anarchy.

Ethnic polarization has progressed without serious effort by the state to rectify such tendencies, especially in the last twenty years. It requires a major commitment from all sections of the community to unite rather than divide the country.

In influencing a positive attitude towards peace and reconciliation, one must understand and emphasize the nature of challenge facing the country. Sri Lanka is a country with considerable economic potential and more importantly a wealth of social and cultural diversity, both of which have not been appreciated and harnessed for a greater part of the twentieth century. Socially it is a multi-ethnic and multicultural society with at least two distinct cultural identities.

The Singhala identity, which is largely Buddhist and a majority, has dominated political, social and cultural life since independence. In doing so it has undermined other cultures, especially the Ceylon Tamil identity, which has a strong ethnic and cultural base in the north. The resulting onset of a political conflict between leaders of the two groups leading to civil war has generated a high degree of polarization and division of the country on ethnic lines.

A negative attitude in asserting dominance of Singhala majority and rejecting recognition of the minority can only add fuel to a conflict and continuation of war that has dragged the country down to the depths of despair and bankruptcy. It is evident in the uncompromising attitude of some Singhala politicians and several articles published in the media rejecting a negotiated settlement. It is equally true of saber rattling by the LTTE in the north, assuming ceasefire to be a licence to declare Eelam and using cessation of hostilities to regroup armed forces.

As much as it is unrealistic to consider a solution within a unitary state and absence of meaningful autonomy, it would be naive to assume that any democratically elected government can even consider the prospect of a separate state for the north or even a confederation.

Ethnic polarization has resulted in deep division in the community, and rather than appreciating and fostering a plural society with a wealth of social and cultural diversity, it has been the catalyst for war and conflict. These are the centrifugal forces in society, which have effectively divided the country between north and south. A negotiated settlement would require an appreciable level of autonomy for the north and east, probably a federal option to allow recognition and protection to people in that region against majority dominance from the south. Such a settlement can only be feasible in the long term in a climate of goodwill and reconciliation.

Both sections of society have not fully appreciated the need for such a change of attitude. There is a need to foster the centripetal or unifying forces in society to allow reasonable prospect of lasting peace.

While a federal constitution can be the basis of a settlement in theory, it can only succeed with dominance of centripetal or unifying forces, which have yet to be realized by both sections. The advantage of a united nation is that it can maximize the economic, social and cultural potential for all, which needs to be understood and appreciated by those fostering centrifugal forces that are dividing the country. A federal state can foster unity in diversity in a climate of harmony and cooperation. It can also be the forerunner for division into two independent states in a situation of hostility generated by centrifugal forces.

In order to realize lasting peace and harmony we need to consider not only a constitutional change resulting in an acceptable measure of autonomy for the north & east, but also steps taken for reconciliation between people who have been hostile to each other for nearly half a century. The way to achieve it is by improving communication and contacts, effective action to prevent discrimination on racial or religious grounds and allowing for greater participation of minorities in government. There is a need to build greater awareness among people of the nature of society and to appreciate the wealth of cultural diversity.

Most importantly there has to be a non-partisan approach by government and opposition to reconstruction and rehabilitation of the war torn areas and economic development on an equitable basis. It requires enlightened leadership on both sections of the divide and a firm commitment to work towards peace and harmony.

Lastly we need a bipartisan approach to negotiations with involvement by leaders in government and opposition on one side and Tamil and Muslim politicians and LTTE on the other. There is a need for good negotiators and leaders who can harness support of the people.

The current Middle-East crisis is a good example of weak and ineffective leadership on both sides, and indifferent attitude towards negotiations by both leaders, resulting in escalation of conflict.

Do we have to consider peace at any cost? Certainly not, however, there have to be sacrifices from both sides, and provided a reasonable settlement is negotiated within the framework of a united state, we can anticipate a durable peace. We are mindful that while it is easy to outline a formula for success in the peace process, it is a daunting task considering the record of failures in the past, the degree of disunity prevalent among the people and vested interests opposed to a negotiated settlement.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager