Recognizing our Polarization - Sinhala responsibility greater
by Priyan Dias
The newspapers recently carried an advertisement calling for
submissions regarding the framing of a new constitution. Encouraging
such public participation is a good thing. However, I feel that the
Sinhalese and Tamils are significantly polarized in the way they
interpret the current situation. We cannot make progress towards a
durable peace unless this polarization is recognized, leave aside
resolved. This article is mainly an attempt at recognition, not
resolution - except for a few tentative suggestions at the end.
The first issue is regarding the attitude towards the Tigers. I think
they do horrible things - not so much in the fighting of a guerilla war,
but in the manner of their fighting it - child conscription, ethnic
cleansing (e.g. of Muslims from Jaffna) etc. The Sinhalese have a
problem about why right minded Tamils do not speak out against such
atrocities. One opinion has been advanced by Prof Kumar David, and I
will quote excerpts from it:
Fear of
reprisals
“In his emotive heart the Sri Lankan Tamil feels that the Tigers have
allowed him to stand up again. There are two sides to this. He feels
that the humiliation and the beatings have been banished, that another
1983 won’t happen for fear of reprisals and that the army cannot run
amok again in Tamil areas without risking a bloody nose. The balance of
terror leads to mutual deterrence, the Cold War has taught us. Secondly,
in his conscious mind he reckons that there would never have been any
serious interest on the part of the national political establishment of
whatever hue, to even recognise an ethnic conundrum, let alone negotiate
a settlement, unless the Tigers had fought the army to a standstill.
Both of these, in the minds of the Tamils, have been won on the
battlefield. This I think I can say without risking much rebuttal, is
the judgment of the great majority, including those who are not, and
never have been, fellow travellers of the LTTE. For this reason, the
Tamil people will not settle their accounts with the Tamil Tigers until
they have first settled their accounts with the Sinhala State.”
Perhaps the biggest problem is the question about whether or not there
is a problem. Tamils feel that they are sorely discriminated against in
a unitary state. The Sinhalese feel Tamils are not. The Sinhala position
is that Sri Lankan Tamils constitute only 12% of the population. If
Tamils are such a minority, why can’t they be content living in a
country where the language of the vast majority is the one that is
prevalent? The Sinhala policy of 1956 was to empower the rural Sinhalese
vis a vis the English speaking elite, which consisted of both Sinhalese
and Tamils. And in any case, Tamil is prevalent in Tamil speaking areas
of the country (e.g. the North and East). If Tamil enrolment in
universities and the public service has reduced, that is only because it
was disproportionately high some time ago. How can a community with 12%
of the population expect 50% of such enrolment? Even State sponsored
colonization of Sinhalese in Tamil areas - what’s so wrong with that,
given that Tamils live all over the country and not merely in their
“homelands”.
It is true that Tamils are insecure because of the current security
situation, with its attendant checkpoints and house searches. But that
is because there is a war (whether hot or cold) going on, and one could
say that Tamils have brought it upon themselves, based on the notion of
a “collective community responsibility”. Tamils however feel that their
previous privileged position (e.g. 50% enrolment) was because of hard
work, especially given that their land was inhospitable to anything
other than to educational advancement. They think that the Sinhalese are
lazy, wanting to be coddled by their governments. They feel successive
Sinhala governments have conspired against them to increase Sinhalese
empowerment at the expense of Tamils. Above all, Tamils still think that
the government and its machinery (including the armed and police forces)
will actively harm them, as opposed to being their protectors. July 1983
is hard to forget, especially now, after April 2006 in Trincomalee. To
be insecure in one’s own country is a terrible thing, very difficult to
bear without deep resentment.
Language can be so divisive. In the current context, very simply, the
language issue to the Tamils is that of the status of Tamil vis-à-vis
Sinhala. To the Sinhalese masses, the language issue is that of the
status of Sinhala vs. English. I understand that some elements are
trying even now to reverse English medium initiatives in Education, and
also things like English requirements for employment in the Bank of
Ceylon. This is very backward thinking in my opinion, but it shows that
the language struggle for grassroots Sinhalese is not against Tamil, but
against English.
The next point of disagreement is the unit of devolution. Every
Sinhalese balks at the proposed map of Eelam, or even just the extent of
the combined North-East Province - one third of land mass, and what is
worse, 60% of the coastline in an island state. This does not seem fair
by any stretch of imagination, in order to satisfy 12% of the
population, especially because most Tamils live outside the North East,
and will continue to do so. There is also the issue of Sinhalese and
Muslims in the eastern Province. The Sinhalese in the South feel that
such communities, especially the Sinhalese, would be betrayed through
the creation of an autonomous North-East. And even where Tamils in the
East are concerned, they appear not to be at one with their Northern
brethren, as evidenced by the Karuna phenomenon (cheered on no doubt by
the Sinhalese, as a bulwark against the Tigers). Finally, at least some
Sinhala Buddhists feel that the unitary nature of the country must be
preserved as a “Dharmadveepa”.
Safe haven
to retreat
The Tamils on the other hand feel that the Sinhalese and “their”
successive governments, in which Tamil politicians have participated as
well, have done nothing to develop the North and East. This is true of
course even of the South - hence the JVP uprisings. But they feel Tamil
areas have been neglected even more. Above all, there is the feeling
that Tamils all over the country need a safe haven to retreat into, in
case their security is threatened. It appears that the Muslims too want
a merged North-East, within which they can seek non contiguous
semi-autonomous regions for themselves. There is also the feeling, given
the industriousness of the Tamil and indeed the generosity of the Tamil
Diaspora for Tamil causes, that the North-East will flourish if direct
foreign investment to the “homeland” is allowed. Finally, Tamils feel
that Sinhalese concerns for minorities in the North-East constitute a
judging of any future entity in that region by the current standards of
the Sri Lankan polity - in other words, a tacit admission that
minorities are in fact discriminated against. How can we resolve these
differences? We can start by developing at least one genuine friendship
with a person of the other race, who will talk freely to us about their
point of view. Any person who is officially designated to draw up the
constitution should be questioned as to whether they do in fact have
such a relationship - a person who does not should be disqualified.
Mutual
understanding
This sounds an absurd suggestion at first. But the heart of the
problem in my opinion is about mutual understanding, and this can come
only through personal contact. I was amazed some years ago to hear that
a very high profile Sinhalese “peace advocate” had not visited a Tamil
home - and this was a person who was sympathetic to the Tamils. What
about a Sinhalese hostile to the Tamils, on say, a constitutional
drafting committee? What chance of their being objective if they do not
have at least one genuine Tamil friend, whose grievances (s)he is privy
to? (Needless to say, the same applies to Tamils on such committees). I
want to re-iterate that my proposed requirement is not merely a
friendship, but a relationship in which mutual grievances are honestly
expressed.
The other thing to recognize is that a greater responsibility lies
with the majority Sinhala community. There are at least two reasons for
this assertion of mine. The first is that it is the Sinhalese who do not
want a divided country. If that be the case, the Sinhalese must bend
over backwards to accommodate anything that is at all possible to make
Tamils feel that they are secure and are full citizens in Sri Lanka. For
a start we could have official documents and signboards in all three
languages. Singing the national anthem in both Sinhala and Tamil would
be another symbolic gesture (we can teach it in schools).
And in the current situation where checkpoints and house searches are
bound to continue, what a difference it would make to Tamils if they are
questioned in Tamil, at least through a translator, if not a Tamil
officer. We should have done things like this to win hearts and minds
for the past 20 years. If we don’t make a start on it now, our problems
will continue for another 20 years. The second reason for the majority
community to take greater responsibility is that tensions of the kind we
have now are almost invariably resolved by “bold unilateral gestures”;
and it is mainly majority communities who can do this, especially if
political power is vested in them too.
|