Message to India

by Dayan Jayatilleka

Though I did waste at least half a decade, post-Premadasa, in something of a revivalist sect or cult, I believe that history has validated my political choices, from the EPRLF's Pathmanabha to Vijaya to Premadasa, as the most progressive and pro-people options of their times. I am glad of my recent ones: support for Mahinda Rajapakse as president over Ranil Wickremesinghe (that was the available choice) and (in several articles in the Sunday Island) General Sarath Fonseka as army chief. We are successfully resisting Prabhakaran's long planned attacks thanks largely to the political and military leadership provided respectively by these two.

Ethnic dimension

Things could be improved though, were there a Tamil input providing greater sensitivity to the ethnic dimension of reality on the ground, making it a troika with Minister Douglas Devananda keyed in as much as he was by Premadasa, Ranjan Wijeratne and Chandrika. Our Indian friends have it both right and wrong. Reports in the media indicate that India has been pushing the idea of a national government, an SLFP-UNP coalition. Right idea, wrong personalities. Unless something is grievously wrong with India's political intelligence gathering, it must know that the present UNP leader and his supportive clique of media folk, peace NGOs and neo-liberals/neoconservatives are quite as wedded to the LTTE as is the TNA, and would therefore either reject such a broad coalition or function as a fifth column within it. President Rajapakse would be placing himself gravely at risk to accept such a suggestion.

Try A New Cocktail

If however, one modification were made, the idea would be splendid and quite the best thing that could happen to the country. That is if Karu Jayasuriya led the UNP. If our neighbour were able to facilitate such a transition, then Indian model quasi-federalism would be instantly feasible. The healthiest political forces in the country are:

(1) The moderate, left-of-centre SLFP (symbolised by Mahinda Rajapakse, rather than the conspiratorial pro-Bandaranaike faction which is now appeasing the LTTE)

(2) The mainstream right-of-centre UNP (as exemplified by Karu Jayasuriya)

(3) The Tamil dissidents (TULF, EPDP, EPRLF, PLOT, TMVP, AITUF)

(4) The pro-devolution Left within the ruling coalition (the Socialist alliance: CPSL, LSSP, Desha Vimukthi, PDF) and

(5) The intermediate ethnic minority parties: CWC, SLMC. While the broadest combination of these forces would be ideal, any combination is/would be positive. The best case scenario would be a national government of a Mahinda Rajapakse-led SLFP and Karu Jayasuriya-led UNP, but running a close second would be an alliance of Mahinda's ruling SLFP and a faction of the UNP led by Karu Jayasuriya, which together with the minority parties, would provide the numbers for political stability, economic reform and ethnic autonomy within a reformed constitution.

Country's interests

Anyone, foreign friend, retired civil servant, expatriate academic, local businessman or media magnate - with the country's interests at heart should strive to promote either of these two outcomes. In the meantime, what is immediately feasible, though of infinitely lesser consequence, is the revival of the old ideal of a union between the Northern and southern progressives; the ideal that the best of us from Vijaya Kumaratunga to Kethesh Loganathan stood for. In today's context that would mean a front of the anti-LTTE, pro-devolution forces, as distinct from the anti-LTTE, anti-devolution ones (JVP, JHU) and the pro-devolution, pro-LTTE ones (TNA, NAWF, peacenik NGOs). This front would consist then of the Socialist Alliance and the TULF, EPDP, EPRLF, PLOTE, AITUF and TMVP. Its stand should be that suggested for Sri Lanka by the CPI-M politburo member and Chief minister of West Bengal, Buddhadev Bhattacharya: Full Tamil autonomy within the Sri Lankan constitution. No less, no more. At the two extremes, the ideologues and intellectuals demonstrate extraordinary illogic and ignorance. A professor opines, in one and the same interview, that the LTTE stands for a solution that goes far beyond the conventional model of federalism, and for an extensive form of regional autonomy. Given that federalism goes beyond regional autonomy, one cannot stand for something that goes far beyond conventional federalism and still be said to stand for an extensive/maximalist form of regional autonomy! It is nonsensical to assert both or impute them both to the Tigers. Had a student of political science written this at an examination I would have deducted marks.

Similarly, the JVP's Vijitha Herath in his illiteracy has rejected Mr Anandasangaree's impassioned plea for Indian style autonomy, on the grounds that Sri Lanka is too small a country for such a model. The man is evidently unaware that little Switzerland has a federal system.

Legitimate and Illegitimate War

India is right. There is indeed no military solution to the ethnic problem. That requires a political solution, which has been dismayingly slow in coming. But that is only indirectly to do with the LTTE. Had it been possible to have a non-military, purely political solution based on dialogue with the Tigers, as India seems to be preaching to us, then Shri Rajiv Gandhi and 1,200 Indian soldiers should be alive and the Indo-Lanka accord a success! Neither India nor the USA have the right to prescribe limits as to what levels of force we should use. Had India not prevented the Sri Lankan army from doing the job in 1987, Rajiv Gandhi would be alive today and she would not have had the Sea Tigers on her southern border. Had India not been constrained by Tamil Nadu during the IPKF's battles with the LTTE, and tactical air power been used, the IPKF experience would not have been the traumatic fiasco it was. We cannot afford to fight with one hand tied behind our back. The use of air power is warranted and the only criterion is does it get the job done. No limits can be imposed on weapons and tactics; no level of force can be ruled out a priori when in combat with an army which seeks to dismember a country, most especially when that secessionist army uses terrorism, demonstrates a fascist intolerance of dissent, and when the country in question is a small island. However, we must not confuse levels of force with targeting.

Air strikes

While there must not be limits other than those of optimal use, on the deployment of violence, there must certainly be limits on the objects, the targets of that violence. Air strikes are fine, but killing of non-combatant civilians is not. Given the spillover in Tamil Nadu India is perfectly justified in signalling its consternation at Tamil civilian casualties, and given global opinion it is hardly surprising that other governments and organisations raise a protest. We must surely rush a delegation of Tamil democrats and dissidents (not all dissidents are democrats) to India to present their and our point of view, as a counter to that of the LTTE and pro-Tiger elements in Tamil Nadu. Such a delegation would be headed by Messrs Anandasangaree and Devananda, and consist of the TULF, EPDP, EPRLF, PLOTE, AITUF and TMVP. India, the US and the rest of the international community are correct when they lay emphasis on the protection of civilian lives. An important distinction must be drawn however between the witting targeting of civilians as is the practice of the Tigers (eg Kebitigollawe) and unwitting civilian casualties in the act of hitting military targets. Sinhalese and Tamils in general and the LTTE and JVP-JHU in particular have just been shown why the international community matters and cannot be ignored. The arrest by US authorities of Tiger supporters attempting to procure anti-aircraft missiles sends a signal to both North and South. The Tigers have just learned that they cannot deal with the world on their terms, and that the abortion of the Tamils vote at the presidential election of 2005 carries a price.

The Sinhalese must learn that if the US authorities looked the other way, the Tigers would be using anti-aircraft missiles to neutralise our monopoly of the skies. Who knows what advantages may accrue to us if we follow the US signals, devolve power adequately to the Tamils, are scrupulous with regard to Tamil civilians and aid workers, and prosecute those responsible for atrocities? Satellite pictures of the LTTE gun positions would surely help our pilots and artillery relieve the slow strangulation of Jaffna (and arguably Trincomalee).

The use of violence by a democratic state in defence of its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity, against a separatist terrorist enemy, is legitimate.

Destruction

The use of such levels of violence needed to inflict maximum damage and destruction on the military machine of that enemy is legitimate. The use of airpower to weaken the Tiger build-up and slow siege of Jaffna is legitimate. The targeting of the command, control, communication and computer facilities and logistical infrastructure of such a terrorist army is also legitimate.

It wouldn't be illegitimate to target Prabhakaran's Black Tiger or Maha Veera celebrations, as well as any facilities that transmit those ceremonies. Given that the Tigers embed themselves among civilians, this could not but cause civilian casualties, but those would not be the intended targets of the attack.

What is not legitimate, what is downright illegitimate are episodes such as the killing of the five unarmed students in Trincomalee, the slaughter of families in Mannar and Kayts, the murder of aid workers in Muttur.

These are instances of the intentional targeting of unarmed civilians. They are war crimes.

These massacres, from Trincomalee through Kayts to those of the aid workers in Mutur, have neither been halted nor been expeditiously, transparently and impartially investigated and sternly prosecuted.

If these become a trend, then we had better be ready for the global perception of a humanitarian catastrophe caused by Sinhala Buddhist brutality, resulting in a Tamil Nadu catalysed, Delhi initiated, Washington supported, UN propelled international settlement, not objected to by anyone (including China), a la Cyprus at best and Yugoslavia at worst, which will be imposed upon us, leaving the JVP-JHU to butcher those who have no choice but to accede, and then to be butchered in turn, in a replay of the ghastly 1980s.

Reply To M.I.M. Siddeeq (Sunday Observer 20/08/2006)

Mr. M. I. M. Siddeeq simply must, I'm afraid, learn to distinguish between 'IMPRUDENT' (which I used in my article) and 'IMPUDENT', which he imputes to me, both imprudently and impudently.

Dayan Jayatilleka