Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka - heroic defender of the nation

Pakiasothy Sarawanamuttu (PS), the head of the Centre for Policy Alternative, has gone on the offensive against the Army Commander, Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka, in his latest column published in the Sri Lanka Guardian. He has taken on this task most likely because the Army Commander has said some home truths which have irritated not only him but also the hired NGO hacks and the usual claque of anti-Sinhala-Buddhist ideologues, including some left-leaning loonies.

Here's the key para that has offended the political sensitivities of PS: "Army Commander Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka, in an interview with Stewart Bell of the National Post newspaper of Canada, published on September 23, 2008 has stated that: "I strongly believe that this country belongs to the Sinhalese but there are minority communities and we treat them like our people.We being the majority of the country, 75%, we will never give in and we have the right to protect this country.We are also a strong nation...

They can live in this country with us. But they must not try to, under the pretext of being a minority, demand undue things."

This statement of the Army Commander has got under the skin of PS. But is there anything wrong in the Army Commander's attempt to define the relations between the majority and the minorities, particularly when a minority destroys national peace and harmony by "demanding undue things" misled by their over-ambitious leaders? It is the excessive and the extremist demands of one single minority that is the root cause of the north-south conflict.

Demand

This is what is meant by the "demand for undue things". One single minority does not have the right to "demand undue things" and foul up inter-ethnic relations leading to an unnecessary war which has gone nowhere near their illusory goals. It is the articulation of this reality that has enraged PS. What most political commentators have failed to recognize is that of all the minority communities only the most privileged minority of the north has refused to co-exist in peace and harmony with the all the other communities.

Consequently, the Sri Lankan crisis is confined only to the Tamils of the north, one single minority, who have been making "outrageous demands" (S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike) undermining the rights, the dignity and the equality of the other communities. Their excessive demands that inexorably drove them to extremist violence have been the root cause of the north-south conflict. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is primarily a north-south conflict and not an ethnic conflict because the majority is not in conflict with the other three major minorities - i.e., the Muslims, the Indians and now the eastern Tamils, all whom are Tamil-speaking. If it is an ethnic issue involving all ethnic communities then the majority Sinhalese should be embroiled in a war against all ethnic communities. But the crisis faced by the majority Sinhalese has been confined only to the excessive demands, the extremist violence and the subsequent negotiations for peace arising from the over-exaggerated, or the "undue demands" of the Jaffna Tamils ONLY.

Since the Sinhala majority have established a rapport with the other Tamil-speaking communities and co-existed in relative peace and harmony the realistic definition of the current crisis can only be "the north-south conflict" and not an ethnic conflict. Besides, it the regional peculiarities of Jaffna that drove the north into a collision course with the south. The language and other issues of "discrimination" - again raised only by the north - are not connected to the other Tamil-speaking people. So the crisis began, it continued and hopefully it is about to end purely as a north-south conflict with other communities keeping their distance between the two warring communities.

It is for saying the truth about "undue demands" that PS wants the Army sacked like the way Truman sacked his general Douglas MacArthur. Actually, the Army Commander has understated the issue by calling it "the demand (of) undue things". He should have termed it as the excessive/outrageous demands of an extremist minority who took to brutal violence in pursuit of their illusory dreams. Their Orwellian objective has been from colonial times to be more equal than the others. The violence they are facing from the Security forces and from Prabhakaran is of their own making. No one asked them to pass the Vaddukoddai Resolution which endorsed violence and declared war on the Sinhalese and the Muslims. It is the logic of their excessive demands that led them to extremist violence. Besides, drunk with the illusions of their separatist ideology and the temporary success of their early military adventures they never agreed to compromise as seen in the failures of Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement and the Cease-fire Agreement. The refusal of the northern Tamils alone to co-exist in harmony and peace in a multi-cultural society (like the other communities) is what sustained "the protracted" violence. Tragically, it has led to the deaths of more Tamils at the hands of the Tamil Pol Pot than by all the other forces put together. (V. Anandasangaree and S. Chandrahasan). The goal of pursuing extremist politics is also the basis on which PS argues implicitly to drag on the violence to a "miserable stalemate."

Lt. Gen. Fonseka's comments should be viewed in the light of the history of excessive and extremist demands from the north. Every syllable reported in Stewart Bell's report is absolutely correct. Nowhere has he said that the minority must be liquidated. On the contrary, he states that they are "our people". He goes further and clarifies by saying that they must be treated "like our people". That is a profound statement that gives dignity and equality to the minorities. It is the equivalent of saying: "Love thy neighbour as thy self." It has been the foundation of our multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society from the dawn of history.

Of course, inter-ethnic relations turned sour in the post-independence period mainly due to the extremist communal pressures that flowed down from the north. But the ideologues wearing the anti-Sinhala-Buddhist blinkers lack the broad vision to identify the two-way traffic of inter-ethnic relations that worsened with the excessive demands of the north - and north only without any excessive demands from the other Tamil-speaking minorities.

The realities of inter-ethnic relations, therefore, demand an explanation from PS and his cohorts as to how the "majoritarian democracy" succeeded with all the other minorities except the extremist and aggressive communalist forces that dominated the northern peninsula. So are we facing a "minority crisis" or a north-south crisis?

Truism

PS, like all other ideologues following the concocted geography and the fictitious history contained in the Vaddukoddai Resolution, blames only the "majoritarian democracy", meaning Sinhala-Buddhists. It must be conceded that PS, at least, has the decency to recognize that the majority functions within a democracy. Nevertheless, he has gone into high dudgeon over the statement made by the Army Commander who said: "I strongly believe that this country belongs to the Sinhalese but there are minority communities and we treat them like our people." That is a truism that no one can deny. We are "a majoritarian democracy" consisting mainly of Sinhala-Buddhists and we don't have to make apologies because we also recognize the minorities as equal partners and give them their due place within the democratic framework. There is discontent among the minorities no doubt. But which minority in the world is satisfied with their lot? They all have grievances.

They feel that they are second class citizens dominated by the majority. PS has overreacted in "taking on" the Army Commander for describing things as they are. Besides, nowhere has he said that the "majoritarian democracy" established by the Sinhala-Buddhists is designed to oppress or suppress the minorities. Of course, those who wear racially coloured lenses (including my dear friend Tissaranee Gunasekera) may give a different interpretation. That is their problem. Lt. Gen. Fonseka has stated the reality as it exists. This reality may be bitter and difficult to swallow. But isn't it better than the cyanide pill of the "minoritarian dictatorship"?

Perhaps, what is objectionable to them may be the word "belongs". If one is to split hairs over this it can be argued, in realistic terms leaving out fanciful theories, that any country governed by a majoritarian democracy "belongs" to the majority in that they have been the main architects of building the nation. But this claim is made not to exclude the "other". The historical truth is that the doors were opened for ethnic and religious minorities to join in the family of the nation and co-exist as equal partners because it belonged to the Sinhala-Buddhist majority. The Muslims and the Catholics were given shelter and protection in colonial times because the Sinhala-Buddhist had the power to do so. When the Muslims were ethnically cleansed in Jaffna in 1995 the "majoritarian democracy" accommodated them without any questions being asked.

Claims

The perennial argument on majority-minority relations can run into multifarious contentious issues, ranging from gay rights to religious or territorial claims. Each issue naturally has to be dealt on its individual merits. Differences on these issues, which are bound to occur, do not mean that the country belongs to only the majority. This, however, may be the perception but the reality is totally different in the Sri Lankan "majoritarian democracy" which has an in-built mechanism for the majority to evolve taking the minority along with them.

"Majoritarian democracy" has functioned in Sri Lanka as effectively as in any other democracy, if the critics care to analyze objectively. Democracy, like Rome, cannot be built overnight. But the "majoritarian" position on many issues has been refined and changed to accommodate the minorities. A democracy that is not flexible enough to accommodate changes, whether it comes from the majority or the minority, cannot function as a viable democracy. Period. Take, for instance, the issue of the relations with the Tamils of Jaffna. Radhika Coomaraswamy and Malini Parathasarathi of The Hindu, Chennai, agree that there has been "a paradigm shift" since 1956 in addressing the grievances and aspirations of the Tamils. Unfortunately, there has been no commensurate change in the attitude of the Jaffna Tamils.

If at all they have changed, it has been only to take a more intransigent position and shift further into an extremist corner, making compromises impossible. That is the root cause of this unnecessary war being waged by only one minority - i.e, the northern Tamils.

The dissident writings of Tamils explain that the Tamils of Jaffna had better opportunities under the Sinhala majority than the low-caste Tamils under the Vellahlas in Jaffna.

This is what makes their cries of discrimination hollow and their political claims excessive. Considering the way the Vellahla upper caste treated the low-castes the Sinhalese can claim proudly that they never treated the Tamils or any other community the way the Tamils treated their fellow Tamils in Jaffna. The Army Commander is right when he states that the Tamils are our people and they will be treated like our people. In saying this he has given due respect to all minorities.

Critics

So what's PS's beef against the Army Commander?

The Army Commander also said: "We being the majority of the country, 75%, we will never give in and we have the right to protect this country." He is absolutely right. Who else is there to protect our country? Did Kumar (Rs. 1.1 million a month) Rupesinghe ever say a word in defence of the country? What has PS's Centre for Policy Alternative (CPA) done so far to protect the nation? Exploiting the legal provisions of the "majoritarian democracy" CPA's in-house lawyers sued the government and won. Hurrah for that!

Judicial activism too has become an assertive political force. Hurrah for that too, as long as it does not exceed the limits of prudence and usurp the powers of the legislature expressing the will of the people! But why hasn't PS initiated action to prosecute the Tamil Pol Pot of Vanni who has committed the worst war crimes and crimes against humanity? Why hasn't Jehan Perera who has a Ph.D from Harvard made a move to prosecute the Tamil Pol Pot? Their inaction makes it clear that "we (the majority) have the right to protect this country" the best way we can.

"We are also a strong nation...," says the Army Commander and he has proved it. He has given hope and, if his plans work fully, he will usher in peace soon. This is a gigantic feat which everyone thought could not be achieved.When he captured Mavil Aru the anti-nationals in the UNP said he can't capture Thoppigala. When he captured Thoppigala the anti-national UNPers said that it was only a piece of rock and they challenged him to capture Kilinochchi.

Even his former superior, Maj-Gen. Janaka Perera was bad mouthing him and said that he hasn't won a single battle.The rather taciturn Lt.Gen. Fonseka is committed action more than to speechifying. With his actions he has rubbed the mouths of his critics in the dust by marching from Mavil Aru to Killinochchi, defeating all the doomsayers. He took on the deadliest terrorists and he won, aided, of course, by the support of the naval and air force commanders. Having sacrificed so many men and women under his command to win battle after battle with the minimum of civilian casualties he has the right to say: "They (the minorities) can live in this country with us. But they must not try to, under the pretext of being a minority, demand undue things." No one wants any more wars based on "undue demands". Neither Lt. Gen. Fonseka nor the nation wants to return again and again to fight endless rounds of wars.

His statement underscores a fundamental political requirement needed for multi-ethnic communities to co-exist in a democracy. It is the demand for "undue things" by one single minority that has caused his unnecessary war.

Alternative

The Sri Lankan crisis is skewered because prevailing orthodox ideology flows directly from the Vadukoddai Resolution passed exclusively by the Jaffna Tamils, declaring war against the rest of the nation. It rejected multi-cultural democracy and peaceful co-existence and insisted on prioritizing and granting the extremist demands of the Jaffna Tamil community only at the expense of all other communities. In a democracy one minority community should not be allowed to hold a gun to the head of all other communities demanding that their rights are superior to the rights of others and, therefore, they should be granted favoured treatment.

This kind of political conduct would necessarily lead to intransigent fascism. Tamils who dissent, looking for alternatives, will have no place except in the graves. Another of Lt. Gen Fonseka's greatest achievement is in providing political space for the dissident Tamils to operate within the democratic framework.

When PS talks of getting back to the negotiating table he, presumably, means constructing compromises. But how does he propose to even shake hands with a Tamil Pol Pot who holds a kalashnikov in one hand and a grenade in the other? Can he guarantee that the next round of talks with the Tamil Pol Pot will not end in the same old "miserable stalemate"? His Centre for Policy Alternative has never produced an alternative to Prabhakaran though he is very keen on sacking Lt. Gen. Fonseka. Before asking for the head of the Army Commander why doesn't he ask for the head of Prabhakaran - the man who has killed more Tamils than all the other forces put together?

A new surge of opinion in the Tamil diaspora is openly demanding that Prabhakaran should be removed now that he has failed to deliver his Eelam and peace to the Tamil people.

Dr. Noel Nadesan, the Editor of Melbourne-based Uthayam, has categorically told the Tamil people in his latest editorial that it is time for change. But the CPA is arguing to retain the status quo in the Vanni while demanding change in every other sphere. Is there any logic to this? It is futile to look for logic because PS is located right in the heart of CPA - the Centre for Prabhakaran's Atrocities! That's why he is demanding the removal of the Army Commander and not Prabhakaran.

If he has any doubts he should hold another opinion poll and ask the nation their opinion on the two military leaders. The question should be drafted in the following manner: Centre for Prabhakaran's Atrocities (CPA) is looking for a new Army Commander. Whom would you choose: Lt. Gen. Fonseka who has said some home truths which CPA disapproves or Velupillai Prabhakaran who has killed more Tamils than all the others put together?

This won't be a problem for him because his coffers are overflowing with foreign funds. Let's hope that CPA will take up the challenge and provide us a real alternative in keeping with its vaunted philosophy.