We are not the sole representatives of the Tamil people :

PSC not ruled out- TNA MP Sumanthiran

We did not set a deadline and dialogue could continue:

By Manjula FERNANDO

TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran in an interview with the Sunday Observer refuted claims that they were setting the ground to sabotage the on-going talks with the Government to reach a consensus on a devolution framework.

He said their decision to set conditions and deadlines to proceed with ‘negotiations’ did not ensue the Suo Moto statement issued by Indian External affairs Minister in Lok Sabha lauding the Sri Lankan State for initiating a dialogue for a political settlement, insisting that welfare and well-being of the Tamil people were of highest priority over the international cries for war crime probes.

Sumanthiran who is a national list MP for the TNA, a party that was identified as LTTE proxies in Parliament, however, evaded a question whether the TNA was convinced of a non recurrence of terrorist activities perpetrated by the LTTE.

He said “That is a question to be answered by the Government. It is the Government which says that the LTTE has been eliminated.”

Q: You have issued some conditions to the Government and set a deadline to respond. Until then have the negotiations been suspended?

A: Those were neither ultimatums or conditions. That has to be made very clear. The background is that, at the first round of talks on January 11 we suggested the Government delegation that we follow as a direction to the committee, the lines suggested by the President in July 2006 at the inaugural session of the APRC and the panel of experts.

He said, ‘there must be maximum possible devolution without compromising the sovereignty of the country. People in their locality must have control over their destiny. Their cultural, political, economic and security affairs should be handled by them’.

The Government delegation agreed to that and they wanted specific suggestions from us. On the second round on February 3, we gave them a paper for discussion. We highlighted some areas that have to be discussed, the unit of devolution, powers that should be devolved, if we should have a concurrent list or not, etc. The Government team had a look at that and said to give us comprehensive points for discussion. On March 18 we handed over a comprehensive paper constituting points for discussion.

In that we suggested the powers the central government must keep in order to ensure the sovereignty of Sri Lanka. But in terms of achieving maximum possible devolution we suggested, certain subjects and functions that must be devolved to the provinces.

Q: Is there a consensus on the unit of devolution at the moment?

A: No, this is what we suggested. Whe---n we gave it to the Government they said this is broadly acceptable but we need time to state our position on these points. We fixed the next meeting on April 7. But the Government said the time was too short and they will respond on April 29.

On the fifth meeting, they said they need more time to talk among themselves. So a date was fixed for early May. Then the Government cited local government elections. And another date was fixed and up to tenth meeting on August 4 we discussed various matters. But their specific response to the paper we submitted on their invitation was not forthcoming. On August 4 we said there was no point in fixing a 11th meeting. You let us know when you are ready to respond to our specific points, then we will come.

We wanted the Government to make us know their position with regard to three specific points.

Q: Assuming that there has been a delay. What may have been the contributing factors?

A:That is a question that you should be asking the Government delegation.

Q: But what is ‘your opinion’ for the reasons for the delay, have you been asking something that cannot be delivered?

A: This is not something that cannot be delivered. This is something that the Government has been telling us that they will do. If they at any point said we cannot respond to this, that is a different matter. Now the delay is on their part.

There is no deadline set, but we suggested a two-week time period within which they could respond.

There must be some reasonable time. We have not set another date for discussions. We wanted to know if the Government was ready to respond to the points that we have raised before another date is set for talks. This is the context of the ‘two-week’ time suggested and the ‘three points’ submitted for a response from the Government.

There are two ways in which one can leave talks, one is to walk out and the other is to come and sit there and not talk.

Q: But will setting deadlines, help the negotiations process?

A:We did not give a deadline. We suggested a two-week time to tell us. If they say we need three weeks or one month they can tell us. That is not an issue.

Q: Does this mean you are setting the ground to walk out of the talks?

A: No. We have clearly stated this in our last line of the statement, that we are doing this ‘...so that we can continue with the dialogue’.

Q: There is this accusation from the Tamil parties, not represented in the TNA that they should have been included in the negotiations with the Government. It is unfair not to do so, because TNA does not represent all Tamils. your comments?

We don’t consider ourselves the sole representatives of the Tamil people. But having said that, it is a fact that at the last general election the only Tamil party to be elected from the North and East is the TNA. No other Tamil party got even one person elected from the North and the East. That is a fact.

That is the reason why we wrote to the President soon after the election, saying that ‘we recognize the big mandate the country has given you, but you must also recognize the wish of the North and the East.’

By and large the whole country chose the UPFA but in the North and East people chose the TNA by and large.

Q: But in the East the people’s verdict was divided?

A: I am talking about the verdict of the Tamil people of the East.

We wrote ‘We recognise the democratic right given to you, similarly you must recognise the democratic verdict that has been delivered by the Tamil people of the North and East to the TNA. Therefore if this long standing sixty year problem is to be resolved we must sit down and talk.’

And it was in response to our call that he constituted the Government TNA bilateral talks. It has to be viewed in that context, not that other parties have been left out. This was a Sinhala-Tamil issue that has dragged this country down this slope. That violence has been ended but the root cause must be addressed.

When we come to an agreement, certainly other sections of the communities must be consulted. You cannot force it down their throat. But initially we must come to some kind of arrangement.

Q: Don’t you think the Parliamentary Select Committee is a good forum to include all stakeholders?

A:Yes, the PSC may be a good forum, but this effort that was initiated by the President, to first come to some agreement with us, must come to a reasonable end. You cannot start a process, drag it and leave it high and dry, and venture on another process. That is why we are very sceptical about the Parliamentary Select Committee. Just having these talks helped the Government to do an international campaign - ‘we are talking to the TNA’ whereas actually they were not. Then they suddenly embark on this PSC arrangement which has nothing to do with this.

Q: Wasn’t it on the agenda of the talks you were having with the Government?

A: At the past two-three meetings, we discussed it because the Government came up with that. We did not say we are opposed to it, we said we must see the terms and references of the PSC. We wanted to know how the talks with us and the PSC can co-exist. The Government team said the talks with us will continue. The PSC is for implementation because any agreement must be implemented though Parliament.

Q: Did you agree to that?

A:We said we want to see the terms of reference. We did look at certain drafts. We were not happy with certain things.

The Government was not happy with some suggestions we made.

Q: Can you mention the things that you wanted altered?

A: There were some discussions with regard to the PSC and even to-date we have not ruled that out. We have only said we want to know the terms and references. We must know the time period. We must know what the Government proposes for the North and the East.

PSC must only be an implementing mechanism of bringing about the laws and making changes to the constitution. But before that the main party in the South UPFA and the main party in the North that is the TNA, must come to some kind of understanding, without which the Parliamentary Select Committee will go on and on.

Q: But they have set a deadline to hand over the recommendations?

That six months is far too long. As a matter of course this six months can also be extended. This could be a ruse.

Q: Are you being helpful in the process?

A: We are being helpful. We are suggesting all the Government proposals of yesteryear. Even the August 2000 proposals for Constitutional reforms submitted by the then Government.

The APRC report is also there. All these former proposals have said this issue has to be solved by further devolution.

The only difference is that there was LTTE at that time and there is no LTTE now.

Q: A suo motu statement was delivered by Indian External Affairs Minister S.M.Krishna in Lok Sabha on August 4 explaining the position of India on ‘the situation in Sri Lanka’. There, Krishna lauded the Sri Lankan State re the on-going dialogue for a political solution.

What if I say this letter by TNA to the Government giving deadlines/a time frame came forth after this statement?

A: No, it did not happen soon after the statement. It happened simultaneously.

In fact at the talks (on August 4) when we were discussing our concerns and the points for which we wanted their answers to set another date, just at that point I received this email to my phone. I actually read out Krishna’s statement to the Government delegation.

Q: There are allegations that TNA is trying to scuttle the entire process because it works according to the call of the LTTE. If the issues of the Tamil people are resolved there is no sustenance for LTTE or the TNA?

A:That allegations is answered by everything I said previously.

I said the talks can be scuttled in two ways, one is by walking out, other is by sitting there and not talking.

Q: And setting conditions as well?

A: No, we have not set conditions. But we want the talks to be meaningful. We are not scuttling the process.

Q: You are very critical of the fact the Government is continuing with the Emergency regulations. Scrapping these laws is one of your main demands. Does this mean the LTTE terrorist activities have ceased for good and there will be no bomb explosions, etc in Sri Lanka in the future?

A: This is not for us to answer. The Government says LTTE has been eliminated. Every month the PM at the emergency debate talks about what is happening internationally. How can a law in Sri Lanka deal with what is happening internationally?

Q: The end of LTTE here does not mean the counter terror operations have ceased. Are there unidentified ex-LTTE cadres still in hiding?

A: The Government does not say it. The Government claims LTTE has been eliminated.

Q: Is the TNA convinced that there will not be any violence perpetrated by the LTTE, targeting civilians in the future?

A: This is not a question you can ask from the TNA. The TNA is not even permitted to get involved in the rehabilitation and resettlement process of our own people.

How do we know what only the National Security Council knows? That is a matter for the Government. It is a fact that there has not been any incident attributed to the LTTE since May 2009, so there is no justification for the continuance of the Emergency except to thwart the ordinary rule of law.

Q: If the PSC begins deliberations, are you going to take part in that process?

A: We will consider it, we have not ruled it out. We must know the terms and references of this PSC first.

Q: There has been incidents targeting Sri Lankan pilgrims in Tamil Nadu?

A: That is totally unacceptable, I have seen an interview by our leader in a newspaper saying we condemn that. That should not happen. Civilians must not be targeted. That is our complaint in Sri Lanka.

Q: You made a statement in London saying that whatever the recommendations by the TNA has to be acceptable to the majority. The TNA disowned it as your personal opinion?

A: What I said in London was that a solution must be acceptable at least to a section of the Sinhala people. That is what I said.

That was misreported, as ‘we must ask what Sinhala people accept’. I do not think that TNA issued any statement on that. I am sure about that.

Q: If it is not acceptable to the majority community, how do you seek to obtain two thirds in Parliament at the time the devolution proposals are ultimately presented?

A: That is another matter, I am not addressing that matter at this point. I am only saying for a start this must be something acceptable to at least a section of the Sinhala people.

Q: Some allege that the TNA is trying to use India as a pressure leaver to achieve its proposals for a devolution package?

A: We are not putting pressure from any source because we are convinced that our position is a reasonable position. All reasonable right thinking people will accept it.