Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

A critique of the LTTE's claim to be sole representative of Tamils and a call for Muslim unity.

by M.Y.M. Siddeek, Council of North and East Muslims of Sri Lanka in Britain (CONEMS)

So-called theoretician Anton Balasingham is boasting that he and the LTTE are the sole representatives of the Tamils.

Then what about the EPRLF, which was elected to the Northeast provincial election in 1988 with an overwhelming majority by the Tamils and the EPDP which got about ten seats in the previous Parliament and still maintains a significant number of seats in the current Parliament? What about the TULF members who were also democratically elected by the Tamils and for the fear of their lives are acting as if they were the hardened supporters of the LTTE?.

Otherwise they would have faced the fate of the other democratically elected TULF members of Parliament. Who elected the UNP Member of Parliament Maheswaran in the last election? Then who is the sole representative of the Tamils? If a free and fair election is held in the Northern and Eastern provinces today I doubt that the LTTE will get even the number of seats the EPDP has got at present.

freedom and liberation

Until and unless there is a parliamentary election that adopts democratic principles, the LTTEers cannot claim that they are the sole representatives of the Tamils. The Tamil leaders and movements are not united and they are divided into more than a dozen divisions - for example EPRLF, TULF, ENDLF, TELO, PLOTE, EROS, ACTC, CWC, PA Tamils, and UNP Tamils. They have different views and opinions. But their opinions and views are suppressed by the armed LTTE's brutality.

Can a single Tamil who lives in the North and East express his or her real opinion about the LTTE today? Definitely not. If the LTTE wants to see its true support, it should give up the arms and talk to the people.

Then only the LTTE will realise the anti-feelings the Tamil people have about it. That is why the LTTE is scared of, and is opposing, the proposal to disarm it. The moment the LTTE loses its arms, it will be out of the scene. That will be the moment the Tamil people enjoy freedom and liberation. This is why Anton Balasingham says, 'the arms belong to the people not to us. We are only the custodians of them'. Does the theoretician know the meaning of the word custodian?

Can the theoretician remember that the previous governments, including the previous UNP government, had been refusing to accept the LTTE as the sole representatives of the Tamils to dodge the commencement of talks? Further, is he aware that the monitoring committee that attempted to unite the Tamil movements a few days ago miserably failed in its efforts?

Still a significant number of the eastern Tamils have different opinions about merger of North and East because of the 'Jaffna mentality' of the Tamil leaders. Do Balasingham and the LTTE know that if a referendum is held in a democratic manner on the North and East merger today, majority of the Eastern Tamils will vote against the merger?

Then how can Anton Balasingham think that the Tamils are united and the LTTE is representing the entire Tamils? But the Muslims whether they are divided or united, all they ask is only one thing: 'provide adequate safeguards for their security and rights through constitutional and institutional arrangements'. This is because of the bitter and terrible experience that the Muslims have undergone in the past by the LTTE's brutality/atrocity.

When this is the situation among the Tamil community, how can Anton Balasingham blame the Muslim leaders for their division? It is understood that Anton Balasingam had refused to accept Rauff Hakeem as the representative of Muslims on the 7th January, on the second day of the 4th round of talks which was held in Thailand and discussions on the problems of the Muslims living in the North and the East were not discussed.

The Muslim factor in the talks has been postponed indefinitely. Balasingham refused to discuss any Muslim problem even on an unofficial basis because of the dispute between Athavulla and Hakeem. Balasingham has told Hakeem in an arrogant manner 'we want to be clear as to who is the Muslim representative because they are divided'.

The same question can be posed to Balasingham, who is the real representative of Tamils as per reasons explained above? Balasingham should first clarify this before he clarifies the Muslim representative. Who elected the LTTE to represent the Tamils in the peace talks?

The Tamil people have not forgotten the dreadful life they experienced under the illegitimate rule of the LTTE before the signing of the MoU. What happened to Mahaththaya and some other high ranking cadres of the LTTE? What is the right the LTTE has to represent the Tamil people? But, his own people in the last election that was held just one year ago elected Rauff Hakeem to Parliament.

Anton Balasingham should understand the fact that just because of a dispute between two individuals, the discussion of the problems facing the entire community those individuals belong to couldn't be ignored. If that were the case, the present Government would have not agreed to discuss the Northeast conflict with the LTTE.

The Muslims will now understand the double standards applied by Anton Balasingham and the LTTE and seen their real faces. All these days, they were saying that they represent all the Tamil-speaking peoples including the Muslims and they were fighting for them too. Balasingham was uttering at the meetings and press conferences that the North and East belong not only to the Tamils but also to the Muslims. But his attitude at the 4th round of talks revealed that he is not interested in the Muslim issues at all. Now Anton Balasinham has himself openly accepted in Thailand that he is not representing all the Tamil speaking communities by saying that he wants to be clear who the Muslim representative is. Now he is looking for the Muslim representative.

This is another strategy of the theoretician to deprive the rights of the Muslims and to postpone discussing the Muslim factor.

The theoretician may think that he is very clever in playing his cards and he is the winner in the battle. But it is a very wrong strategy he is adopting. Ignoring the Muslim factor is the major weakness of Anton Balasingham and the entire peace process. Further, the LTTE is making a great mistake by sending Anton Balasingham as its chief negotiator. It is common sense that to negotiate on a national issue, the chief negotiator should have some diplomacy. Until the theoretician is replaced by a person who has some skills in the process of negotiation and knows the ins and outs of the Tamil and Muslim people, I am of the view that the talks will not bring out any fruitful solution for lasting peace.

rights of Muslims

Further, Anton Balasingham knows very well what led to the split in the SLMC. He is partly responsible for the split and he would have prayed for it. Since the LTTE and the government ignored the Muslim factor in the peace talks, it led to the split in the SLMC. This is also a good lesson for the Muslim leaders; the more they are divided the more they are losing.

The Muslims tried and tried to forget and forgive the LTTE and trusted them. But the LTTE has not changed in its attitudes. It continues to deprive the rights of the Muslims as it has been doing in the past two decades. It is high time Rauff Hakeem, Athavulla and Ferial Ashraff united and showed the unity and the strength of the Muslims. Then the Muslims can see what excuses Balasingham is going to find to dodge the talk on issues facing the Muslims.

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