|
|
|
| Sunday, 7 August 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Political reform - need of the hour
Canadian McGill University's Political Science Associate, Prof. Narendra Subramanian in an interview with SUNDAY OBSERVER staffer, M.P. MUTTIAH said that the chances for the success of the peace process depends not only on the statesmanship of leaders and their flexibility, but also on the possible flexibility of the militant leadership and the pressure of the people on the LTTE to settle with federalism, through the ongoing efforts. Question: As a political scientist who is involved in the study of the Sri Lankan ethnic crisis for a quarter century. How do you assess the peace process? Answer: It is a welcome sign that the foundation has been laid for peace talks. This is most promising when compared with the situation that prevailed in the 70s and 80s. When I say most promising, I mean the changed orientation and promises of both the Sinhala and Tamil politicians in the mid-90s. After over a decade of civil war, a sense grew among Sinhala policy makers and Tamil militants that the war could not be won, and the feeling increased among civilians that the war brought forth death and destruction. This could be clear if we observe the voting pattern among the Sinhala masses since mid-90s. They voted for parties that offered credible promise to solve the major problem that divided the government and the LTTE. On the other, the Tamil side faced increasing pressures from the war-weary public as well as the transnational resource network, which were urging or forcing the militants to find an alternative-that is accepting federalism and giving up cessation. Q: What is your view on P-TOMS? A: P-TOMS urgently calls for aid and assistance to the affected people. In fact, practical co-operation is necessary. Some may be uncomfortable with P-TOMS as they feel that the LTTE is an authoritarian force and that it may use this opportunity to rebuild its might. During natural disasters assistance and aid were given to authoritarian states and governments such as Myanmar. It could be the same logic to hand over aid to the LTTE. It is not necessarily a problem to channel aid through a militant group that controls certain areas. Q: Could the P-TOMS be considered an instrument to build confidence building measures between the Government and the LTTE? A: It could not be said so. It involves cooperation between government agencies and the LTTE. It is not the same kind of phenomena that involves joint cooperative action between Sinhalese and Tamils. The citizen-level joint cooperation has much greater potentials for building mutual understanding than the strategic cooperation between the government and the militants. P-TOMS addresses only relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction- the serious problem confronted by Tsunami-affected people. It does not address the central issues between the government and the LTTE on the peace front. I have said that P-TOMS is not a part of the peace process, but if the government tried to circumvent LTTE and send aid to the people of the North and East, that could undermine the peace process, which has already immersed with complex issues. I am sure that it was a wise decision to channel aid through the LTTE though some feel uncomfortable. Q: Do you think that Indian Tamil nationalism influenced Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism? A: It is only `Tamil identity' that united, but it played different roles in different contexts. For instance, within Sri Lanka, the All Ceylon Tamil Congress supported disfranchising the plantation Tamils after independence. Tamil nationalism in India rose in 1950s and 60s when the Dravidian movement began to spread. In India, federal rule, state borders based on languages and the use of English in communicating with the centre blunted the campaign for cessation. Sri Lanka is not a federal state. Tamils in India faced no riots as that of 1983 pogrom. There were spordiac riots in Bombay and Bangalore but it cannot be compared with July 1983. I do not subscribe to the misunderstanding of some that the success of Tamil nationalism had played a major role in promoting the growth of cessation among the militant movements of Sri Lanka. The support of DMK and AIADMK varied. We must remember that in the 1990s they tried to control Sri Lankan militant groups in Tamil Nadu. In Sri Lanka, the circumstances of the 1970s and 80s called forth a militaristic formation of Tamil culture, but now the situation today requires the re-formation of political culture. We can only hope that the pressures operating on both sides will lead to a settlement. If peace is to endure, it is essential that a pluralistic polity be built. People should learn that the beasts of the jungle co-exist at least as often as they threaten or attack each other, even if they see themselves as lions and tigers. Some of the legacies of the long civil war and the terms on which it ends may hinder efforts to build alternatives to militarism. However, peace will only brighten the prospects of such alternatives. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
