Present Day Conflicts: The Result of “Artificial Borders” and Colonial “Divide and Rule”

By Shenali D Waduge

 

There is a reason to say that the majority of conflicts today are a result of policies of colonial rulers. Western European invader-rulers have done much damage to the world. There is little they can argue against this.

Creation of artificial states & amalgamating new states have been a legacy that continues to haunt every country colonial invaders occupied. Which international laws will hold these Western European countries accountable for artificial lines, artificial borders, artificial states dividing people as they wished? Should these countries be allowed to resolve the conflicts they created?

Many of the present day countries by name did not exist – they were all christened by these colonial rulers. Many of their borders were drawn by colonial rulers for their own advantage. The present day African countries by name didn’t exist. The Berlin Conference of 1884-5 partitioned Africa among a handful of European countries using a pen – 44% of Africa’s borders were divided as a straight line splitting over 177 ethnic groups into two countries. The Somalis are split between five different countries. The Somali 5 pointed star in its flag represents these 5 divided groups.

Present day India didn’t exist, colonial British cobbled up independent states and territories and declared it as India. Similarly, countries like Canada, US, Australia came into being having confiscated already occupied lands, killing off these indigenous and claiming it as theirs, while Saudi Arabia, Singapore are also created countries for distinct geo-political and financial purposes.

All of these artificially created borders & countries are having some problem or the other. International laws created immediately after colonial independence were Euro-centric and never dwelt on any of the illegalities committed by their own. This is evident in the Vienna Convention on Succession of States which upholds utipossidetis juris – bilateral agreements are handed down to successor states.

Moreover, Article 50 of Vienna Convention states “If the expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, the State may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.” (doesn’t this question the Indian Government giving Rs.5m monthly to LTTE to agree to signing the 1987 Indo-Lanka Accord)

The Durand Line – artificial boundary created in 1893

This arbitrary line is a 1500mile border that divides present day Pakistan (named in 1933) & present Afghanistan (Khorasan). Afghanistan is important for its access to Central Asia & the Indian Ocean. Afghanistan was created to be used as a buffer state by colonial rulers. The Durand Line was established by British India & Kingdom of Afghanistan in 1893. Afghanistan refuses to acknowledge it as a border since creation of Pakistan in 1947.

This line has divided the Pashtun tribes into 2 – who now live in Pakistan & Afghanistan. The line was drawn by British colonial officer Mortimer Duran who disregarded the Pashtun populace. All that Britain wanted was to control the Khyber Pass and make Hindu Kush the northwestern border of British India.

Britain arrived in the Indian sub-continent in the 19th century. Britain annexed parts of Afghanistan in 1879 by an arbitrary treaty in exchange for money – Rs.1,200,000. Britains puppet Shah Shojaemerged after dethroning Afghan king Dost Mohamma in 1839. Britain’s aim was to protect the opium drug line! Taliban is all Pashtuns.

You will be most surprised to know that King Amanullah who ascended the Afghan throne in 1919 engaged in numerous liberalization programs which included reforming the army, abolishing slavery and forced labor, and encouraging the liberation of women, discouraging use of veil, oppression of women giving them more educational opportunities. Instead of Britain feeling happy about these moves they thought it a threat to their reign and supported extremists against the move!

“Britain was seen as the culprit in the affair, manipulating the tribes against Amanullah in an attempt to bring about his downfall.” (Afghan historian Abdul SamadGhaus wrote in 1988)

The British were cunning enough to bind Afghanistan to accepting drawn borders (Article 5 of the Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1919).

The Durand Line Agreement divides boundaries between Afghanistan, Balochistan & British India. If so a trilateral agreement was required but Balochistan was excluded by making Afghan monarch believe that Balochistan was part of British India. Britain refused Afghan request to relook at borders before it gave independence to India in 1947.

Colonials speak with forked tongues & is a lesson when the same European countries are out to create more new borders claiming to resolve conflicts without acknowledging that they created them!

Did Afghans understand a word the British spoke. Could they read & write English to agree to sign on a dotted line?
Was this ‘treaty’ ratified by the British Parliament if so where are the records if it was gazetted? Has the Durand line been registered in the UN? Validity aside is this line Legal?

How valid & legal are treaties signed by monarchs of these countries and invader occupiers? Can legal experts please elucidate?

Present day issues between Pakistan & Afghanistan is another issue the crux of the matter is that the root cause of these issues associated with the Durand Line is the British who drew the illegal line!

The Radcliffe Line – the root of Kashmir issue

The culprit this time was again Britain & Sir Cyril Radcliffe the Director General of the Ministry of Information was appointed Chairman of the Boundary Commission. His task was to divide India religious lines. Sir Radcliffe had never been to British India & was clueless about the people or the region but was given just 5 weeks to complete the job. He was tasked with equitably dividing 175,000 sq miles with 88m people. That line has impacted India, Pakistan, East Pakistan & Myanmar)

He was not even a cartographer. Sir Radcliffe did the same mistake – dividing villages, separating people and the line at times ran through houses!

Before independence, nearly 40% of India was covered by princely states that were not British possessions and thus not part of British India. It was the choice of the rulers of these independent states to choose which side they wanted to belong to.

The division caused mayhem at independence with 14m fleeing one side of the border to the other & contributed to 3 wars between India & Pakistan in 1947, 1965 and 1971. For the mayhem Radcliffe was made a Peer and made a Knight Grand Cross of the British Empire.

The Radcliffe Line became another example of how a pen destroyed millions of lives.

Partition of India, including migrations after the partition.

The Radcliffe Line allocated to Pakistan, the provinces of Sindh and Balochistan, East Bengal (became Bangladesh), Western Punjab.

India was given West Bengal, Eastern Punjab, Kashmir is located on the northernmost tip of India & the northeastern part of Pakistan. The British thought the ruler of Kashmir Hari Singh would join Pakistan after the partition as Kashmir population was Muslim. Hari Singh did not join Pakistan and requested British assistance which led to the 1948 agreement that left half of Kashmir under Indian control including the fertile Valley of Kashmir. Pakistan got the impoverished part of the region. To compound matters the area has disputes between India & China too which led to the 1962 Indo-Sino War.

Kashmir

When asked how Britain could help end the conflict over Kashmir during a visit to Pakistan in 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron said,

“I don’t want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place.”

McMahon Line – 1914

Is another case of illegal colonial invaders imposing arbitrary borders to serve their advantage. Not only are colonial invaders guilty of drawing arbitrary borders they are also guilty of forcing the indigenous to sign treaties with them. How valid are these? In 1914 there was no India – only British controlled parts of present India. There were 565 princely states that were not part of British India (these states were not under British rule)

The line was drawn by Sir Henry McMahon, the foreign secretary of the British-Indian government who was acting as the chief negotiator in the Shimla conference between Britain, China and Tibet. The line was negotiated without Chinese participation and when China opposed the response was to declare it a bilateral agreement between India & Tibet as the land south of Tibet was declared as British India making Tawang region of Arunachal Pradesh a part of India.

Today countries are disputing over borders & territories demarcated purposely by illegal colonial rulers to inflict conflict at future dates. These lines the colonials drew were purposely done over areas that provided major tributaries like water, resources, hydro-electric potential & mountains that were geo-strategic.

Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916)– Dividing Middle East

Again it was a British Sir Mark Sykes and a French Francois-Edouard Picot who were tasked to divide the Middle East between the two. It was a secret agreement. It became another example of a straight line pen drawn without any concern for the people living, their cultures or their desire to separate.

North of the line – became modern Syria & Lebanon under French mandate.

South of the line – modern Israel/Palestine, Jordon, Iraq went to the Brits. Issue was Mosul which was north of the line and should have been part of Syria but Brits negotiated & placed it under Iraq. Oil was the reason. Lebanon has historically been part of ‘Greater Syria’ (a region that encompasses Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel/Palestine & western part of Iraq)

“The Kurds were divided between 4 states :Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Shiite Arabs were split between Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia. The Alawites, a heterodox Shiite Arab sect, reside today along the northern Lebanese, Syrian, and southwestern Turkish coasts. The Druze were distributed between today’s Israel, Lebanon, and Syria. Lebanon, supposedly a Christian redoubt, included large Sunni and Shiite populations, as well as Alawites and Druze. Sunni Arabs, who formed the dominant population of the Middle East, were divided into numerous states. Pockets of Turkomen, Circassians, Assyrians, Yazidis, and Chaldeans were isolated throughout. At the dawn of the 21st century, minority ethnic groups ruled Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Bahrain, often repressively” (Gabriel Scheinmann – The Map that Ruined the Middle East”)

Saudi Arabia came into existence after Britain had already promised Hussein ibn Ali, the emir of Mecca, an Arab kingdom in exchange for his military support against the Ottoman Turks in World War I.

There are plenty more artificially created states, borders, territories that colonial invader rulers have forced into being internationally accepted as today’s laws are Euro-centric.

If it is illegal for an illegal occupant to enter into any legal agreement that same logic should apply to all of the European colonial countries that went to explore following the 3 concepts of Gold – God –Glory – profit by stealing Asian spices, African slaves, American metals & other resources. Declaring all countries already inhabited as Christian and dispatching missionaries to forcefully convert natives or kill them if they refused to do so. Expand the Western-Christian hegemony across the world and creating an ideology of mercantilism and capitalism where wealth centred around a handful who dictated how the world was to be governed.

The very countries today preaching human rights, good governance, transparency divided the world between them and fleeced countries, subjugating the indigenous and murdering millions of innocent people. None of the present day crimes come anywhere near to the atrocities these Western European countries committed as GOVERNMENT & CHURCH policy upon natives who were peacefully living in their land. We are presented false history by these Western countries who claim to have ‘FOUND’ countries that had people living in them.

We can laugh now at how these countries have even celebrated these ‘Founding Fathers’ but have now come to realize these men were horrid murderers. Many of the philosophies and concepts the West claim to be theirs were spoken and practiced by Eastern civilizations. Buddhas teachings covers most of what the West claim to be ‘theirs’! Such confiscation of intellectual property is wrong and immoral without paying due acknowledgement to its original source. But what more can you expect from countries that have historically fleeced, invaded, occupied & murdered and continue to do the same using the cover of international laws & the UN that they control as a puppet.

In highlight some of the above borders that have been artificially created the crux is to draw attention not to the countries presently involved in the dispute but to convey the message that these disputes stem from illegally drawn borders by illegal occupiers and that is why countries fighting over these borders should get together and point fingers at the countries that drew them without fighting with each other.

The Western European countries that invaded, occupied & ruined countries should not be allowed to have any role in resolving the conflicts they created.

Sri Lanka Civilian Casualties – why is UNHRC refusing to accept 7721 figure?

Hot on the heels of Lord Naseby questioning the British Government & exposing the duplicity & bias of the UNHRC, it is time for the UN to come clean and explain why they have been selective in picking civilian casualty estimates. Why are they shy from releasing the UN Country Team report giving 7721 deaths? Anyone alleging war crimes must explain why the Sri Lankan Military would allegedly kill ’40,000’ but physically save 300,000 of which 12,000 were LTTE cadres surrendering in civilian clothing! All of the guestimates it must be pointed out come from third party sources with invisible or possibly non-existent ‘witness’ accounts. However, a war crimes tribunal cannot be established based on these flimsy lies & media stunts & a country’s national army cannot be taken to the gallows on such lies & hyped allegations sans proof.

 Sources quoting less than 10,000 deaths

·      UN country team in Sri Lanka placed dead at 7721 (Ban Ki Moon’s personally appointed a 3 member panel however declared the figure ‘too low to accept’ 

·      Survey by the GOSL in the North at the end of the conflict done by Tamils placed the dead and missing at 7400 including LTTE killed in combat & 2600 missing of this 1600 had been with LTTE whereas only 438 had disappeared in areas under military control

·      Population survey by Tamil Teachers of the North in July 2011 covering migration, deaths, untraceable persons from 2005 to 2009 revealed 7896 dead including LTTE. The dead from natural illness & sickness was 1102.

·      UNICEF-sponsored Family Tracing & Verification Unit 2011 listed 2564 untraceable persons of which 676 were children (64% had been kidnapped by LTTE)

·      Amnesty International (2011 report) quotes 10,000 civilian deaths. Thereafter Amnesty quoted figure of 40,000 dead.

·      Gordon Weiss – former UN official originally quoted 7000 dead, at his book launch he inflated the figure to 40,000 and changed it to 10,000 at his book launch & when cornered by a member of the audience he placed the error on the printer! Quoting dead has become a lucrative venture.

·      Tamilnet – the LTTE propaganda channel reported 7398 deaths

·      Data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal, data “primarily based on figures released by the pro-LTTE Website Tamil Net”, put the casualty figure for civilians inside Mullaithivu at 2,972 until 5 April 2009.

Above 10,000 deaths quoted from third party sources

·      Darusman Panel selected to be members of the UNSG’s personally commissioned Panel immediately after producing their report co-authored an article claiming the Sri Lankan Government committed war crimes. Furthermore, Darusman report refers to LTTE as a ‘disciplined group’ – if so why has 32 countries proscribed it as a Foreign Terrorist Organization?

·      13 March 2009 – UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay’s press release said that ‘as many as 2800 civilians ‘may have been killed’.

·      US former envoy Robert Blake – quotes 40,000 dead (US Congressional Hearing)

·      Siobhain McDonagh (UK Labor MP) declared 100,000 dead (did she count from UK)

·      Satellite report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science identified 3 graves – one had bodies of 1346, another a LTTE graveyard with 960 bodies. Report did not detect 40,000 or more dead.

·      The Times of London – 20,000

·      The Guardian editorial (Sri Lanka: Evidence that won’t be buried (June 15, 2011),) – 40,000

·      Editorials by The Times and The Sunday Times in late May 2009 related investigations the papers had conducted that revealed more than 20,000 Tamil civilians were killed in the final phase.

·      Alan Keenan the Project Director of International Crisis Group Sri Lanka placed civilians killed in the Vanni between 40,000 – 147,000

·      The Institute of Conflict Management, Delhi – 11,111

·      The University Teachers for Human Rights-Jaffna in a Special Report no. 32 of 10 June 2009 and Special Report No 34 of 13 December 2009 placed the dead between 20,000-40,000

·      Dr. V. Shanmugarajah – says the death toll is closer to 1000 (thousand)

·      Charles Petrie reviewing UNSG’s report in 2012 gave 70,000 figure completely ignoring the UN Representative office figure of 7721.

·      Bishop of Mannar, Rayappu Joseph – claims 147,000 as missing (It is strange that he has not placed one single name of the missing with the Commission though he can rally numerous priests to sign letters and sent to the UNHRC calling for international investigations against Sri Lanka.

·      Independent Diaspora Analysis Group-Sri Lanka – 15,000-18,000

·      Rajasingham Narendran – ‘My estimate is that the deaths — cadres, forced labour and civilians — were very likely around 10,000 and did not exceed 15,000 at most’

·      Muttukrishna Sarvananthan of the Point Pedro Institute said “[approximately] 12,000 [without counting armed Tiger personnel] “.

·      Dr. Noel Nadesan: “”roughly 16,000 including LTTE, natural, and civilians”.

·      Publication titled “Genocidio: (Primera entrega) – La masacre de los Tamils en Sri Lanka,” [Genocide: (First Delivery) The Slaughter of Tamils in Sri Lanka], the Argentinean periodical La Tarde (diario) in a Spanish language article – 146,679 Tamils disappeared or killed between 2008 and 2009, of which 40,000 deaths occurred in the 48 hours of the final assault

·      Arundhati Roy, Indian commentator –”Government of Sri Lanka is on the verge of committing what could end up being genocide” and described the Sri Lankan IDP camps where Tamil civilians are being held as concentration camps. April 2009

·      Prof. Michael Roberts based his estimates between 10,000 and 18,000

·      ICRC press statement of 21 April 2009 declared that their estimates of Tamil civilians inside the no fire zone was 50,000 (In other words upto 21st April 2009, the ICRC did not know that LTTE had 300,000 people with them.  www.dailynews.lk

·      The UN High Commissioner for Refugees in November 2008 claimed there were 230,000 IDPs in the Vanni (Sri Lankan forces saved close to 300,000 – this continues to raise the question of how can we differentiate civilians and LTTE)

·      The International Crisis Group quoting ICRC says 150,000 were in the NFZ in early March 2009.

·      UN estimated on 13 May 2009 that about 50,000 civilians were trapped by the conflict, in a300sq.km strip of land www.dailynews.lk

·      Indian embedded journalist Murali Reddy reported that from 13 May 2009 there were no civilians in the 1.5sq.km strip LTTE was restricted to.  

As Lord Naseby has rightly pointed out NONE of those quoting dead have been on the ground. They are simply quoting from either LTTE support groups or parties linked to LTTE. Lord Naseby makes reference to the UNPUBLISHED report by the UN Country Team whose death toll figure is 7721 covering August 2008 to 13 May 2009. He quite rightly says that from 13 May to 19th May 2009, it is impossible for 40,000 to have been killed. Why has this UN report not been published? Why is it kept hidden from public domain?

The Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report tabled in Sri Lanka’s Parliament in 2011 concluded that the Sri Lanka military did not target civilians.

http://www.ft.lk/front-page/llrc-says-military-didnt-target-civilians-report-tabled-in-pment/44-61066

The Missing Persons Commission, also known as the ‘Paranagama Commission’ says the figure of 40,000 civilians killed during the final weeks of the war is a myth. http://colombogazette.com/2016/01/27/paranagama-commission-says-40000-figure-a-myth/

In fact no one speaks about the 5600 complaints received by families of missing soldiers and these are with name. The missing soldier families had even logged the details with the Parangama Commission as well as the UNHRC and to date no statement or effort has been made by any UN envoy to account for their lives and do justice by them. Instead the UN & UNHRC are going behind figures and guestimates which have no names, no details and whose details have not been logged by any family members. The Paranagama Commission had less than 20,000 names logged as missing of which 5600 complaints by soldier families.

In terms of ‘civilians’ voluntarily or involuntarily remaining with the LTTE or taking part in hostilities the international legal luminaries headed by Sir Desmond de Silva declared that it is extremely unlikely that some 20,000 cadres of LTTE, at that stage, could have taken up to 330,000 hostages against their will”. The implication is that civilians went voluntarily with the LTTE – how many went voluntarily is a question no one has answered. In the eyes of these legal luminaries LTTE had committed the act of perfidy an- act of feigning civilian status with the intent of gaining an advantage amounts to unlawful perfidious conduct.” LTTE is guilty of blurring distinction between combatants & civilians and therefore LTTE stands guilty of not complying with the principle of distinction. LTTE is guilty for unlawful use of human shields. The Sri Lankan Army complied with a no fire zone to which LTTE did not comply and if both sides are not in agreement there is no official No Fire Zone.

 Some factors need to be repeated

·      Sri Lanka’s conflict categorized as a Non-International Armed Conflict denies LTTE any legal status as combatant or POW & requires LTTE inspite of its terrorist designation abide by international humanitarian laws. http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2015/06/19/chargesheet-against-ltte-we-demand-accountability-of-30-years-of-ltte-war-crimes/   http://www.sinhalanet.net/ltte-cadres-are-not-prisoners-of-war-file-charges-against-them-for-war-crimes-in-sri-lanka

·      That LTTE was designated as a terrorist organization & banned by 32 countries clearly destroys the myth that Sri Lanka suffered an ethnic conflict. Sri Lanka suffered a terrorist conflict as LTTE killed even Tamils.

·      The decision to militarily defeat the LTTE came after the country suffered 30 years of terrorism and after failed peace talks, ceasefires & third party negotiations. One incident (9/11) was enough for US & Allies to bomb Afghanistan, invade the country & remain occupying it since 2001!

·      LTTE & Prabakaran could not have become an internationally feared terrorist organization capable of even assassinating a foreign Prime Minister if it did not have ‘friends’ in higher places. All those calling for investigations nicely omit to mention the need to investigate who were the players that helped LTTE directly/indirectly, provided material support, financial support, training, propaganda & PR support, technical expertise, arms training, NGOs, foreigners, international organizations involved with & co-partnering with the LTTE to advance their own geopolitical objectives. When will these people & organizations be held accountable?

·      What is beyond belief is the manner foreign forces in the form of foreign governments, foreign organizations, UN & associate bodies, foreign MPs, foreign media are all congregating to demand answers from the Sri Lankan Government on the last 3 months that ended 30 years of terror but did NOTHING throughout 30 years to save innocent citizens from being blown to pieces by the LTTE. Let us not forget that that the Sri Lankan Armed forces inspite of its military offensive brought to safety 300,000 Tamils which included 12,000 LTTE cadres who surrendered in civilian clothing. If the intent was to kill as is being alleged how is that that these LTTE cadres in civilian clothing remained alive?

·      It is also puzzling why the UNSG chose only Sri Lanka to appoint a personal panel to appraise him of the last 3 months and we are stupefied how that personal report became the basis of successive resolutions by the UNHRC against a sovereign state when the report was never tabled in the UNGA or sanctioned by the UNSC. This questions the legality of the resolutions having being derived from an illegal & questionable process where the Ban Ki Moon panel has openly shown bias. Yasmin Sooka a member of the panel who is paid to be working in the interest of South Africa is 24×7 more interested in LTTE than her native South Africans! She is a frequent visitor to pro-LTTE stages and they address her as ‘comrade’ such alliance is a direct conflict of interest. Her fantastical reports are released close to some international session no different to the dramas by C4. The legality of the Ban Ki Moon report used for the UNHRC resolutions need to be investigated as well as the links of all those making allegations against the Sri Lanka Armed Forces for their financial involvements with LTTE fronts.

All these linked and taken together shows a large nexus of people riding on the LTTE using it as a cash cow for various purposes.

Why does UNHRC and foreign governments not want to accept the 7721 dead figure?

 Shenali D Waduge

 
 
 

The relevance of R. Sampanthan’s speech at the ITAK Convention to present constitutional demands

Leaving aside arguments of ITAK/TNA links to LTTE the fact remains is that both Tamil racist leaders & LTTE fought for a separate Tamil state. Whether it is called eelam, self-autonomy, self-determination etc it all boils down to the same thing. If so it questions on what logical premise that any government would deem it necessary to weaken the country by bringing in a new constitution that not only removes the unitary character of the constitution but also sets up a confederal form of governance giving virtual asymmetrical federation to some provinces over others. Going by the aims and objectives outlined by Sampanthan in his address to the Tamil people, what is clear is that the real objective of a Tamil nation is to be sought cunningly, patiently, manipulating and aligning to the global agendas of the West and India. While all this is being spelt out clearly in black and white the Governments in Sri Lanka and their super advisors and inner circles are happy to play pied piper and virtually facilitate the hidden aims and objectives of both the Tamil separatists and the Foreign Agendas.

  1. Sampanthan speaking at the 14thITAK Convention in Batticoloa, in May 2012 made the following speech excerpts from which are being quoted with commentary to understand the relevance of it to the demands being made to the new constitution.

http://www.sangam.org/2012/06/Sampanthan_Speech.php

“Our understanding and relationship with members of the international community including India and the United States that has come about by slow degrees, little by little, as a result of methodical, measured action and thinking, is becoming a source of strength for our community”

(the power of diaspora influence and using LTTE money generated illegally & legally)

 

“We remember the Tamil youth who sacrificed their lives in armed struggle”

(Is he implying LTTE and other militant groups? If not who are these Tamil youth?)

 He mentions Tamil Nation 6

“We gather here following our victory in the passage of the recent Resolution at the UN Human Rights Council, a condemnation against the Sri Lankan government by the international community”

For ITAK and all who share sentiments of this statement it seriously questions their citizenship. Can a citizen of this country be happy when the country is condemned internationally, for whatever reason?

“Sri Lankan government has committed the crime of extermination against our people”

The reason for this ‘victory’ is given – as far as we know the Sri Lankan Army exterminated LTTE Terrorists not Tamils.

“Ilankai Thamil Arasu Katchi was created by S.J.V. Chelvanayagam, the father of Tamil Nation, for the purpose of establishing self determination of the Tamil people on this island. This objective is evident in both the name of the party and in the manner in which it operates.”

Here Sampanthan is plainly telling why ITAK has been created.

“Tamil United Liberation Front, of which our party was a member, took the historical decision to establish the separate government of Tamil Eelam in 1976. Based on this decision of our party, and the need to place ourselves in a position of strength, Tamil youth decided to oppose violence with violence and began to rise up as armed rebel groups.”

Plain and simple the quest for a separate state began officially & publicly with the Vaddukoddai Resolution in 1976 and is linked to armed militancy and given India trained these youths clandestinely it indirectly involves India in this separatist game.

 

“Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which became a great force within the Tamil community”

We have been asking the question who sides with the LTTE and obviously here is the answer!

 

“The intervention of India has clearly taught us the lesson that whatever our aspirations may be, India will never welcome a political solution in Sri Lanka that does not accord with the interests of India.”

Clearly it is a ‘you scratch my back, I will scratch yours’ deal that India & Tamils have with each other. The rape of 3000 Tamil women by the IPKF must have been just collateral damage and part of that ‘worthy cause’. It would be interesting to know if all these women were Dalits (low caste) which is why no Tamil is interested in seeking justice for the crime!

 

“achieving Tamil Eelam was becoming an increasingly unrealistic goal. Thus, instead of sacrificing more lives to this cause, our party, with the help of India, began supporting a solution that allowed the Tamil people to live within a united Sri Lanka”

What is being said is that without claiming the political solution to be Tamil Eelam in so many words the same objective should be sought. Who is the gullible who cannot understand this?

 

“A most important lesson we have learnt from the past 60 years… is that we should act strategically, with the awareness that global powers will act based on their domestic interests.”

In other words the separatists have strategized their demands to align to the global agendas of those they are seeking for assistance to arm-twist the Sri Lankan Government. How come our mavericks in government & their smart alecs have not been able to come up with a similar strategy?

 

“Further, a struggle that runs counter to the values of the international community, built only on military might, will not prevail. It is for this reason, that in the new environment created by various global influences, we have, together with the support and assistance of the international community, found new ways of continuing with our struggle”.

It is without a doubt that the armed struggle by LTTE had the silent nod of approval by the Tamil leaders who have now realized that the quest can still be achieved through aligning with global political agenda & partnering with the international community.

 

“Our expectation for a solution to the ethnic problem of the sovereignty of the Tamil people is based on a political structure outside that of a unitary government, in a united Sri Lanka in which Tamil people have all the powers of government needed to live with self-respect and self-sufficiency.”

Why ITAK wants removal of the unitary status of Sri Lanka is simply because a constitution that is unitary cannot allow self-autonomy.   

 

“The position that the North and East of Sri Lanka are the areas of historical habitation of the Tamil speaking people cannot be compromised in this structure of government.”

It has been the fault of the UNP Govt that agreed to the insertion of this mythical clause and the inability of successive governments to negate this lie officially that has led to this lie being repeated enough to be accepted by all without challenge.

 

“We must have unrestricted authority to govern our own land, protect our own people, and develop our own economy, culture and tradition.”

In other words what is being sought is a separate Sri Lanka (asymmetrical federalism until secession is sought)

 

“meaningful devolution should go beyond the 13th Amendment to the Constitution passed in 1987”

What exactly is devolution beyond 13a?

 

“The above solution is also one that is likely to be acceptable to members of the international community including India and the United States”

There’s a revelation, so now we know how and why things have come this far!

 

“Any solution to the ethnic problem concerning the sovereignty of the Tamil people must also be acceptable to the Muslim community in Sri Lanka.”

This part clearly establishes how India is twisting its agenda because Trinco is in the East and the only way that the North East can be merged is to get the Muslims on to their side, thus the continuous reference to ‘Tamil speaking people’ so that it includes both Tamils and Muslims.

 

“Our priority now is to expose the Sri Lankan government that for so many years in the past attempted to describe the ethnic problem and a ‘terrorist problem’.”

So what is Sampanthan trying to say – that LTTE are not terrorists? Who killed Kadiragamar and so many other Tamils?

 

“The international practice prevalent during the mid eighties, when the intervention of India occurred, has now changed. Although the issue at hand is the same, the prevailing conditions are different. The struggle is the same, but the approaches we employ are different. Our aim is the same, but our strategies are different. The players are the same, but the alliances are different. That is the nature of the Tamil people. Although we still have the same aim, the methods we use are now different.”

This part is important to gage the psyche of the Tamil leaders and to understand how they have cunningly manipulated their strategies to suit the times.

 

United States and India are to a great extent supporting our position. The Sri Lankan government continues to maintain friendships with those standing against them.”

We will agree wholeheartedly with this – the previous Government did not know who their friends were from the enemies and foolishly played into the hands of the enemy at the cost of jeopardizing their friends. Sampanthan says the outcome of the UNHRC Resolutions with US and India supporting ‘their cause’ is the indication of ‘future developments’.

 

The current practices of the international community may give us an opportunity to achieve, without the loss of life, the soaring aspirations we were unable to achieve by armed force.”

This again reiterates the connection with the Tamil leadership & the LTTE armed struggle.

 

“if the world begins to perceive us to be extremist, or too rigid, or if they

believe that we have a hidden agenda to reignite violence, we will soon be ostracized from the diplomatic exercises in progress. We must show great care in our words and actions”

In other words what Sambanthan is asking all Tamils to do is not to reveal the connections, not to reveal the real plan but to play the ‘innocent’ card and fool the world.

 

“We thus strongly urge the Sri Lankan government to act sincerely in this regard and take steps to release all Tamil political prisoners’

LTTE cadres are NOT political prisoners but we also want justice for every person LTTE killed since 1980s. We are still waiting for the GOSL to put LTTE cadres on trial for these deaths and others who have been indirectly and covertly supporting LTTE must also face the court and be punished for aiding and abetting terror.

 

Sinhalization that takes place both secretly and openly”

How dare Sambanthan complain about Sinhalese living in the North when every day there are Tamils coming to reside in Colombo and elsewhere. If North is the habitat of the Tamils why are they coming to live in the South? Just count the many flats and apartments Tamils now own and the numbers of Tamils that have increased in Colombo since 2009. Citizens have the fundamental right to live anywhere and it cannot be claimed as colonization as Sambanthan and Tamils are presently doing. The fault of the governments in power has been not to nip this lie in the butt too.

 

“Our understanding and relationship with members of the international community including India and the United States that has come about by slow degrees, little by little, as a result of methodical, measured action and thinking”

See how well the Tamil leadership has manipulated their objectives into the international agenda of others!

 

Evidendly, the problem is not the problem what we are told is the problem. The answer is not the answer we believe is the answer. We are all being taken for a ride and where will this all end is anyone’s guess.

 

After reading the excerpts of Sampanthan the present Opposition Leader what is your own opinion of the goals and objectives of the Tamil Leaders and their co-partners the LTTE?

 

 

 

Shenali D Waduge

Yahapalana is going to turn Sri Lankans to landless citizens like Hawaii

When Ranil Wickremasinghe Government took power in 2001 they allowed foreigners to purchase land and even coastal graveyards were bought. Returning to power again the Wickremasinghe Government has decided to continue to again facilitate sale of land to foreigners. What are the repercussions and consequences that the citizens will have to face in the future by governments with shortsighted gains? Greedy businessmen took Hawaii from Hawaiians – it can happen to Sri Lanka too.

Hawaii is made of 132 islands of which only 8 islands are livable. The eight major islands are Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, Lanai, and Hawaii. Honolulu, the capital, is located on Oahu. Total population is 1.4million with a total 10,931 sq.miles. The state owns only 39% of land. In 1778, English explorer Captain James Cook arrived in Hawaii and its population declined by 80%. In 1794 George Vancouver, a British navigator, drafted an agreement with island chiefs to transfer ownership of the islands to Great Britain.

By 1878, the native population had dropped to an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 people. There are fewer than 8,000 pure Hawaiians living today. Most Native Hawaiians today have less than 50% pure Hawaiian blood. Fewer than 2,500 people speak Hawaiian as their mother tongue.

Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Hawaii has been invaded thrice – in 1941 by the Japanese, in 1920s by tourists and in 1893 by American businessmen who overthrew Queen Liliuokalani illegally annexing Hawaii to the US. Christian missionaries arrived in 1820. With time tourists didn’t care about Hawaii culture except to enjoy in a luxury hotel.

In 1877, some 400 American businessmen forming the ‘Hawaiian League’ planned to overthrow the monarchy forcing King Kalakaua to sign the revised Hawaiian constitution which meant cutting his powers (Bayonet Constitution) which never went for a vote because people opposed it. No different to the present sentiments by the public against Sri Lanka’s constitution. Queen Liliuokalani, his sister took over in 1891 after the King’s death and planned to rescind the Bayonet Constitution and replace with one restoring power to herself & the natives. What is interesting is that Queen Liliuokalani was a follower of Buddhism & Buddhist philosophy and followed the teachings of Buddha in her rule. She imposed restrictions on foreign immigrants and decreased reliance on imports and foreign trade. She rejected American businessmen’s requests for immigration reform and reestablishment of trade-routes. American missionaries helped plot her overthrow and annexation to US in January 1893 with the help of 163 strategically placed American troops. The Queens ‘non-violence’ attitude proved her downfall. The Queen was arrested in 1895 charged with treason forced to abdicate and give up her throne. The US was quick to change things to their advantage – even Chinese immigrants were denied entry. Act 24 vested power in corporations. Even the Hawaiian language was banned. English replaced Hawaiian as the official language of government, business and education. Children were punished in school for speaking Hawaiian.

We must wonder how many such are already stationed in Sri Lanka and look at the subtle manner Buddhism and the Buddhist ethos of Sri Lanka is currently being targeted to elimination – education, social, cultural, political, religious, constitution etc.

Native Hawaiians launched a massive petition drive to stop the formal annexation of Hawai’i to the U.S. Of the known population of 39,000 Native Hawaiians, 21,269 signed the petition. This was an incredible majority. But, Hawai’i was illegally annexed as a U.S. territory in 1898, along with 1.2 million acres of Hawaiian crown lands that had belonged to the monarchy and to the nation of Hawai’i. No compensation was paid to anyone.

 Hawaii was administered as a U.S. territory until 1959, when it became the 50th state in August, 1959, following a referendum in Hawaii in which more than 93% of the voters approved the proposition that the territory should be admitted as a state. What was sold to the people was that America was working in the best interest of the Hawaiians & their economy. No different to the story sold in Sri Lanka. Hawaii’s natural resources became her downfall. Sri Lanka’s geopolitical position must its unknown & unappreciated resources will become Sri Lanka’s downfall too.

In 1983 President Ronald Reagan signed Proclamation 5030 granting US full control over all living and non-living resources within 200miles of US coastlines.

In 1993, Congress (President Clinton) issued an apology to the people of Hawaii for the U.S. government’s role in the overthrow and acknowledged that “the native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty.”

Apologies however does not return land to its rightful owners.

Hawaiʻi has one of the largest United States military populations in the world – 11 bases. More than 100,000 US service members and dependents live in Hawaii. A 2011 study by the RAND Corporation showed that military spending in Hawaiʻi was linked to 18 percent of the state’s economy, and direct military and civilian jobs made up 16 percent of the state’s workers (about 101,000 jobs).

An interesting article by Nate Gaddis in 2014 titled “How much of Hawaii is concrete” a question most of us are now raising in Colombo viewing the massive structures coming up. Before tourism and U.S. military on the islands, agriculture was the biggest industry in Hawaii. Sugar, coconut, and pineapple formed the core of the plantation system. When the large plantations were established in the 1820s and 1830s, native Hawaiian men were employed as farm workers while Hawaiian women worked in the houses of white immigrants as maids and washerwomen. This is going to be the eventual outcome for Sri Lankans too.

With native Hawaiian population decreasing, importing of Chinese, Japanese and Portuguese took place and around 400,000 came between 1850 and 1880. This is no different to the importing of Tamils from South India by the European colonials to Sri Lanka.

Over the past century, 70 % of beaches on the islands of Kaua’i, O’ahu, and Maui have experienced long-term erosion. Everything and anything is now private owned and people are taxed. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/23/mark-zuckerberg-hawaii-land-lawsuits-kauai-estate

By privatizing water and sewer systems, local government officials abdicate control.

Privatizing local water and sewer systems usually does far more harm than good for our communities. In Hawaii, a privately owned water utility service costs 59% more than the public water service. After privatization, water rates increased at about three times the rate of inflation, with an average increase of 18 percent every other year. The situation is no different in other areas where privatization has taken place too.

What can be more humiliating than the thought of indigenous Hawaiians having to take a blood test to prove their land right! Will this not be the future of the Sinhalese too!

Shenali D Waduge

Banda-Chelva Pact: JR’s Kandy march for Sinhalese & a New Constitution

Political opportunism and opportunist politics has been a curse to the country. Looking back we can only conclude that our politicians have failed the people and the nation with their opportunism and greed to remain in power at any cost. Sadly, another trait is that there are no lessons learnt and mistakes not repeated. We are entering another major misadventure and faux pas if we allow the passing of this new constitution. Leaving matters to the politicians alone has proved a futile and dangerous adventure. The people need to now rise and not allow the destruction of our island to continue.

It is very important to know the background to the incidents to understand the larger picture of things.

The UNP had been in power from 1947 lost elections in 1956 to the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP coalition) led by SLFP leader SWRD. UNP 9year reign came to an end and SWRD became the 4th Prime Minister of Sri Lanka in 1956. UNP had only 8 seats in Parliament. ITAK led by Chelvanayagam won 6 out of 9 seats in the North and 4 out of 7 seats in the East.

The 1956 election campaign was significant mainly because it was the first time that the election propaganda centred on reverse discrimination and concentrated on what the Sinhalese had been denied. That many did not wish to highlight the disadvantages and discriminations faced by the Sinhalese over 400 years was seen in the manner many have reacted to the enforcement of Sinhala as the official language.

The propaganda revolving around this Act completely ignores some ground realities.

  • How many are aware that just 10% of the Tamil minority were enjoying the best of jobs in the Government service even after independence?  
  • How many knew that the language of administration was English throughout colonial rule and when power were transferred to the local elite (comprising Sinhala, Tamil & Muslims who were also educated in English) who comprised hardly 10% of the population. It was impossible for this 10% to run a country using only English (when 90% did not know English).
  • The most interesting thing is that S.W.R.D could not read or write Sinhala while it is quite possible Chelvanayagam suffered same in Tamil – both together were flogging communal politics to remain in power! So where was the sincerity for language by either party!
  • What gets purposely hidden is that Tamil never enjoyed official language status whereas Sinhalese was used prior to the foreign invasions since 1505.Therefore, in reversing the discrimination and reverting to the language used prior to foreign invasion no one should complain about.
  • The demand to reverse the discrimination was to restore the confiscated rights that Sinhalese had been denied for 443 years. Why are these realities never discussed?
  • Also omitted is the manner that ITAK carried out an anti-Sri campaign on 19 January 1957 tarring cars that bore vehicle number plates with ‘Sri’ and replacing with ‘Shree’. Counter campaigns started only AFTER the ITAK action! Cars would not have existed before colonial arrivals however, why didn’t Tamils object to the English letters on vehicles too using the same logic!
  • Also omitted from mention is how ITAK called for action against ministers visiting the northeast for official purposes. Cabinet Ministers Dahanayake, M Marikkar were attacked in Batticoloa, M P Siriwardena who went on a mail train to Jaffna had his path blocked by Amirthalingam’s youth!

The FP also called for a boycott of government ministers and deputy – ministers

This was the background behind the Official Language Act making Sinhala the official language in May 1956.

Tamils protested against the Sinhala Only Act with a satyagraha launched on 5 June 1956 at the Galle Face. These protests were nowhere near to the manner Tamils protested when the Social Disabilities Act was introduced in 1957 enabling low caste Tamils to gain education that they had been denied.

The background to this is also important because of the hype against Sinhala Only totally ignores the discrimination that Tamils were suffering under Tamils!  

Sir P Ramanathan leader of the Tamil elite was also upholder of the caste system. When Donoughmore Commission wanted to grant universal franchise to all persons (male & female) above 21 years in 1931, he objected and even got 79 village headman to plead with the Governor of Ceylon to not give low castes the voting rights!

Sir P Ramanathan also demanded separate carriages to low castes when the railway service from Colombo to Jaffna was launched.

It was the Tamil Workers Association who opposed the caste-based differential seating & differential serving food at schools in 1930s. However, caste structure was such that Tamil low castes could not enjoy tea or food or even go to the temple or move about in public places as equals to Tamils. Not many are aware that on 21 October 1966 over a 1000 Tamil youth started a “Mass Movement for the Eradication of Untouchability’.

There are two kinds of Tamils – the elite and the low castes. This saw minimal changes with the 1957 Social Disabilities Act brought by SWRD.

With the background to the Sinhala Only Act clear, shouldn’t everyone be asking why a supposed issue with language ended up with a Pact that promoted devolution? Incidentally, the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact was signed on 26 July 1957 giving‘Reasonable Use of Tamil as a working language’. Important to note that it was signed over a year after the Sinhala Only Act but immediately after the Social Disabilities Act which the Tamil elite including Chelvanayagam were against.

In short, Tamils opposed the removal of the caste structures far more than the Sinhala Only Act. This needs to be clearly and openly brought to the discussion table.

Political opportunism and opportunistic politics has ruined Sri Lanka’s progress. UNP opposed the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact calling it a sell-out of the Sinhalese.

UNP tore Chandrika’s devolution package in 2000 inside Parliament and burnt it as everyone watched over television. This same party is now going further than SWRD or CBK by introducing a new constitution that devolves powers to the provinces that cannot be revoked or taken back! Is this not a sell-out of the Sinhalese given that this is the exact autonomy that the LTTE and racist Tamil leaders had been aspiring for in different language & mediums?

If SWRD was accused of playing the communal card to enter power wasn’t JR & UNP doing the same and this was the reality behind the march from Colombo to Kandy claiming that Bandaranaike was betraying the Sinhalese by signing the B-C devolution package creating Northern and Eastern Provinces Regional Councils (Regional Council Bill)

The insincerity behind the proposed march from Colombo to Kandy by the UNP in October 1957 eventually did not last 2 days. The initial plan to march to Anuradhapura was shelved claiming it was too long. Incidentally, the Mahanayake of the Malwatte Chapter was to assist by requesting people to assembly in Kandy on 8th October 1957 and to take a vow before the sacred tooth relic that the UNP would prevent the division of Sri Lanka.

The walk was led by JRJ, Dudley Senanayake, Ranasinghe Premadasa, Anandatissa de Alwis, Dr. M V P Pieris, M D Banda. Eventually from over 1000 of people the march ended up with just 100 people and the march was called off at Imbulgoda. The meeting in Kandy on 8th October which was a poya day went as planned. The attendance was poor. Though the walk was a failure, Bandaranaike abrogated the pact unilaterally.  

Opportunist politics and political opportunists have destroyed unity amongst the communities.  

According to C V Vivekananthan, Bandaranaike after returning from studies at Christ College, Oxford in 1925, formed a political party called Progressive National Party and advocated a Federal State instead of a Unitary one. Dr. T. James Rutnam was its General Secretary but Rutnam was against SWRD’s federal formula and supported an unitary state!

Advocating federalism in the 1920s, 1930s & 1940s it was decentralization advocating provincial council system and this changed to a different tune to come to power using the Pancha Maha Balavegaya Sanga-Veda-Guru-Govi-Kamkaru, [‘Budhist clergy, aryuvedic physicians, teachers, peasants & workers’ which brought him to power in 1956.

Was SWRD’s Indian ancestry the reason? Yasmin Gooneratne in “Relative Merits: a Personal Memoir of the Bandaranaike Family of Sri Lanka’ traces his ancestry to Neela-Perumal an Indian officer migrating to Sri Lanka in 16th century serving the Kandyan kings. Neela Perumal was made high priest of the God Saman temple and given the name “Nayaka Pandaram’ in 1454, the name became Pandara Nayake and the P was later substituted with B to make ‘Bandara Nayake’ which later became Bandaranayake. Pandarams are Brahmins in India & record keepers of the royal court.

Incidentally, the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact promulgated “Provision is to be made in the Bill to enable two or more regions to amalgamate even beyond provincial limit” wasn’t this what the Indo-Lanka Accord & 13a eventually implemented?

 The Pact also included “Further provision is to be made in the Bill for two or more regions to collaborate for specific purposes of common interests” notice these are the sentiments presently canvassed by Chief Minister Wigneswaran and the TNA all of which are components of confederal systems.

 Another provision in the Pact was “Provision is to be made for direct election of regional councilors” – another demand being incorporated into the new constitution!

Powers to be devolved in the Pact included “regional councils should have powers over specified subjects including agriculture, co-operatives, lands and land development, colonization, education, health, industries and fisheries, housing and social services, electricity, water schemes and roads.” Others included “regional councils shall have powers of taxation and borrowing”

Are these not the same as those TNA are demanding? How can citizens of a country colonize their own country?

If you take the BC Pact, Indo-Lanka Accord, the 13a, the PC Bill, regional councils proposed by Neelan and GL Pieris, the ISGA & PTOM demands against the present proposals you can see how similar the demands are but worded differently.

SWRD who initially promoted federalism in the 1920s gave a lame excuse in the 1950s that he had ‘changed his mind’. It is these petty foibles by politicians that have created unnecessary divisions in society and among people who have lived and want to live peacefully without nomenclatures and political ideologies thrown before them for the gain of politicians only.

As the nation braces a very vulnerable and uncertain future, the people need to seriously wake up and remove allegiances to political parties even politicians and realize the dangers at stake. Do we want to knowingly walk into a destable future? Are we opening doors to enemy traps, what are the outcomes of some of the detrimental proposals that have been put forward in the past but luckily rejected, if they are to be cunningly passed now? Should we knowing the hidden agendas agree to these proposals are just some of the thoughts that should now be working on everyone’s mind.

“a society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the police state dictatorship is going to get “ Ian Williams Goddard

Shenali D Waduge

Illicit arms manufacturer exposed in Pudukuduirrippu

Illicit arms manufacturer exposed in Pudukuduirrippu

Illicit arms manufacturer exposed in Pudukuduirrippu

October 4, 2017   09:00 am

A weapons manufacturer operating illegally at Pudukuduirrippu in Mullaitivu was arrested by the Police and is to be produced before the Mullaitivu magistrate’s court today (4).

The Police confiscated 7 trap guns, 3 shotguns, 200 rounds of ammunition and tools used for manufacturing weapons from the residence of the suspect.

It has been reported that the suspect was arrested following intelligence provided to the Pudukuduirrippu Police. Interrogations revealed that the suspect had sold arms to several residents of the area.

The Police stated that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the suspect supplied and repaired arms for the LTTE during the civil war.

http://www.adaderana.lk/news.php?nid=43365

Blood shortage in North Sri Lanka: Sri Lankan soldiers give blood because high caste Tamils don’t want their blood to get mixed with low caste Tamils

Have you ever heard of a group of people demanding self-determination, carrying out global campaigns for an ethno-religious homeland for themselves to look after their own, getting the backing of world powers and organizations and then to find out there is a shortage of blood because high castes don’t want their blood to get mixed with low castes! No one is giving blood in Northern Sri Lanka because they don’t want their blood to get mixed! Therefore, 200 Sri Lankan soldiers had been sent to donate their blood because hospitals in the North were short of blood. These are the very soldiers that the TNA, the Chief Minister and the Opposition Leader together with LTTE fronts had been humiliating, claiming they were responsible for genocide, calling for war crimes tribunals, demanding they be removed from the North and against whom signature campaigns and tarnishing campaigns continue unabated. It is alright for them to tarnish the good name of our brave soldiers and it appears they have no qualms of obtaining their blood for survival. Northern Sri Lanka population is close to 1million and not a word of appreciation or gratitude to our soldiers!

Inline image 1
Inline image 2

This is a fine example that nullifies entities that are promoting a separate state or even a mono-ethnic solution similar to the one created in Kosovo. By the example of Tamils not giving blood because they don’t want their blood to get mixed up due to caste is a solid reason why constitutional amendments too should not entertain these bogus demands. By the example of the blood we have been shown that Tamils cannot live together, therefore all of their arguments about ‘letting us carve our own destiny’ falls flat on the face with this situation that has come to the open.

 This is nothing new. It has been kept well hidden. One of the reasons to lure Tamils into an armed struggle was primarily the caste factor. A good study of the LTTE hierarchy will show that from Prabakaran downwards all were of low castes and discards of their own society. They were having a hatred for their caste system far beyond the promoted hate against the Sinhalese.

 Tracing matters further, though presently there is much hype over the 1956 Official Language Act which made Sinhala the only official language while allowing reasonable use of Tamil language, when it was introduced there were only a few protests and no large demonstrations. What is important to note is by 1956 English was the language in use though less than 6% Tamils were fluent in English though 50% of clerical positions in railways, postal, customs, and 60% of all doctors, engineers and lawyers and 40% of other labor force was held by only Tamils.

 However, Tamils opposed the Prevention of Social Disabilities Act when it was passed in 1957 giving lower castes the rights to attend schools and kovils, which thus far they had been denied by Tamils themselves. Let it be recorded that it was the Sinhalese who gave low caste Tamils the right to attend schools and kovils, which was taboo to them by their own. How did high caste Tamils react? They began massive satyagrahas. A further amendment to the act in 1971 further annoyed the Tamil high castes. Just as the high castes were annoyed with the university standardization in 1973 which enabled students of less developed districts to enter university which had previously been enjoyed only by the developed districts. Vellala Tamils opposed the 1973 standardization because it enabled low caste Tamils to enter university! Not too many have highlighted this enough! We have also not forgotten how even in the refugee camps in 1983 as well as immediately after the military victory over the LTTE, high caste Tamils refused to share the toilet facilities with the low caste Tamils, so much so that the military had to arrange separate toilets for them! The caste factor is such that while Vellala leaders think themselves God Almighty, Jaffna Tamils look down on both Trinco & Batticoloa Tamils and all together they look down on the Estate Tamils. So the caste factor is embedded into the mental and upbringing of all and the bottomline is when Tamils cannot reconcile with themselves what is this big talk about reconciliation with others! Who are they all fooling?

 There are enough of examples of riots amongst Tamils because of caste and these go back to 1871, 1923, 1931 while violence broke out in 1929 following the government directive for ‘equal seating’ giving low caste Tamils the right to sit on benches as they had been previously made to sit on the floor! This is how a bunch of high caste Tamils were treating their own! They went so far as to petition London. Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan requested the Colonial Office in London to encode caste into legislative enactments!

 So the West that cannot be ignorant of these factors given that they have NGOs placed to gather information on the polity and psyche of the people in Sri Lanka need to be told that under this scenario even devolution is nothing that the majority of Tamil low caste really wants as they are certainly happier to live with the Sinhalese than be treated like low-lifes by their own Tamil high castes. Just take a look at the Dalit statistics in Tamil Nadu to confirm the treatment.

 The English News daily that reported it has probably been influenced to remove its report that cited caste differences resulting in the shortage of blood and soldiers having to donate, but hiding facts cannot remove the reality.

 We are utterly disgusted and disappointed with the manner that high caste Tamil leaders have ridiculed and humiliated our soldiers. They have slandered their good name, they have created lies and funded false propaganda and they have not minded getting their help to make their roads, their houses, their toilets and now for them to survive our soldiers are giving their blood. Not a word of appreciation or gratitude. Donating blood is not in the job profile of the soldiers. Soldiers are defenders of the nation. Donating blood is something additional and warrants appreciation and gratitude not slandering and humiliations that they are getting from the likes of the Northern Chief Minister, the Opposition Leader, his Party and other supporters of separatism. The international community that is propping these people and clapping hands as their racism increases should be ashamed themselves.

Shenali D Waduge

 http://www.rivira.lk/online/2017/06/10/113457

The Modi Doctrine For Sri Lanka

May 13, 2017 | Filed under: Colombo Telegraph,Opinion |

Prime Minister Modi’s two day visit to Sri Lanka was supposed to be non-political. Yet, in his address to the International Vesak Conference at the BMICH, he laid out the Modi doctrine for Indo-Lankan relations and more especially for Sri Lanka.

His message was hardly non-political, or purely cultural and civilizational, being far more Kautilyan than Dharmaashokan. With the country’s top leadership– Government and Opposition– present, he prescribed the limits of this country’s sovereign existence.

This is what he says, on economics and security/strategy which are facets of the same thing: power relations between states:

  • I believe we are at a moment of great opportunity in our ties with Sri Lanka. An opportunity to achieve a quantum jump in our partnership across different fields…
  • We believe that free flow of trade, investments, technology, and ideas across our borders will be to our mutual benefit…
  • In infrastructure and connectivity, transport and energy, we are poised to scale up our cooperation.
  • Our development partnership stretches across nearly every sector of human activity such as agriculture, education, health, resettlement, transport, power, culture, water, shelter, sports, and human resources.”
  • , the economic and social wellbeing of the people of Sri Lanka is linked with that of 1.25 billion Indians.
  • whether it is on land or in the waters of the Indian Ocean, the security of our societies is indivisible.”

(‘Modi: Security of India and SL indivisible’, The Island, May 13th 2017, p1, lead story)

What is Prime Minister Modi telling us?

  1. There is going to be a qualitative leap in our relationship.
  2. This will be based on a free flow of trade, investment, technology and ideas across the border.
  3. In infrastructure, connectivity, transport and energy we are about to scale up our relations.
  4. Our partnership will stretch across almost every field of human activity, including agriculture, education, health, resettlement, transport, power, culture, water, shelter, sports, and human resources.

Whatever had been discussed before behind closed doors between Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and his Indian counterparts in Delhi, the shape of this ‘new partnership’ that was publicly laid out by Prime Minister Modi before the people of Sri Lanka, has to be evaluated against the complex relationship Sri Lanka has had thus far with India, whose territory includes Tamil Nadu which continues to be aggressively hostile to this country.

Who decided on the wisdom of  upgrading and up-scaling our economic relationship especially if it involves free flow across the borders when there have been numerous protests against ETCA in most sectors of the Sri Lankan economy? In many significant parts of the world, countries and peoples are turning away from such doctrines and practices of “free flow across borders”, because they adversely affect the nations concerned—including most famously Great Britain, with Brexit

Especially worthy of note is the suggestion that the ‘up scaled’, ‘free’ ‘cross-border’ flow based relationship with the neighboring giant will involve “almost every sector of human activity”. If this is to be the case, does it not mean that every area of human activity of Sri Lanka’s citizens, of the inhabitants of this small island, will be impacted upon, penetrated, shaped and perhaps even controlled by the vastly more powerful neighbor? Such a suggestion had never been entertained in Sri Lanka in its centuries and millennia old history because it’s people and leaders wisely asked themselves: “What then will happen to us over decades? Who will we become?” Small it may be, but Sri Lanka has always valued and guarded its separate and distinct identity from its much bigger neighbor. Despite its size and location this island has always asserted its independent space to decide its own destiny, carefully calibrating its trading partnerships and cleverly balancing its relationships with the big powers globally, to its benefit, throughout the centuries.

It is doubtful if the Indian Prime Minister’s Vesak speech in Colombo would have been welcome in any country in the neighborhood of India. In a speech that accurately reflected the sentiments of the people of Sri Lanka, at a similar time of Indian efforts at a firmer footprint in Sri Lanka under a previous administration, a close friend and ally of India, Vijaya Kumaratunga, in his final speech (at Campbell park, early 1988) said that even if his head were to be blown to bits by the Green Tigers or the JVP he “would not permit Sri Lanka to be a playground of United States imperialism or the 26th state of India”. After a 30 year separatist war and increased hostility from Tamil Nadu, the people’s resolve to strengthen their independence has only become firmer. It is unlikely that they will let an opportunistic political class betray them.

The crux of the Modi doctrine is contained in just two sentences, bringing together the economic and the strategic, which is exactly what the people of Sri Lanka will be rightly apprehensive of:

“Because, the economic and social wellbeing of the people of Sri Lanka is linked with that of 1.25 billion Indians. Because, whether it is on land or in the waters of the Indian Ocean, the security of our societies is indivisible.”

Enlightened public opinion will see these as two bullets aimed at our sovereign, independent existence. Sri Lanka has never regarded its economic and social wellbeing as linked with that of 1.25 billion Indians. The Sri Lankan people are hardly likely to allow that to be the case.

We had an exemplary social welfare system which was upheld as a global model at one time. Later we opened up our economy, and that was one and a half decades before India did. We achieved higher growth, higher than India until recently. We have never regarded this country’s economic wellbeing as linked with the far more complex societies of federal India, with its uneven economic development and social issues of extreme poverty, overpopulation, entrenched caste consciousness –a form of social apartheid—and bride burning to name but a few of the pressing issues of social backwardness that India has to deal with.

If Prime Minister Modi had said ‘the neighborhood’, or ‘South Asia’ or better still, ‘Asia’ or ‘Eurasia’, the people of Sri Lanka would have understood the broad direction towards which the region and even the global economy is turning. But he just said “1.25 billion Indians”. This, will be unacceptable to the Lankan people as a destiny and livelihood that is to be yoked to the chariot wheel of India. This places Sri Lanka in danger of becoming a peripheral unit, a dependency, of the Indian economy. It will be seen as unwise by Sri Lankans to be dependent on the 1.25 billion Indians and be swallowed up by them.

As for security, no sovereign, independent country’s security can be “indivisible” from that of another. This is why we speak of “national interest” and “national security”. No country’s security can be indivisible from another when one country’s security can be  and has been threatened by the other; and the other contains a state unit of 80 million people, 18 miles away from the smaller country, which is hostile to the latter country.

According to Kautilya’s Arthashasthra, a state’s security is threatened precisely and inevitably by its neighbor—thereby rendering the security of a state eminently “divisible” rather than “indivisible” from the security of its neighbor!

Sri Lanka never considered its security indivisible from that of another country. Countries security interests may coincide, overlap—leading to varying degrees of cooperation, partnership and even alliance. But that is a sovereign decision of each country. No country can decree another country’s security and its own as indivisible. They are divisible precisely because they are two countries, two states, two sovereign and separate entities, with divisible borders and distinct destinies.

To consider Sri Lanka’s security as indivisible with India’s is well beyond the Indo-Lanka Accord and its annexures which recognized the geopolitical reality that given our asymmetries Sri Lanka must not and cannot do anything which will strategically harm or be hostile to our giant neighbor. The doctrine of the “indivisibility” of security however, goes way beyond this, to a level unaffordable and unacceptable to Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka has always retained its right to decide on its security partnerships to protect its territorial integrity. Any trans-border, trans-state, unilaterally defined and prescribed “indivisibility of security” is a restrictive concept which precludes it from considering its own national interests above all else.

The reference to the sea clearly means that India exercises a veto over the passage through/via Sri Lanka, of Chinese shipping i.e. the shipping vital to the wellbeing of China which unlike India has been a staunch friend of Sri Lanka and whose economic prosperity is vital to Sri Lanka and the rest of Asia not to mention the world. China is also the vital balancing factor that Sri Lanka has used to offset the hegemony of India and inter alia, Tamil Nadu. The Sri Lankan people are unlikely to allow their governments to concede their collective right to exercise that option.    

This independence of spirit and the will of the proud people of Sri Lanka was reflected in the personalities like Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Ranasinghe Premadasa, Lalith Athulathmudali and even Anura Bandaranaike, not to mention Rohana Wijeweera, in their assertion of sovereignty in dealing with the rest of the world. While they– unlike the current political leaders, Government and Opposition– were made of sterner stuff, the people of Sri Lanka retain that spirit and remain vigilant,  as can be seen by the many professional associations, trade unions and individuals who have stepped up to fill the void. 

No Indian leader or policy maker should rely on the whispered assurances of electorally vulnerable politicians desperately vying for perceived guarantees of continued political life and succession in a society which values and defends a thriving democracy. It is the ‘shaping spirit’, the ethos of this ancient island nation, which has asserted its independent identity and existence as distinct from and in contradistinction to the vast sub-continental mass, that will ultimately override all else, and prevail.

The Modi Doctrine For Sri Lanka

Read Modi Doctrine For Sri Lanka II

The Modi Doctrine – II: The New Indian Expansionism & The Sinhala-Tamil Equation 

May 14, 2017 | Filed under: Colombo Telegraph,Opinion |

By Dayan Jayatilleka

As the Indian TV station WION’s program ‘Gravitas’ correctly reported, “Modi Reshapes Sri Lanka Policy”. What a reshaping it was and what a shape it has now taken! It has to be analyzed in all its dimensions and implications.

Though my old teacher of international relations, Prof Shelton Kodikara, would surely have traced Modi’s ‘Vesak discourse’ in Colombo back to the Indian Ocean-centric theories of KM Panikkar and thus posited a conceptual continuity, I would add or attribute two new reasons for the Modi doctrine.

Firstly, the competition with a rising China in the Indian Ocean has led Modi to attempt a downward thrust of India’s power, extending its sphere of influence southwards, hardening and transforming it from a sphere of influence to a domain of secure possession, acquiring Sri Lanka or at least its North and East which contains Trincomalee.

Secondly, Mr. Modi’s ideological lineage and mindset make it easier than it would be for a Congress leader, to think in terms of a Greater India, a quasi-empire—which extends to and incorporates the island of Lanka.

India’s absence at the ongoing, widely attended global conference on the Belt and Road Initiative in Beijing shows the seriousness and adversarial character of Delhi’s view of China’s emergence as a powerful global player.

The Modi doctrine announcing the New Indian Expansionism or the New Indian Imperialism has to be seen against this backdrop. Sri Lanka is a test case.

The Modi doctrine seems to have its accompaniment in the Wickremesinghe doctrine. Going by the hybrid Modi-Wickremesinghe Doctrine, US, Indian, Japanese, British and European warships can and do dock in Sri Lankan ports while Chinese submarines are prevented.

This is ‘balance’ and ‘even-handedness’ and ‘nonalignment’ in the composite ‘Modi-Yahapalana’ dictionary. It means that our fickle friends can dock their warships in our ports but our faithful friends cannot—all in the context of a competition in Asia where our fickle friends block our faithful friends.

A charitable and conventional explanation would be that Mr. Modi wants Sri Lanka to be a satellite, subordinate to Delhi. My own explanation is less charitable but perhaps more Realist. The Modi Doctrine assumes that India’s new borders extend beyond and include Sri Lanka; that Sri Lanka lies within India’s borders; that Sri Lanka is borderless and has no borders or cannot and must not have borders, economic and political, that separate it from India.

The Modi Model for Indo-Lanka relations involves not only a deep reshaping of Sri Lanka but also impacts deeply on and fundamentally reshapes of the domestic balance of forces i.e. the power relations between the communities of the island.

What are the clear consequences of the Modi model for the Sinhala-Tamil equation? What is the deep impact on the destiny of the Sinhalese who are not concentrated in large numbers anywhere else on the planet and whose only home this island is?

In terms of the island’s domestic geopolitics, and the acceptance of Mr. Modi’s doctrine for us, we are incorporated within Greater India and therefore, the domestic balance tilts against the Sinhala majority and in favor of the Tamil minority, because the latter have 80 million co-ethnics as important stakeholders within India.

The security and strategic de-linking from China means that the Sinhalese are weakened twice over, because they will be cut-off from their staunch and economically powerful ally, while the latent separatist Tamil minority is strategically empowered by the borderless linkage with India and the Indian veto over our relations with China.

The Sinhalese will be unable to balance off the US and India while the Tamils will be able to leverage them thanks to the Diaspora and Tamil Nadu, and we would have given the Indo-US friends of the Tamil nationalists a huge leverage over us and our only home, this island.    

In the Modi Model, the only borders that Sri Lanka is expected to have are those of a federal state unit within India. In this sense, the sum total of Mr. Modi’s Vesak speech in Colombo is to change Sri Lanka’s status from a free, sovereign, independent country to a federal state of the Indian union!

Both discourse and body language show that he already regards Sri Lankan leaders as Chief Ministers and no more—and for their part they already behave like Chief Ministers or aspirant ones, in a federation of which Mr. Modi is the Prime Minister!

The Modi Doctrine – II: The New Indian Expansionism & The Sinhala-Tamil Equation