Plus

Plus

Peace process: The essence lost in Babel of words
Upatissa who later became the chief disciple of Lord Buddha under the name Sariputta, met Rev. Assajee, a Buddhist monk, and inquired from him as to what the Buddha taught. On being told that it was a vast subject, Sariputta-to-be, remarked "Attheneva me attho. Kin kahasi vyanjanan bahun" (I need only the essence. Of what use is a multitude of words?).

Rev. Assajee summed up the Dhamma in one line. "Ye dhamma hetuppabhava tesanan hetu tathagatomaha" (The Teacher has taught the causes of all things produced by a cause). The future chief disciple saw the essence of Buddhism in that single line and was converted forthwith.

The ongoing controversy connected with the peace process reminds one of the wise words of Sariputta. The essence of the situation appears to be lost in a Babel of words. Disputants on both sides seem to be unable to see the wood from the trees.

As far as the origin and the resolution of the dispute are concerned, there does not appear to be much disagreement among the disputants. The bottom line of the problem may be summed up as follows:

1. The Tamils of Sri Lanka feel themselves discriminated against and marginalized. Whether this is so is a proposition that can generate millions of words on both sides but it would be generally conceded that rightly or wrongly there is a sense of grievance.

2. Since Independence, successive governments have tried to find a solution to the grievance genuinely or otherwise and some have made it worse. Whatever debate there can be about the solutions and the aggravations, uncontrovertibly the problem has not yet been resolved at least from the point of view of the Tamils.

3. Failure to resolve the problem led to an armed conflict between the government and the champions of the Tamils, which started two decades ago.

4. The lesson of history is that it is not possible to suppress ethnic conflict permanently by the use of arms. At least in Sri Lanka, it has not been possible so far and considering the strategies and resources involved, it does not appear to be pragmatic to expect such a resolution hereafter, despite many a heroic boast. Apparently that is why both sides have agreed to sit down to talk.

5. The parameters of the solution are to ameliorate the apprehensions of the Tamils without compromising the territorial integrity of the country and violating the aspirations of the other ethnic groups.

6. It was reported towards the end of the talks under the previous government that the LTTE was prepared to consider something short of a separate state. If that position was genuine, there certainly was a light at the end of the tunnel.

7. The next logical thing was to pursue that light directly and relentlessly by pushing the process ahead.
But that was not to be. Instead we have got lost in a war of words. Thick smokescreens of postures, prejudices, attitudes and preconditions have clouded the atmosphere pushing the core issues out of sight.

Quantum of representation
One such smoke screen is the furore over the claim that the LTTE is the sole representative of the Tamils. Logically it cannot be the sole representative at least until Douglas Devananda is alive! On the other hand what does it matter their not being the sole representative, if only they can solve the problems of the Tamils? The correct solution will certainly not be rejected even if it is found by an unrepresentative individual. It is the solution that matters, not the status of the solver.

The claim of sole representation is only an egoistic placard that is needlessly delaying a resolution, by stirring up a wayside hornets' nest. On the other hand, those who fight tooth and nail against the sole representative claim, should not forget that it was the dedication and sacrifice of the LTTE that has brought the government to the negotiating table.

Who should begin?
Another bone of contention contributing to the delay in the resumption of talks is the choice of participants at the initial round. It would be ideal but not practical or feasible for all stakeholders to be present at the beginning. Even the bitterest critics of the LTTE cannot sincerely deny that it has a very big stake, big enough to play a predominant role in the negotiations, at least to set the ball rolling. The LTTE itself may not expect to roll the ball all the way down the alley without interruption. It just cannot be in a multi-racial society.

There is bound to be many an on-course correction by other stakeholders. The point is that the others should not inadvertently delay the peace process by staking a claim to be associated with it from the very start. They should bide their time until the opportune moment for intervention arrives, after the LTTE has placed its cards on the table. If everybody rushes to get into the 'wedding photo', the camera may go out of focus. It is inconceivable that the communal problem will ever be solved by an exclusive bilateral process.

Facilitators or mediators?
The role of the Norwegians is another burning issue. The connotations of their designation is lapping up valuable time and sapping the energy of the contenders. In laymen's terms, we need a third party to bring the two sides together. If they do not come together they cannot talk. If they do not talk, there can be no peace. In that sense, the vast majority that believes that the conflict can only be resolved by negotiations, can have no objection to a party that facilitates the meeting of the two sides.

No self-respecting nation can tolerate a third party dictating terms in an internal affair. Useful suggestions to break deadlocks and illuminate the way are another matter. That is a part of facilitation. The criticism is that the Norwegians have been partial to the LTTE. If that has happened, the government of the day should take full responsibility for it, as no responsible government should tolerate such a state of affairs lackadaisically with all the powers of state in hand.

The question is whether the errors of omission and commission on the part of the Norwegians, if any, are due to inadvertence, over-enthusiasm or error of judgment. If so, they are understandable in the heat of a massive conflict like ours. In that context, would it be prudent and kind to discard a hard-to-find and willing facilitator who has gathered invaluable experience in the process?

Besides, Norway is a bilateral nominee. They cannot be sacked without the consent of the other side and it is unlikely that the other side would agree. In that context, changing facilitators at this stage will naturally lead to another battle of words which would further delay the peace process. It would be unwise to change horses mid-stream unless we are convinced that they are taking us down the stream.

Venue of the talks
Another debating point is the venue for the talks. When the previous dispensation circumnavigated the world with the negotiating teams, the LTTE was heard to complain that the government was trying to internationalize the issue. This time around, it is calling for an international forum itself and that in spite of the felt tendency of such exposure to break rank! This reversal of preferences may also be indicative of another development. Has suspicion shifted to the opposite camp?

Whatever the motives behind the choice of location may be, it is axiomatic that the debate on the venue should not delay the talks. It is immaterial where the talks are held as long as they lead to an early settlement of the ethnic conflict.

Facilitating the LTTE
Another topic of debate is the facilities provided by the government to the LTTE by way of logistic support. Helicopter rides provided to LTTE cadres were scornfully highlighted when the present opposition was in power. The rides continue even after the change of government. It is a favourite pastime of the cynics to draw public attention not only to the facilities granted to the "enemy" but also to the volte face of those in power.

No doubt, both subjects are ready fodder for low comedy but those who seek public approbation by resorting to such gimmicks ought not to be unmindful of the damage that the laugh-raising tactics can cause to the confidence-building measures leading to the negotiations. There is no dispute that both sides must consult and negotiate but how can that be done as long as the LTTE is locked up in the Wanni? They can no longer travel like the proverbial man who came from Jaffna in the Night Mail with two drumsticks and a mango in his sack! In the present security situation, there is no alternative to the government facilitating the travel of members of the opposite delegation and that is no laughing matter.

Rubbing in the past
Yet another favourite hobby of politicians and the media appears to be the predilection to confront protagonists of the peace process with their past stances that are diagonally opposite to their present positions. By and large, these reminders are aimed at the electorate or the circulation. These smart people sacrifice national interest to serve their parochial ends and in doing so they inadvertently keep asunder the converging forces of the conflict.

If what A says today is conducive to ethnic consensus, what he said yesterday in the opposite direction is irrelevant from the national point of view. Rubbing his contradictions in may be a popular and gainful game but the net result of such clever exercise is to stifle the peace initiative. Besides it is not always fair to attribute motives to a person's change of views and attitudes. He may have changed genuinely with experience and reflection, as he should, if he is gifted with a dynamic mind. Even if the change is not genuine, the contradiction is best ignored in the larger interests of the country.

(To be continued next week)

Back to Plus