Plus

The heart of the problem is about mutual understanding, and this can come only through personal contact

Newspapers recently carried an advertisement calling for submissions regarding the framing of a new constitution. Encouraging such public participation is a good thing. However, I feel that the Sinhalese and the Tamils are significantly polarized in the way they interpret the current situation. We cannot make progress towards a durable peace unless this polarization is recognized, leave aside resolved. This article is mainly an attempt at recognition, not resolution - except for a few tentative suggestions at the end.

The first issue is regarding the attitude towards the Tigers. I think they do horrible things - not so much in the fighting of a guerilla war, but in the manner of their fighting it - child conscription and ethnic cleansing (e.g. of Muslims from Jaffna). The Sinhalese have a problem about why right-minded Tamils do not speak out against such atrocities. One opinion has been advanced by Prof. Kumar David. He says:

"In his emotive heart, the Sri Lankan Tamil feels that the Tigers have allowed him to stand up again. There are two sides to this. He feels that the humiliation and the beatings have been banished, that another 1983 won't happen for fear of reprisals and that the army cannot run amok again in Tamil areas without risking a bloody nose. The balance of terror leads to mutual deterrence, the Cold War has taught us.

"Secondly, in his conscious mind he reckons that there would never have been any serious interest on the part of the national political establishment of whatever hue to even recognise an ethnic conundrum, let alone negotiate a settlement, unless the Tigers had fought the army to a standstill.

"Both of these, in the minds of the Tamils, have been won on the battlefield. This I think, I can say without risking much rebuttal, is the judgment of the great majority, including those who are not, and never have been, fellow travellers of the LTTE. For this reason, the Tamil people will not settle their accounts with the Tamil Tigers until they have first settled their accounts with the Sinhala State."

Perhaps the biggest problem is the question about whether or not there is a problem. Tamils feel that they are sorely discriminated against in a unitary state. The Sinhalese feel Tamils are not.

The Sinhala position is that Sri Lankan Tamils constitute only 12% of the population. If Tamils are such a minority, why can't they be content living in a country where the language of the vast majority is the one that is prevalent? The Sinhala only policy of 1956 was to empower the rural Sinhalese vis-a-vis the English speaking elite, which consisted of both the Sinhalese and the Tamils. And in any case Tamil is prevalent in Tamil speaking areas of the country.

If Tamil enrolment in universities and the public service has reduced, that is only because it was disproportionately high some time ago. How can a community with 12% of the population expect 50% of such enrolment? Even State-sponsored colonization of Sinhalese in Tamil areas - what's so wrong with that, given that Tamils live all over the country and not merely in their "homelands". It is true that Tamils are insecure because of the current security situation, with its attendant checkpoints and house searches. But that is because there is a war (whether hot or cold) going on, and one could say that Tamils have brought it upon themselves, based on the notion of a "collective community responsibility".

The Tamils, however, feel that their previous privileged position (e.g. 50% enrolment) was because of hard work, especially given that their land was inhospitable to anything other than to educational advancement. They think that the Sinhalese are lazy, wanting to be coddled by their governments. They feel successive Sinhala governments have conspired against them to increase Sinhalese empowerment at the expense of the Tamils. Above all, the Tamils still think that the government and its machinery (including the armed and police forces) will actively harm them, as opposed to being their protectors. July 1983 is hard to forget, especially now after April 2006 in Trincomalee. To be insecure in one's own country is a terrible thing, difficult to bear without deep resentment.

Language can be so divisive. In the current context, simply, the language issue to the Tamils is that of the status of Tamil vis-a-vis Sinhala. To the Sinhalese masses, the language issue is that of the status of Sinhala vs. English. I understand that some elements are trying even now to reverse English medium initiatives in education, and also things like English requirements for employment in the Bank of Ceylon. This is backward thinking in my opinion, but it shows that the language struggle for grassroots Sinhalese is not against Tamil, but against English.

The next point of disagreement is the unit of devolution. Every Sinhalese balks at the proposed map of Eelam, or even just the extent of the combined North-East Province - one third of land mass, and what is worse, 60% of the coastline in an island state. This does not seem fair by any stretch of imagination, to satisfy 12% of the population, especially because most Tamils live outside the North East, and will continue to do so.

There is also the issue of Sinhalese and Muslims in the Eastern Province. The Sinhalese in the South feel that such communities, especially the Sinhalese, would be betrayed through the creation of an autonomous North-East. And even where the Tamils in the East are concerned, they appear not to be at one with their Northern brethren, as evidenced by the Karuna phenomenon (cheered on no doubt by the Sinhalese, as a bulwark against the Tigers).

Finally at least some Sinhala Buddhists feel that the unitary nature of the country must be preserved as a "Dharmadveepa".

The Tamils on the other hand feel that the Sinhalese and "their" successive governments, in which Tamil politicians have participated as well, have done nothing to develop the North and East. This is true of course even of the South - hence the JVP uprisings. But they feel Tamil areas have been neglected even more. Above all, there is the feeling that Tamils all over the country need a safe haven to retreat into, in case their security is threatened. It appears that the Muslims too want a merged North-East, within which they can seek non contiguous semi-autonomous regions for themselves. There is also the feeling, given the industriousness of the Tamil and indeed the generosity of the Tamil diaspora for Tamil causes, the North-East will flourish if direct foreign investment to the "homeland" is allowed.

Finally, the Tamils feel that Sinhalese concerns for minorities in the North-East constitute a judging of any future entity in that region by the current standards of the Sri Lankan polity - in other words, a tacit admission that minorities are in fact discriminated against.

How can we resolve these differences? We can start by developing at least one genuine friendship with a person of the other race, who will talk freely to us about their point of view. Any person who is officially designated to draw up the constitution should be questioned as to whether they do in fact have such a relationship - a person who does not should be disqualified.

This sounds an absurd suggestion at first. But the heart of the problem in my opinion is about mutual understanding, and this can come only through personal contact.

I was amazed some years ago to hear that a high profile Sinhala "peace advocate" had not visited a Tamil home - and this was a person who was sympathetic to the Tamils. What about a Sinhalese hostile to the Tamils on a constitutional drafting committee? What chance of such people being objective if they do not have at least one genuine Tamil friend, whose grievances he or she is not privy to? (Needless to say, the same applies to Tamils on such committees). I want to re-iterate that my proposed requirement is not merely a friendship, but a relationship in which mutual grievances are honestly expressed.

The other factor to recognize is that a greater responsibility lies with the majority Sinhala community. There are at least two reasons for this assertion. The first is that it is the Sinhalese who do not want a divided country. If that be the case, the Sinhalese must bend over backwards to accommodate anything that is at all possible to make Tamils feel that they are secure and are full citizens in Sri Lanka.

For a start we could have official documents and signboards in all three languages. Singing the national anthem in both Sinhala and Tamil would be another symbolic gesture (we can teach it in schools). And in the current situation where checkpoints and house searches are bound to continue, what a difference it would make to Tamils if they are questioned in Tamil, at least through a translator, if not a Tamil officer. We should have done things like this to win hearts and minds for the past 20 years. If we don't make a start on it now, our problems will continue for another 20 years.

The second reason for the majority community to take greater responsibility is that tensions of the kind we have now are almost invariably resolved by "bold unilateral gestures"; and it is mainly majority communities who can do this, especially if political power is vested in them too.