Columns

A day after he was sworn in as Prime Minister on August 8, Mahinda Rajapaksa was asked by Indian weekly news magazine Frontline what the victory meant for the people of Lanka, particularly the Tamils.

His reply was: “Our government will cater to the needs of all our citizens, irrespective of race or cultural background. There are urgent priorities in the Northern Province, with regard to livelihoods, irrigation for agriculture, the upgrading of exports and the improvement of facilities in health and education.”

SATURDAY EVE’S VIRTUAL SUMMIT: India’s Narendra Modi gives Lanka’s Mahinda Rajapaksa a wake-up call on the 13th Amendment and on the importance of realising Tamil aspirations

He also spoke of how a great deal was done under difficult circumstances in the Northern Province during the tenure of his last government and how he had launched a massive development plan for the north, which  included the widening and re-laying of roads and restoring the rail link to the north.

But while he had rattled on about the economic schemes his government had launched in 2011 when he was President for a second term, an important item left out on his litany of good deeds was conspicuous by its absence; and the magazine did not fail to rub it in.

Frontline duly noted: “He did not mention the question of a political solution for the Tamil people, based on the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution, a demand that India had steadfastly stood behind till now.’’

Five weeks later, Media Minister Keheliya Rambukwella was posed more or less the same question in an interview with the Daily Mirror. He was asked: “Consecutive Governments have spoken about addressing issues in the North through a political solution. We have not heard much on that from President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and this Government. Is that an issue which is taking a back seat now?”

Rambukwella’s reply which was published on September 15 was as startling as his Prime Minister’ silence had been revealing.

He said: “I think there are only a few people who are talking about a political solution. The need is more for an economic solution. The people there want their irrigation, a buy back guarantee for their products, a solid education system and a healthy relationship with communities. That was broken down at various times. All politicians are equally responsible for this; including people like Gajan Ponnambalam and Wigneswaran. They are promoting disharmony. I am sure people there want to live in harmony with others. This political interest is of interest to only a few people.”

When the interviewer then asked him, “So you are going to tell India that the 13th Amendment isn’t the solution, since India has been pushing for this,” Rambukwella’s reply defined the ambit beyond which it would be folly for Media Ministers to tread and answer questions that lay in a foreign realm, questions that surpass their limited ken on the intricacies involved in international power politics. He said: “My humble opinion is that India was also not really for this. They just wanted to get rid of an issue at that time.”

That the 13th Amendment, which India forced down Lanka’s throat and arm-twisted then President J.R. Jayewardene to make it an incongruity in the constitution in 1987, was a convenient device the Indians used to get rid of a nagging Tamil issue at that time may be the humble, harmless opinion of the minister but from where on earth did he pick that one up?

Surely not from the whispering walls down the corridors of power that suggested India’s recent silence on 13A signalled endorsement of the Government’s apathy toward implementing the 13 Amendment to the full and that thereby India had placed the “political solution that will address the just grievances of the Tamil people of Lanka” on the back  burner?

But whatever the source, Rambukwella’s comments coincided with Indian stirrings over the fate of the political stratagem they had devised and cast onto Lanka’s lap to be executed. Within ten days of the Media Minister shooting his mouth off and implying India’s heart was not in the 13th Amendment, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was on the line, giving his counterpart in Lanka a wake-up call.

What Prime Minister Modi had to say to the Lankan Government, perhaps, jolted Minister Rambukwella out from his wishful thinking — and, perhaps, the same fate went for anyone else who happened to share his humble opinion — and dashed him to reality found on ground zero that India still intended to honour her then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s guarantee to the Tamil people of Lanka when he signed the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord on July 29, 1987, even if it meant being rifle butted on the head the following day at a guard of honour parade by an irate naval rating as a take home souvenir of diehard Sinhala appreciation.

Holding a virtual summit last Saturday evening via a video link, Modi spoke to Mahinda Rajapaksa and called on the Sri Lankan Government to address the “aspirations of the Tamil people for equality, justice, peace and respect within a united Sri Lanka”. He also asked the Lankan Government to do so by “carrying forward the process of reconciliation with the implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.”

In turn Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa expressed confidence that Sri Lanka would work towards realising the expectations of all ethnic groups, including Tamils, by achieving reconciliation nurtured as per the mandate of the people and implementation of the constitutional provisions.

The positions of India’s Narendra Modi and Lanka’s Mahinda Rajapaksa were outlined in a joint statement issued by the two countries following the virtual summit. What India expected Lanka to do was clearly spelt out. For a brief moment the gloves were off and the booming voice of the regional superpower could be heard above the diplomatic chatter, dictating to her tiny island neighbour the terms of conduct and verbally demonstrating who wore the pants in the neighbourhood.

However, though Modi had referred specifically to the Tamil people and the 13th Amendment, Rajapaksa, in his reply, had referred to all ethnic groups, including Tamils, thereby giving Modi’s target group minor billing; and had refrained to mention the 13th Amendment by name  referring to it as ‘constitutional provisions’, instead.

Later the Lankan statement which dealt with defusing tension in the Indian Ocean, economic development, further strengthening of trade links between the two countries, issues related to plundering of fishery resources of the northern seabed of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka’s successful handling of Covid-19 pandemic and cultural and religious ties, brushed over the significance of Modi’s important reference to the 13th Amendment and Tamil aspirations.

The Tamil National Alliance tweeted its welcome response to Modi’s positive stance, stating: “We welcome PM Modi calling on Sri Lanka to address the aspirations of the Tamil people for equality, justice, peace and respect within a united SL including by carrying forward the process of reconciliation with implementation of constitutional provisions.” TNA MP Sumanthiran was delighted and issued his own message, “We are highly taken up with the wordings mentioned in the joint statement about the implementation of the 13th Amendment and the response to it.”

Lanka had avoided any commitment over the Indian call for the implementation of the 13th Amendment. But can this Government get away with it, like the last time Mahinda was in office as President? Then as President, he had on countless occasions made clear his commitment to implement the 13th  Amendment, even assuring India and the international community, he would go beyond the 13th Amendment to ensure “meaningful devolution” to address the just grievances of the Lankan Tamils. It is still a promise unfulfilled. And, until last Saturday’s virtual summit between the two leaders, seemed destined to remain so.

Last November newly elected President Gotabaya Rajapaksa visited India on the invitation of Prime Minister Modi. At a joint press conference held on November 29, Modi declared: “I am confident that the Government of Sri Lanka will carry forward the process of reconciliation, to fulfil the aspirations of the Tamil for equality, justice, peace and respect. It also includes the implementation of the 13th Amendment.”

Two days later, the Sri Lankan guest of the Indian Prime Minister showed he would not tag along with his host’s wishes, despite the confidence Modi had publicly expressed he would. Still on Indian soil, Gotabaya Rajapaksa spoke to the Tamil Nadu newspaper, The Hindu, and revealed Lanka could no longer be taken for walkies, that Lanka was no pushover.

President Gotabaya told The Hindu that he intends to focus on development of the northern region, not political issues as the previous push for “devolution, devolution, devolution” has not changed the situation there. Full devolution of powers as promised by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1987 could not be implemented “against the wishes and feeling of the majority Sinhala community. No Sinhala will say, don’t develop the area, or don’t give jobs, but political issues are different.”

To many in the Government, Modi’s insistence seemed like a blatant act of interference in Lanka’s internal issues. Especially when President Gotabaya had put the world on notice two weeks ago by declaring to the United Nations on its 75th anniversary that Lanka “expected the United Nations will place due emphasis on non-interference in domestic affairs of other states.” State Minister Sarath Weerasekera lashed out at Modi on Tuesday, stating “Provincial Councils are an internal matter which should be decided by the President of Sri Lanka and not by the leaders of other countries. India cannot interfere or intimidate that we should continue with the Provincial Councils. Lanka is an independent sovereign country and, therefore, India cannot interfere in our internal affairs.”

But the fact is that India has so inveigled herself into the ethnic issue that she is part and parcel of the equation; a stakeholder who cannot leave the table, even when shown the door. The Indo-Lanka Peace Accord signed in 1987, which led to the 13th Amendment, was an agreement between the Indian and the Lankan Government and thus grants India, as an equal partner, the intrinsic legal right to see its terms are implemented and its objectives realised. Another reason that prevents India from making her excuses and leaving, is the question whether, as the superpower of the region, she can afford to be a silent spectator on the happenings on her southern doorstep?

The effect of Modi’s reference to the aspirations of the Tamils, on the reconciliation process and the implementation of the 13A in full, may have also had the effect of putting on hold scrapping the 13A altogether in the new constitution that is presently being drafted, until, at least, a diplomatic way is found to persuade India to see it afresh. But even Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s explicit statement to the Hindu in December last year, “I am willing to discuss alternatives to the 13th Amendment,” seems not to have placed a damper on Modi’s exuberance to see the 13th Amendment fully implemented nevertheless.

Today, the 33-year-old 13th Amendment, which has spawned naught but nine provincial white elephants, is being played by a different cast and is re-enacted before a different audience; and it is doubtful whether the just aspirations of the Tamils have remained the same and remained sterile, trapped in a time capsule; but if they have evolved and changed, whether the collective mindset of the Sinhala people, too, haven’t correspondingly changed?

Perhaps, it is time that all stakeholders took a fresh look at the 13th Amendment itself. They should consider whether it serves the purpose for which it was framed? Or whether it is simply there dormant and sheathed to be unsheathed at India’s will and held as a Damocles Sword over Lanka’s head whenever big brother India feels small brother Lanka is getting too big for his boots?

Yet, through the haze of a recent bloody past, one certainty shines: a circus of bread and games alone will not meet the aspirations of the Tamils and will not dawn a lasting and durable peace in the land, in our times. Man, of whatever race, creed or caste, does not live by bread alone but needs equality, justice, freedom and respect as well to survive.