None so blind as those who refuse to see

By Neville de Silva

It seems that it is not just British MPs who cannot see the wood for the trees. When I commented last week on the recent adjournment debate on Sri Lanka in the House of Commons and said that some of those British parliamentarians seemed to have lost their way in the forest, I did not expect a response from Muralidaran.

When I saw the name of the person who had addressed a letter to the editor of this newspaper remarking on my column I thought for a moment I was facing the world record- breaking spinner.

A quick reading of the letter, however, convinced me that not even Murali could have spun such a yarn despite his prodigious bowling skills. The difference between the two Muralis is that the verbal doosra of the letter writer could be spotted even as the ball left the hand. At one point in his letter he says: “Why should we ask the Muslim community and the other Tamil parties to cease the fire when there is no ‘firing’? Note the use of the “we”. It is not a Royal we nor an editorial we. It is intended to denote one of the two sides to the ceasefire agreement (CFA). It is certainly not the government side. Which leaves us with what?
Let me however quote the letter in full in case I am accused of distortion or providing only selective quotes.“This is in response to your column titled ‘British MPs miss the wood for the trees.’ You stated that “the CFA left out the Muslim community and other Tamil voices that needed to be heard. That was a fundamental flaw in the CFA”’.

Mr De Silva what is meant by a CFA. It is a ceasefire agreement. Who are the firing parties? Which parties are at war? Obviously, they are the government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE.

Why should we ask the Muslim community and the other Tamil parties to cease the fire when there is no ‘firing’? Because this “idiotic” conception, Sri Lanka is suffering. If we haven’t learn since 1947, when are we going to learn? If you say that there should be all party representation when having a discussion over a package to resolve the conflict in Sri Lanka, I certainly am in agreement with you.

Please be mindful that a CFA is to cease fire between warring parties and do not muddy the conflict further.
Thank you
Muralidaran”

The email address identifies him as Murali Sivarajah so it is obviously not the Murali I initially thought it was. The letter is interesting for several reasons. Part of it seems like impeccable logic, almost Aristotelian, especially the argument about the ceasefire meaning to stop firing. But is it as simple as that? Muralidaran has headed for the trees and lost his way in the forest. Had he read my column with understanding he would have noticed the context in which I referred to the Muslim community and other Tamil groups. But he had missed it or conveniently ignored it in order to pursue his own argument.

To refresh his memory and for the sake of our readers in general let me quote from last week’s column in which I take up the issue of the Good Friday Agreement which eventually led to a negotiated peace in Northern Ireland. The British MPs who spoke at the debate kept reminding us of the Northern Ireland conflict and why we should return to the CFA.

“The Good Friday Agreement that eventually led to a settlement of this separatist problem is dangled before us as an example of successful negotiations. But those who do so forget, consciously or otherwise, that this settlement was reached through negotiations with all parties and groups who had a stake in that conflict. The CFA left out the Muslim community and other Tamil voices that needed to be heard. That was a fundamental flaw in the CFA.”

Muralidaran conveniently extrapolates a sentence from that column ignoring the context and asks, perhaps with malevolent glee, why bring the Muslims and other Tamil voices into the equation when they are not “firing”. I am not so sure that some other Tamil ‘voices’ were not literally firing given the news that used to emanate from the north, particularly the Jaffna peninsula and some times the east. But if they were not firing as Muralidaran argues, then they were certainly being fired at.

It is indeed a pity that Muralidaran has gone for the simple explanation- a ceasefire should be between the two sides that are firing- seemingly without reading the text of the CFA. Having ignored the context in which I made the above comments, Muralidaran also ignores the fact that the CFA was only a prelude to political negotiations leading hopefully to a settlement and not an end in itself. So the CFA has to be viewed as part of a process, not a single event devoid of any larger context. It is a pity that Muralidaran has failed to read the preamble to the agreement that he so readily defends while rejecting any role for others including elements of the community affected by the conflict. For his edification and that of like-minded persons who have failed to read the preamble let me quote it without the introductory paragraph.

“The GOSL and the LTTE (hereinafter referred to as the parties) recognise the importance of bringing an end to the hostilities and improving the living conditions for all inhabitants affected by the conflict. Bringing an end to the hostilities is also seen by the parties as a means of establishing a positive atmosphere in which further steps towards negotiations on a lasting solution can be taken. The parties further recognise that groups that are not directly party to the conflict are also suffering the consequences of it. This is particularly the case as regards the Muslim population. Therefore the provisions of this agreement regarding the security of civilians and their property apply to all inhabitants. With reference to the above, the parties have agreed to enter into a ceasefire, refrain from conduct that could undermine the good intentions or violate the spirit of this agreement and implement confidence-building measures as indicated in the articles below.”

Had Muralidaran dwelt sufficiently on the implications of the observations made in that preamble which recognises that parties other than the two signatories are affected by the conflict, he might have been more circumspect before rushing to chastise me for what he sees as “this idiotic conception”. He would also have noticed the specific reference made to the Muslim community followed by the statement that the provisions of the CFA regarding the security and property of civilians apply to all and not only the signatories.

The underlying problem was that the CFA was drawn and agreed to in stealth and nobody outside the charmed circle knew about the provisions being agreed to by the then government. Even the head of state of Sri Lanka who is not a mere figurehead but heads the cabinet of ministers, was kept out of the loop. So were sections of the community which the CFA itself recognises are victims of the conflict. Not only that. Even when negotiations began the Muslim community and other Tamil voices that did not accept the LTTE as the sole representative of the Tamil people, were deliberately left out without any official role in the negotiations that were to determine their future.

This was hardly the way the Good Friday Agreement on Northern Ireland was reached. Neither was it the basis on which the peace talks that consequently followed, took place. I was trying to show that the British model that was being peddled as one we should follow was not a parallel and the CFA ignored important considerations.

Muralidaran heading for the trees lost himself in the woods.