Just ten days after Mahinda Rajapaksa was elected as Sri Lanka's fifth President, Tiger guerrilla leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, described him as a "realist, committed to pragmatic politics." In his "Maveerar" (Great Heroes) day, speech in 2005 he wanted to know how he was going to handle the peace process.
Two years later, last Thursday, Prabhakaran declared "we wish to stop the war and seek a peaceful resolution to the national question of our people." He said the guerrillas were always ready for it. "We are not opposed to a peaceful resolution," he said in his 19th annual "heroes" day address. He claimed "although we acted honestly and wholeheartedly, to find a peaceful resolution to the national question, all talks were futile."
Apportioning blame on who drew first blood, or derailed the peace process, would be akin to the proverbial question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. However, in fairness to Rajapaksa, it must be said that he delayed a strong pledge during elections that thrust him into the high office of President. He vowed to re-negotiate the CFA. Instead, as President, he pursued the peace process, a legacy left behind by then Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe.
 |
| With the LTTE leader Prabhakaran’s annual speech offering little hope for peace or early end to their plight, these flood-hit Jaffna residents are given a helping hand by the troops yesterday. |
It was during that period that the guerrillas blew hot and cold, triggering violent incidents like killings of security personnel, and filibustering at the negotiation table. The last straw came when they forcibly took control of an irrigation canal, Mavil-aru. Instead of telling anymore how he would handle the peace process, Rajapaksa launched a military campaign against the guerrillas. The message was clear - peace was only possible if the guerrillas were either weakened or militarily defeated. This is why troops have now, after two years of intense fighting, placed a siege on both Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu.
Interesting enough, Prabhakaran's offer to seek a political solution comes in this backdrop. Is this offer a clever posturing by Prabhakaran for the benefit of the international community? So it seems. In his "heroes" day address last year, there was no mention of any offer for "a peaceful resolution of the national question." Instead, Prabhakaran called upon "the entire Tamil speaking world to rise up for the liberation of Tamil Eelam." He announced that "thousands of our fighters are standing ready to fight with determination for our just goal of freedom and we will overcome the hurdles before us and liberate our motherland. "
If last Thursday's speech was devoted almost entirely to matters relating to the ongoing military campaign by the security forces, Prabhakaran's remarks are crafted to draw the attention of the international community, Tamil Nadu and India. "Our freedom movement, as well as our people," he said, "have always wished to maintain cordiality with the international community as well as neighbouring India."
He called upon countries that have banned the LTTE to understand "the deep aspirations and friendly overtures of our people, to remove their ban …"
Prabhakaran said his organisation has not contravened "the national interest, geopolitical interest or economic interest of any outside country." He said "we have not conducted any act of aggression against any member state of the international community." Though friction erupted between the LTTE and India, he said, "at no stage did we consider India as an enemy force."
He paid tribute to the people and leaders of Tamil Nadu for the "voice, support and love" they have extended.
Last year, however, Prabhakaran declared that the "partisan and unjust conduct of the international community has severely undermined the confidence our people had in them." He added, "It has paved the way for the breakdown of the ceasefire and peace efforts." He also took India to task.
Prabhakaran added, "India intervened in our national question then as part of its regional expansion. India signed an accord with the Sinhala State without the consent of the Tamils. The Indo-Lanka Accord was not signed to meet the aspirations of the people of Tamil Eelam. In fact, India then attempted to force an ineffectual solution on our people - a solution that did not even devolve powers to the extent of the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam pact signed in the 1950s.”
Prabhakaran also referred on Thursday to LTTE's offer to cease hostilities on the eve of the SAARC conference in Colombo in July this year. He said the "Sinhala nation that rejected our overture, ridiculed us and continued with the offensive." He also made a veiled reference to Government's call for LTTE to lay down arms to resume peace talks. He said "it is the Sinhala nation that has laid down unacceptable and insulting conditions."
On the opposite page, our Defence Correspondent deals with the security aspects of Prabhakaran's speech.
As Prabhakaran was scheduled to deliver his speech at 5.42 p.m. from a hideout somewhere in Mullaitivu, Air Force jets raided rebel targets. Later, state run Rupavahini television announced that his speech could not be broadcast (over clandestine Voice of Tigers) since their tower had been bombed. On Thursday night, BBC's Sinhala service Sandeshaya broadcast a news report on the speech. Listeners in Sri Lanka, could not hear it. The BBC report, broadcast through Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC) was blanked out with sporadic interludes of music.
However, the response of Military Spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella was aired at the end of the report. He said that Prabhakaran had made his speech from "his deathbed." Head of the Sinhala service, Priyath Liyanage later announced the segments relating to Prabharakan's speech had been censored by the SLBC.
The days ahead of Prabhakaran's speech saw intense activity both in Government and Opposition circles. The Government intensified security. It had to be heightened further in the light of Wednesday night's dastardly terror strikes in Mumbai. Details of the incident appear elsewhere in today's edition. Even President Rajapaksa wanted to speak to Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh. He was too busy. Hence, Rajapaksa spoke with Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee to condemn the attacks and to extend Sri Lanka's fullest support.
The main Opposition United National Party (UNP) had a different experience. It began with a report posted on the Lanka Dissent web site on November 24 headlined "JHU agrees to a ceasefire on Indian guarantee." It said "the JHU says if India could guarantee a ceasefire with the LTTE, the government could consider the issue. JHU Propaganda Secretary Nishantha Sri Wanasinghe stressed this point to 'Lanka Dissent' when asked for a comment on media reports that the government has agreed for a truce with the LTTE……"
According to the report, the Indian High Commission "had called the entire Politburo of the JHU a few days ago, and reports confirm that the JHU till then had vehemently opposed any talk on a ceasefire with the LTTE. The issue of an Indian guarantee for a ceasefire for the government to consider it, is thus the first apparent change on the issue on the JHU side."
There was a flurry of activity among some UNP MPs. They opined that the government was now shifting its stance from a military campaign against the guerrillas to talk peace with them. They were angered that the very government that had bitterly criticised the UNP for entering into a ceasefire with the guerrillas, was now going to do just that.
"It is reported that the JHU is for a ceasefire if there is a guarantee from India," asked John Ameratunga in Parliament on Tuesday. Added Lakshman Kiriella, "The Lanka Dissent web site said the JHU is ready to accept a ceasefire. When our leader signed the Ceasefire Agreement, you were against it. It has taken seven years for you to open your eyes."
That gave JHU's Champika Ranawaka the opportunity to provide a detailed explanation in Parliament. The next day, it was front page news in most newspapers and received wide play in the electronic media. He denied there was any move by the JHU to agree to a ceasefire.
The episode showed clearly how ill-informed the UNP has been. The Lanka Dissent report was not altogether wrong. They had only quoted the JHU spokesman as saying they would agree to a ceasefire only if India guaranteed it. It is nothing but common sense that India would not provide any guarantee on behalf of the LTTE. Firstly, the guerrilla group remains banned in that country. Secondly, the LTTE failed to honour the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement of 1987 which was signed by a UNP Government at that time. In terms of that Agreement, India did guarantee a ceasefire.
Thus, ill-informed sections of the UNP raising issue over the JHU support for a ceasefire only ended up doing the JHU and albeit the Government a big favour. That is to provide them a platform to re-iterate their position more forcefully that they were not only opposed to a ceasefire but also condemned the UNP for entering into one.
That was bad enough. The worst came when Defence Spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella declared troops would reach Kilinochchi any moment. This was to fuel hopes that troops would plant the national flag before Prabhakaran makes his 'heroes' day speech. One frontline UNP member, known for his pro-active stance, deduced that reported move to capture Kilinochchi was a ploy to announce the ceasefire. Indeed, some sections related to the security establishment gave serious thought to announcing the re-capture of Kilinochchi and to go for a propaganda blitz. However, saner counsel prevailed.
The frontline UNP member telephoned several in Colombo's diplomatic community and the media to tip them off that President Rajapaksa would address the nation on Wednesday at 4.30 p.m. This was to announce the re-capture of Kilinochchi -- and a ceasefire. Some newsrooms in Colombo including foreign correspondents were before their television sets waiting for President Rajapaksa, in his traditional white national dress and the maroon shawl (satakaya) to appear on the screen. Instead, all they saw was a programme about the Senanayake Samudra and places of historic interest in the Ampara district.
Then, the frontline UNPer was deluged with phone calls. "What has happened to the President's address to the nation," they asked him. An embarrassed UNP MP said there had been some delay in recording the address. Hence, it would be aired in the night. When night time arrived, there was no such broadcast. Nor was any announcement of a ceasefire. And the MP was not contactable.
The episode not only showed the ignorance of some Opposition members to serious ground realities. It also revealed that without any proper plan of action, their ad hoc attempts to take on the Government were ending up helping those in power.
All this betrays a substantive policy on the 'war' on the part of the UNP. For some time, its leaders made a joke of the capture of areas like Thoppigala, almost to a point of ridiculing the Security Forces. They kept on talking of a political solution and even federalism. Then, one morning, when they realised that the people sided with the Government's war on the LTTE, they suddenly said that the UNP did not support federalism. Now, they say that the LTTE threat must be met with a 'security response', but that a political solution must eventually be found. They don't know whether to support the war against the LTTE, or oppose it because they see the issue through the prism of how much mass support will go to the Rajapaksa Administration in the exercise thus, the contradictory statements and, knee-jerk reactions.
An unusual addition to this year's 'heroes' day speech is Prabhakaran's appeal to the Tamil diaspora to continue to extend their contributions. So it is not only the military pressure that the guerrillas will have to surmount in the coming weeks to retain both Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu. There is also the worry of foreign contributions dwindling, particularly in the backdrop of events that followed the loss of Pooneryn.
Prabhakaran said he is ready to face the challenge. Equally, there are challenges the LTTE would have to face as an organisation. |
E-mail