Talking with the Tigers: a recipe for disaster

By Kumbakarana

The SLFP and the UNP are shouting slogans against each other. Ministers are demanding an end to the war along with foreign fund seekers conducting meditation circuses. Anton Balasingham, with the blessings of the British is able to go round the world praying for peace talks. The PA, the UNP and the business community are engaged in the same activity.

The aim of the PA and the UNP are to talk with the Tigers. Their sacrificial offering is a political solution to satisfy the so-called aspirations of the Tamils. On all previous occasions the Tigers wanted first a discussion on the tribulations of the Tamil people in areas controlled by the LTTE. Among the Tiger demands were: confining the army to barracks, a halt to monitoring, despatching food and medicines to Tiger-controlled areas and the permitting Tiger cadres to carry weapons in public.

What did the Tigers do meanwhile? They imported arms and ammunition and weaponry, recruited at least 2000-3000 cadres and killed off at least 200-300 dissidents. They also set up new bases and bunkers. The Tigers then abandoned the talks for some trivial reason and complained that the government talks only about the daily needs of the Tamils in Tiger-controlled areas and not about the political aspirations of the Tamils.

The disasters multiply and none of the peace mongers hold themselves responsible for the debacle. This was the cycle in 1985, 1987, 1989-1990 and this will not change. Would it really change with the intervention of Lalith Kotelawala?

On July 24 Mr. Kotelawala even declared that he sees the establishment of Eelam as an alternative political solution, which means he accepts the concept of Eelaam. How can such a person be considered an impartial negotiator. Are the people of this country ready to hand over the future of Sri Lanka to a couple of businessmen? Besides, Anton Balasingham has declared to Liam Fox that the devolution proposals are inadequate. The Tiger leader in the US Rudrakumaran says he sees a confederation and power sharing at the centre as an alternative solution.

So are we going to follow the Yugoslav example where for a short while power was shared between Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia, and this included the sharing of Presidential power?

Under the Constitution the government has no power even to change the unitary status into a federal structure, leave alone a change into a confederation and power sharing at the centre. That is possible only if the constitution is done away with. This means abandoning power to armed gangs who would be able to conduct themselves as they please. The result would be chaos and a country without a government.

If the Tigers oppose any such solution what would be the consequence? At the cost of so much blood the Provincial Council system was established. But the PCs exist everywhere except the North/East for which it was meant. The result is a waste of about Rs. 33,000 million of tax payers money, and the creation of chaos in the administration.

Our experience with devolution has been disastrous and the talks with the Tigers have had catastrophic consequences. The Tigers aside, the aim of all these proposed talks is to please the Tamil people. The result of Tiger activity is terrorism. The TULF, the EPDP, PLOTE, EPRLF and other parties believe that Tamil terrorism is a result of unsolved Tamil grievances. Satisfy the Tamil demands and they will support the government. In the event, it might even be possible to defeat the Tigers militarily.

The only thing that politicians achieved by following this recipe was waste of time.

Both the cause and the effect of the war are the Tigers. There are no civil Tamil organisations to fight for their rights. The TULF and other Tamil parties will not be allowed to hold power even in a provincial council in opposition to the Tigers. So how could there be an agreement to a political solution, in this gangland of opportunists and contract killers?

REFLECTIONS

Drown your sins with good deeds

By: Ven. Soma

While on the subject of killing, many people question as to the depth of sin involved in legally imposing the death penalty. The judge when giving the sentence is connected to the sin by ordering the death, while the executioner commits the sin by ending a life.

The sin committed by the judge is an 'anaththika' sin of commanding, while the executioner's sin is shown as 'sahaththika'. This is decided by the 'chethanava' (intention). It is difficult to decide whose intention is stronger. Sometimes it seems that the intention behind the execution, the 'sahaththika' sin is stronger.

In a case which is heard over several days or several hours it is difficult to gauge the judges exact feelings about the case. With regard to a heinous crime, after having heard the evidence, the judge may be incensed. It is difficult to assess the anger within the judge towards the killer. A verdict of death penalty given at that moment would constitute a powerful sin. If a man had in order to appease his children's hunger attempted to rob and in the process had killed someone , and if this killing was shown to be a premeditated murder he too would receive the death sentence. If when ordering his sentence, the judge is disturbed knowing he had killed only to ease the hunger of his children, and therefore hesitates when issuing the verdict the intention here would be much weaker.

Therefore the sin of killing varies in depth according to the intention which leads to the act of killing. The executioner engages in the act of killing by carrying out instructions given to him. He too receives different degrees of resultant sin based on the spirit with which he engages in the act. Therefore let alone a human being not even a god would be able to predict what resultant reaction (karma vipaka) will come upon the judge when delivering a death sentence, nor what resultant reaction (karma vipaka) will come upon the executioner when carrying out this death sentence.

Although some argue that since this occurs at the time the thought leading to the action is formed, and is due to the dictates of the law how then can it be a sin, it must not be forgotten that what is important here is the intention leading up to the action. The Buddha stated "chethanahan bhikkha ve kamman vadami" - the intention leading up to the action is what counts more than the act itself.

Without any fault of ones own due to a delay a life may be lost. If one did not have any intention leading up to this loss of life, this alone cannot cause one to bear the consequences of killing. To think that repentance and remorse can in any way lessen the resultant reaction (karma vipaka) of deliberate killing is a misconception. Some religions teach that by repentance one can liberate oneself from the sin. According to Buddhism this is an immature and unintelligent approach.

Therefore instead of repentance, Buddhism shows, "yassa kamman kathan papan kusalena phithiyathi". The meaning here is that the good that one does shelters one to an extent from any sin that one commits. Therefore instead of repenting, to decide not to repeat this sin and to do contradictory good deeds which will bring positive results is more important at this time. What is meant here by contradictory good deeds is to refrain from harming beings and to show loving kindness and compassion towards all animals.

This is explained when defining the first precept of Buddhism -

"panathipatha pativiratho hothi
nihitha dandho - nihitha saththo
lajji dayapanno sabbhapanabhutha
hithanukampi viharathi."

What is meant here by refraining from killing is the determination which leads to this. 'Dandho' means sticks and clubs. Get rid of sticks, clubs and weapons, and be ashamed to use them to kill. Develop sympathy, compassion and loving kindness towards all living beings.

According to this it is one's responsibility, irrespective of race or religion, to decide whether it is more important for one to repent the sin already committed, or else in the way the Buddha preached to act in a manner that will efface one's sinful act. Therefore if by some chance a sin is committed by a person, Buddhism implies that such a person is not a sinner for all time. If there is a person who has committed a sin in the past according to Buddhism he has no call to dwell in remorse. What he should do is simply identify the wrong he did as wrong, and act in such a manner as to reduce the resultant reaction by engaging in good deeds. These words of the Buddha reflect this meaning,

"achchayan achchayatho disva
yatha pachchayan karohi"

Part 2 of Dr. Tiruchelvam and the tragedy of Tamils by D.B.S. Jeyaraj

Citizen of the world but rooted in Tamil ethos

- Part 1 -

Subramaniya Bharathy the great Tamil poet of early twentieth century when glorifying the Tamil language sang "Maraivaaga Namakkul Palangkathaigal Pesei Payanillai, Thiramaana Pulamaienil Velinaattar Athai Vanakkam Seithal Vendum" (There is no use in talking about past matters among ourselves, if possessing merit it must be praised by foreigners) Although this was in reference to the merits of Tamil it also applies to Neelan Tiruchelvam and his Tamil detractors. While these so- called pseudo nationalist Tamils character-assassinate Tiruchelvam within the Tamils, International opinion that matters continues to respect and honour his life and work.

Contrary to the viewpoint that he worked against Tamil interests, Tiruchelvam was a man who had dedicated himself to the upliftment of the Tamils and the redressing of their grievances. Only unlike many of his abrasive and chauvinist kinsfolk he possessed a larger vision which realised that the ultimate well-being of the Sri Lankan Tamils was possible only in a united but not necessarily unitary Sri Lanka where all communities including that of his own could co-exist in a climate of peace, amity and harmony with justice, equality and dignity. Despite being maligned by extremist sections on both sides of the ethnic divide he strove relentlessly to achieve this goal until a misguided suicide bomber cut short a fruitful life on that fateful day.

It would indeed be a grave error for Tamils to feel that Tiruchelvam was not concerned about the Tamil plight or depict his principled issue-based support to the Kumaratunga regime's endeavour at Constitutional reform as a collaborative act. He was a moderate in terms of his adherence to democratic principles and abhorrence of violence. A salient aspect of his political philosophy was illustrated during his speech in Parliament on June 15 this year, opposing Capital Punishment. He said "I would like to express my strong moral opposition to this measure.... we cannot glorify death, whether in the battlefield or otherwise. We on the other hand must celebrate life and are fiercely committed to protecting and securing the sanctity of life, which is the most fundamental value without which all other rights and freedoms become meaningless."

This principled opposition to the politics of death, displacement and despair certainly did not make him a devotee of what is now described as the dominant mode of the Tamil political struggle. By his courageous and honest refusal to pay lip service to the so called armed struggle Tiruchelvam placed himself in the unenviable position of being perceived by the proponents of Tamil virulence as an opponent of Tamil rights. Of course other Tamil elements with their own petty axes to grind promoted this perception and projected Neelan in a negative light.

The crux of the matter is that Tiruchelvam was certainly not a moderate when it came to Tamil rights. By character, training and inclination he chose Constitutional reform as the mode of achieving it. Ranging from the time he wrote a dissenting report to the conclusions of the Victor Tennekoon Commission on Devolution to his efforts at Constitution making in association with the People's Alliance Government he has never ever compromised on the fundamental rights of the Tamils. He was a Constitutionalist but like the founding fathers of the USA, a revolutionary constitutionalist. The Tamil pseudo-nationalists criticising the draft constitution as a "sell out of the Tamils" are yet to present a coherent and effective critique on those lines. The draft in its original form was a path breaking exercise amounting to quasi- federalism in the entire South Asian region.

On the other hand the mirror images of the Tamil hawks within the Sinhala community seem to have identified the Constitution in the making as a potential threat to Sinhala chauvinist hegemony in the Island and until the time of his death were bitterly critical of Tiruchelvam. A point lost on his Tamil detractors.

Unlike many prominent Tamils who seem wittingly or unwittingly oblivious to the tragic Tamil predicament Tiruchelvam was a man very much concerned about it. Since political hypocrisy was not one of his attributes Tiruchelvam realised that the establishment of Tamil Eelam was neither desirable nor attainable. The pursuit of such a mirage through a violent compaign could only result in long term misery for the Tamils he felt. The fact that the arena of conflict was primarily the Northern and Eastern Provinces meant hardship and suffering of the highest order for the Tamils. Besides he was very worried about the dispersal of the Tamil community from their areas of historic habitation and their consequent relocation to other parts of the world.

"It is this permanent migration that would be the most detrimental factor to the well-being of the Tamils in Sri Lanka" was a constant comment of his. A reduction of numbers would result in diminished political importance he felt. In that context a letter by former Central Bank Governor N.U. Jayawardena that was published in a Colombo newspaper some time ago is relevant. Mr. Jayawardene in that pointed out two things. First he said that the Sri Lankan population would achieve zero growth by 2025 and stabilise itself. Second given the current rate of Sri Lankan Tamil outward migration its population percentage at that time would be only 1.9%. As such it would become a "Manageable minority" was NUJ's conclusion. The drastic long term effect of the conflict on the Sri Lankan Tamils is something that is either not realised or willfully ignored by the "Vocal Warriors" of the Tamil Eelam armed struggle. The question of whether the LTTE will win or lose the war becomes irrelevant in a situation where the Tamil population itself would become a feeble entity as it is already becoming. Those who proclaim triumphantly from their safe abodes overseas that the LTTE cannot be militarily defeated must ask themselves whether such a possibility falls within the objectives of their so called "enemy". The longer the conflict rages on the more the economy of the Tamil areas decline. Population decreases. In the final analysis the Tamil war that began with a bang will decay into a pathetic whimper. There was also the factor of geopolitical reality that was against the birth of a Tamil state on the Island. However much the sacrifice and valour of the tigers there was just no way they could achieve their goal in the long run. For these reasons and more Neelan Tiruchelvam was among those actively involved in trying to get the war suspended. He was also working diligently behind the scenes to get the government to resume talks with the LTTE. Tiruchelvam felt that only third party facilitation initially and subsequent mediation would succeed. This view that the war should end and talks with the Tigers should be initiated did not endear him to many sections of the government.

This coupled with his uncompromising stance on constitutional issues like changing the unitary structure of the state led to deteriorating relations between him and the upper echelons of the current regime. After his death many government figures are painting a glossy yet untrue picture of the situation that prevailed.

Tiruchelvam wanted talks between the government and LTTE for another reason too. He was realistic enough to know that the major player on the Tamil side was the LTTE. Because of their destructive capacity only the Tigers possessed bargaining clout that could extract maximum rights for the Tamils at the bargaining table he felt. Besides there was a humane aspect too. Though he did not agree with their aims or methods Tiruchelvam had a great deal of compassion and sympathy for the young cadres of the LTTE sacrificing themselves on the altar of Eelam. "It was a needless waste of young lives for an unwinnable cause" he felt. Although he has been demonised as a Tamil traitor working against the LTTE, history will record in the future that such charges were way off the mark. Although many Tamils are unable to see it now there will come a time when posterity will acknowledge and realise the value and importance of Neelan's current role.

The allegations made by Tamil sections against Tiruchelvam can be effectively countered only with the passage of time. In an environment where enlightened global opinion appreciates Tiruchelvam's positive role, it may seem incongruous to pay particular attention to the negative reaction among a section of the Tamils.

Nevertheless the fact remains that though the man was a citizen of the world he was rooted in the Tamil ethos. It would have been simple and indeed safer for him to ignore the Tamil plight and involve himself with other issues. Nevertheless he remained concerned and tried in every way possible to prescribe a political remedy that would cure the malady. It is therefore necessary that attempts be made to salvage his unfairly tarnished reputation among the Tamils. A start could be made perhaps by publishing the various Parliamentary Speeches he made and the memoranda he wrote on behalf of the Tamils. Also his role in Tamil politics should be placed in proper perspective.

Neelan Tiruchelvam's loss is irreplaceable and his life cannot be redeemed. But what can be done is to redeem his tarnished name among sections of the Tamil people. The bard of Avon in his immortal classic dramatises the eloquent oratory of Mark Anthony. Though Brutus and his cohorts had influenced public opinion to revile Julius Caesar, Anthony reverses the situation through adressing the people in that famous oration which begins:"friends, Romans, Countrymen ...." Likewise the good name of Neelan has to be salvaged and restored for posterity. This is the least that can be done for this gentle and noble soul who was indeed goodness personified while living.

inside the glass house:

Radhika report raps Taliban

By: thalif deen at the united nations

NEW YORK— Radhika Coomaraswamy, blacklisted by a paranoid US Governor who barred her from visiting women's prisons in the State of Michigan last year, has now taken on the mullahs of the Taliban-run government in Afghanistan.

The Sri Lankan human rights activist, who is the UN's Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, was denied permission to visit three Michigan prisons accused of widespread sexual misconduct against its women prisoners.

Although Afghanistan is not a country held out as a model for Western democratic values, its rigidly Islamic Taliban government agreed to a visit by Ms. Coomaraswamy who was mandated by the UN to probe human rights violations in the politically-troubled South Asian nation.

After a two-week tour of Afghanistan and some of the refugee camps in neighouring Pakistan, Ms. Coomaraswamy says the Taliban's 'Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice' is "the most misogynist entity in the world."

Harsh words, no doubt, but she may be right— judging by the mountainous negative reports on Afghanistan piling up at the UN. Ms. Coomaraswamy, who is Director of the International Centre for Ethnic Studies in Colombo, has called for the immediate dismantling of the notorious Taliban department that sets rigid moral standards for women in Afghanistan.

"Its edicts about women are completely unacceptable and in complete violation of all international human rights norms," Ms. Coomaraswamy complained last week.

The United Nations has been engaged in a long-running battle with the Taliban government, which has also been shut out of the 188-member General Assembly. The seat behind the name-plate remains unoccupied.

At present, only three countries— Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates— recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

The rest of the UN's 185 member states, including Sri Lanka, have withheld their decision to extend de jure recognition. Last year Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), became the first high-ranking woman to meet Taliban authorities and complain about restrictions imposed both on Afghan women and even on UN staffers.

The UNICEF head told Taliban authorities that she knew of no other country, including Islamic nations, where the official position was that girls be denied access to education.

The radical changes announced by the conservative and strongly Islamic government in Kabul restricting the movement of women have been misleadingly – and erroneously – attributed to the teachings of the Holy Quran and the Islamic religion.

Bellamy, who met Mullah Mohammed Rabbani, chairman of the Taliban Supreme Shura, said high-ranking Afghan officials asked for understanding of their customs, and had stressed that Western ideas could not be imposed upon them.

"I told them I was representing the United Nations, and I wasn't advocating a Western model, or any particular model they should adopt," Bellamy said. "The UN message was not a Western message."

Ms. Bellamy said the United Nations was also concerned over an edict which allowed non-Afghan Muslim women to work only if they are accompanied by their husbands or a male blood relative.

As a result of the restrictions, the UN has cut off much of its assistance to Afghanistan where an ongoing civil war has brought the country to a virtual standstill. Ms. Coomaraswamy said: "the widespread and systematic violations of human rights against women remain the official policy (of the Taliban government).

"I have never seen suffering like in Afghanistan," she said attributing the situation to the combined effects of 20 years of war and poverty in the country.

She points out that six years of allegations about violence against women – representing "the largest file" anywhere – have been accumulating at UN headquarters.

But she admitted that "the authorities seemed to be responding to the enormous international pressure and pressure from their own women."

She specifically refers to the existence of home schools as well as limited primary educational institutions for girls run by the Religions Ministry in Kabul. The Special Rapporteur cites several areas of discrimination against women which she was able to substantiate during her trip. These include violations of the physical security of women and the "unfortunate practice" of lashes and public beatings "with something that looks like a leather cricket bat".

She points out that there is also a continuos violation of the right to education, which she says, is "still very much of concern" to the United Nations. Moreover, she adds, violations of the right to employment by women have resulted in a rise in begging and prostitution in Afghanistan. "Afghan women have shown tremendous resilience under the circumstances," she adds.

Last year, UNICEF laid out the common UN position on Afghanistan: the Taliban government has to respect the privileges and immunities of UN personnel in the country and lift all restrictions on the movement of women working in Afghanistan.

But despite all the admonitions and threats, the battle between the UN and Afghanistan remains stalemated.

Return to News/Comments Contents