The Hindu : Paradigm shift in Sri Lanka?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jan 21, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Paradigm shift in Sri Lanka?

By V. Suryanarayan

The LTTE has not so far spelt out the constitutional framework that will fulfil its aspirations... A long winter of uneasy cohabitation is ahead.

Mortals, beware of words
with words we lie
can say peace
when we mean war

— W.H. Auden, A Hymn to the United Nations,

October 24, 1971.

IN THE press conference held at the end of the fourth round of talks between the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Bangkok last week, Vidal Helgessen, Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister, termed the ongoing negotiations "history in the making". Despite the camaraderie displayed by both sides, it must be pointed out that on crucial issues such as constitutional settlement and demobilisation of the LTTE forces, there was a virtual deadlock. The two sides, however, agreed to work out a schedule on less contentious issues such as humanitarian concerns and rehabilitation of internally displaced persons outside the high security zones (HSZs).

The "soft image" presented by V. Prabakaran and the LTTE during recent months has evoked keen interest in the international community. The bottom line of the LTTE, underlined by Mr. Prabakaran in his Heroes Day speech on November 27, 2002 — "if our people's right to self-determination is denied and our demand to regional self-rule is rejected, we have no alternative other than secede and form an independent state" — has been downplayed. On the other hand, Mr. Prabakaran's offer that "we are prepared to consider favourably a political framework that offers substantial regional autonomy and self-government in our homeland on the basis of our right to self-determination" was highlighted. After the Heroes Day speech and the subsequent talks in Oslo, there was a publicity hype and unprecedented euphoria. The Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, and the Minister for Constitutional Affairs, G. L. Peiris, characterised these developments as a "paradigm shift".

The peaceniks in Sri Lanka assert that the LTTE has climbed down from its uncompromising stance on an independent Tamil Eelam and has for the first time expressed its readiness to settle for a federal solution. This point of view is not true. On earlier occasions also the Tigers have expressed readiness to consider a federal solution. In an interview to Anandi Sooriyapragasam of the Tamil Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation on March 2, 1993, Mr. Prabakaran said: "If a federal scheme that recognises the territorial integrity of the Tamil homeland is put forward, we are ready to consider it. There are many forms of federal systems of Government with varying degrees of devolved powers. We are prepared to consider a federal system which provides for sufficient autonomous powers, that fulfils the aspirations of the Tamil people." Two years later, on February 5, 1995, in an interview to the Sunday Island, Anton Balasingham remarked: "There are different forms of federalism all over the world, with different levels of distribution of power. If an adequate federal model, which attempts to resolve the problems of the Tamils and the Muslims is put forward, we would certainly consider it." In another interview to the Sunday Island on March 26, 1995, Lawrence Thilakar, international spokesman of the Tigers, said, "if there is a federal solution, we will consider it".

However, the qualitative difference now is that both sides have agreed to attempt to find a solution to the ethnic conflict through a federalist alternative. As far as Colombo is concerned, since the term federal is a dirty word as far as large sections of the Sinhalese are concerned, it has tried to provide the substance of federalism in a unitary set-up. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, following the India-Sri Lanka Accord, was a paradoxical attempt to synthesise devolution with the unitary character of the Constitution. The end result was a mockery of the provincial councils. And as Prof. Peiris rightly put it: "In fact, we have no devolution at all; decentralisation yes, local government yes, devolution no".

The devolution proposals and the Draft Constitution of August 2000 prepared by the Chandrika Kumaratunga Government envisaged radical changes in the constitutional structure, especially in the realm of devolution of powers. Though the term federal was not mentioned, its objective was the creation of a state "consisting of the institutions of the Centre and of the Regions which shall exercise power as laid down in the Constitution". But the draft Constitution could not be pushed through, because of the negative stance of the UNP. What is more, the Tigers had already rejected these proposals; they characterised the devolution package "as a mask to conceal the Government's military intentions".

After the military debacle at the Elephant Pass and the sensational attacks on the Katunayake International Airport and air force base, the Tigers are negotiating from a position of strength.

Colombo is negotiating with an organisation that is in control of a "de facto state". The Tigers have a well-organised army and navy; they administer their territory with their own civil service, law and order machinery, taxation system and judicial apparatus.

The LTTE's objective was to extend its administration to the whole of the north and the east when it would be given charge of the internal administration. However, unforeseen developments — the Supreme Court decision on the respective powers of the President and Parliament, the simmering discontent among the Muslims and the determination of the armed forces not to allow the high security zones to be dismantled — acted as stumbling blocks to the LTTE's quest for unbridled supremacy.

One thing is certain. The Tigers will not, in the near future, agree to any arrangement, which would involve the laying down of arms and demobilisation of their armed forces. Mr. Prabakaran, like Mao, believes that power flows through the barrel of the gun. From the point of view of the peace process, with its objective of working out a federal model, the irony is that there is no federal state in the world where the federal units have their own armed forces.

The LTTE has not so far spelt out the constitutional framework that will fulfil its aspirations. However, a few years ago, A. J. Wilson referred to the constitutional proposals drawn up by a firm of London solicitors, Bates, Wells and Braithwaite, at the request of a group of concerned citizens of Sri Lanka in England. The proposals entitled "A Proposal for Peace with a Framework for the Constitution of Ceylon" had the tacit approval of the LTTE and were presented to the President, Chandrika Kumaratunga. The proposals did not even refer to the country as Sri Lanka but as Ceylon. According to Prof. Wilson, the gist of the proposals is the creation of a confederal structure comprising "two States, each being internally autonomous and each having its own internal constitution". A Central Council, consisting of an equal number of representatives of each State would act as the channel of communication and coordination between the two States. The Council will deal with foreign affairs, external defence and security of the Union, monetary policies including the maintenance of a common currency and a Central Bank.

It can, however, be emphatically stated that such a constitutional arrangement will not receive any favourable response from the Sinhalese political spectrum. A long winter of uneasy cohabitation is ahead of Sri Lanka.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Mindless harassment

A promising start

Paradigm shift in Sri Lanka?

Pseudo-secularism — II

Improving urban water supply through partnership