I think a multi-ethnic Sri Lanka under a functional constitution would be a nice place to live. The Constitution defines certain fundamental rights, but there are also responsibilities. One is the sovereignty and very existence of a Sri Lankan state. Basically, to get the benefits of a Sri Lankan nation, you need to be loyal to it. Amidst the talk of power sharing under the 13th amendment people forget the 6th. That explicitly makes it illegal to even advocate for a separate state. It’s a bit harsh, but I don’t think you can have one without the other. Rights come with responsibilities.
I don’t support Tamil Nationalism any more than I support Sinhala Chauvinism. I am a Sri Lankan with friends and family of different races and religions and I don’t have any interest in a living situation based on race. Furthermore, many of the people I see advocating for a Tamil nation are comfortable ensconced in Colombo or abroad whereas Tamil people I meet in the north just want to travel freely, including to Colombo.
I support a national civil rights movement for all Sri Lankans, and I think Tamils are the ones getting disproportionately hammered under current Emergency Law. However, I don’t think a Tamil Nation is the answer to this. I think it just deflects the fundamental human questions into ones of racial rancor and pride. Borders and cleansing may separate people but it’s a small island and we ultimately have to live together. To that end, I think we need to strengthen Sri Lanka, and it’s Constitution. That means, on one hand, granting our Fundamental Rights to all Sri Lankans (including IDPs). These rights include the right to travel, to get government service in a national language, etc.
On the other hand, however, people also have the responsibility to accept the Sri Lankan government. Not this particular government, but just the fact that we do have an elected government and a legitimate state. And then to work through the government to address grievances and vote it out whenever possible and necessary. But I think that basic acceptance of Sri Lanka is a prerequisite to actual positive change.
Saying that the whole thing sucks and these guys are assholes (as I have said) is not especially mature nor productive. I mean, OK, then what? Personally, I think we need to work this thing out as united Sri Lankans through mutual respect and whatever institutions we have. To that end, I really wish Neelan Tiruchelvam was alive, that the LTTE hadn’t assassinated him. Because I think he’s the kind of clear-headed compassionate thinking we need today. To quote Radhika Coomaraswamy after his death:
His idealistic belief that he could persuade Machiavellian governments to do the right thing was often criticised and ridiculed. Only those closest to him knew that such an attitude stemmed from his belief that moral persuasion and dialogue were the only way forward, not rancour, bitterness or armed conflict.
Indeed.
It could be that the Tamils in the North are just too troubled by the lack of basic facilities to take a holistic view of their position as a Sri Lankan minority community. Maybe they would join those in Colombo and abroad in demanding more concrete changes if they were elevated above their current level.
Constitutional reform under a united Lanka is essential. But in this regard, the government has not proven to be any less bullish or obstinate in denying reason than previous governments who contributed to the creation of the ethnic issue. So it’s not surprising that they are called assholes.
Yes. After all, what the patriotic people are supposed, and expected to do, and to always work within a system. But wait, didn’t I hear someone tweet a while back, and if my memory serves me right, “has heard enough about Tamils this and Tamils that. These are not Tamil issues they are Sri Lankan“. Ah yes, because ALL Sri Lankans were instantly suspected of being terrorists, and ALL Sri Lankans are now suspected of sympathising the Eelaam.
Aacharya summed it up properly when he said “What Tamils face as Upendra Baxi would put it (whose lecture you attended today) is not a problem of equality before the law, but one of lawlessness. All 300,000 of those detained are Tamils, and there is no law that provides for it. Disappearances, extra judicial killings etc are issues of lawlessness which can’t be addressed in an individual rights framework. The larger issue is of the Sri Lankan state not wanting to recognize its plurality in the way state power is exercised. Hence the identity that you want everyone to subscribe to – the Sri Lankan identity in its political form is also conterminous to the current framework of the sri lankan state which as explained above is an excluding one.“, which you can read here.
I think many Tamils may abandon the concept of a Tamil Nation, if they feel included within a ‘united nation’.
At the moment they have the same rights as illegal immigrants and are broadly viewed as such.
Dinidu: Indi doesn’t ignore that – he did make the point that “Tamils are the ones getting disproportionately hammered under current Emergency Law.” He also explains why an independent Tamil Eelam isn’t the solution to that.
It’s like this: Tamils in Sri Lanka have a problem, and it is principally a problem that’s experience mainly by us. So we’ve been defining it as a Tamil problem. But because we’re a tiny population without powerful friends, it’s not a problem we have the power to solve on our own. So for the past few decades, we’ve been trying to make it the Sinhalese’s problem too by making them hurt the way we feel we’ve been hurting. That’s gotten us nowhere. We need to try something different because – no matter how you nicely you dress up what’s just happened as a glorious victory for the whole nation over terrorism – we still have a problem, and it’s a problem that principally affects us and not the Sinhalese. Making the Sinhalese hurt hasn’t worked and won’t work. The only other option is to make them care. Trying to redefine it as a shared problem – focusing on the point that it’s Sri Lankans who’re feeling the pain, and that that is or should be a problem for all Sri Lankans – is a start.
Indi, you’ll be pleased to note that this reluctant member of the diaspora is now planning a return. I’m too old, sick and tired to actively involved myself in the problem any longer, but there’ll always be things I can do if I’m over there which I can’t do here. And, less rationally, my recent trip to Colombo made me realise that Sri Lanka is home, and the only place that can ever be home. It’s much the same feeling I used to get coming back to SL from Tamil Nadu as a child for the school holidays, and I’ve gotten to the age where I don’t want to resist that sort of an emotional bond.
I don’t get your point and I think that Aacharya’s comment is verbose to the point of being incomprehensible. I still consider the denial of fundamental rights to any Sri Lankan a Sri Lankan issue and an affront to our Constitution. I don’t think framing it as a ‘Tamil’ issue is the best way to secure those rights. They are civil rights, which all Sri Lankans deserve.
// Trying to redefine it as a shared problem – focusing on the point that it’s Sri Lankans who’re feeling the pain, and that that is or should be a problem for all Sri Lankans – is a start.//
Very Well said.
No one can win in a zero-sum game in Sri Lanka or in any other country. Tamil right movement has to start as none zero-sum game. And it can be done.
Er, why do you think the fundamental rights provisions and the 6th are mutually complementary? Where do you get this idea? Did you just look at the 6th, like what you saw, and decide you, like JR,(who after 1983 wanted to pretend the problem was one of Tamil secessionism and not Sinhala-state violence)wanted to make that blatant violation of free speech the condition for enjoyment of human rights? Honestly, lay off the constitutional interpretation for a while Indi. It’s getting tiresome.
And for the nth time, talking about a Tamil nation is not secessionism. I think you will be a lot less pissed off with Tamils. and a lot less racist if you realised this. I think we can promote a lot more harmony between the races if we can just educate illiterate and semi-illiterate Sinhalese that nation does not mean state, and vice versa. Shall we start a campaign together? You can be the first project.
come one now, you can do better. just because it’s heavy doesn’t mean you can’t comprehend it. i know. the propoganda has saturated our minds with political garbage, but let’s put on that thinking cap shall we. yes, it is hard, but you can do it!
Oh, i asked you this before and you never answered it. What theory of legitimacy do you use to confer legitimacy on this government. You conceded the absence of rule of law, so social contract goes out of the window. Let me know?
I think the issue is not about you understanding what i have said but you not wanting to understand.
I have like to a kid explained why the individual rights framework to the Tamil problem wont work here on your blog. http://indi.ca/2009/07/tamil-rights-are-civil-rights/#comment-234170 Sam or you havent been able to respond to this so far.
You say,
“Furthermore, many of the people I see advocating for a Tamil nation are comfortable ensconced in Colombo or abroad whereas Tamil people I meet in the north just want to travel freely, including to Colombo”.
For God’s sake do not assume. I am from the North if you like. My parents and borther live study and work in Jaffna. But you wont listen. You will listen to only what you want to listen. I mean have you ever had a serious political chat with any Tamil? Do you realise that all supporting you here on this blog are also Diaspora people or Colombites?
“To that end, I think we need to strengthen Sri Lanka, and it’s Constitution. That means, on one hand, granting our Fundamental Rights to all Sri Lankans (including IDPs). These rights include the right to travel, to get government service in a national language, etc.”
This is just pure ignorance. Arent these already there? Now IDPs have no rights under our constitution? really? WTF are you on about. Its purely being stupid.
I challenge all your conscience. Lets switch roles. If this had happened to Sinhalese people would you guys have come this soft on a Tamil Govt? Would you all have said: “this is a Tamilealam issue. We need to give Sinhala IDPs their rights. There are no such Sinhala issues but TamilEalam issues?”
Aadhavan and Aachcharya, your arguments seem to rest on me being somehow stupid or ignorant. I am quite possibly wrong but I am not stupid. I have learned not to assume that of anybody, especially people I’m arguing with. I don’t assume that you’re stupid and I’d appreciate the same respect.
If it makes you feel any better I have had political discussions with Tamils from Vavuniya, Jaffna, Trinco and Batticaloa. In Colombo I’ve talked to people around Kotahena and Wellawatte. Some discussions are obviously less candid than others. I visit the IDP camps at least once a month and have phone contacts in the camps that I talk to almost weekly, though usually about mundane stuff.
I can understand the nuances between a nation and a state but that does nothing to assuage common Sinhala fears of violent secessionist. In my opinion it’s not a battle worth fighting. If you want to get into it, the best examples I can find of nations that aren’t states are the Kurds, the Basques, and the Palestinians. All of which are demanding different degrees of secession with different degrees of violence. So I don’t support a Tamil nation. I support a Sri Lankan nation-state.
I understand that if I was the minority and this was happening to me I’d be a lot more pissed off. It’s easy for me to be dispassionate because it’s not me or my family that pays the real price. At the same time, however, if certain Tamil people find it difficult to negotiate with me I think they’ll find it impossible with the people in power. These people, incidentally, are not stupid, nor are the voters that support them.
Me personally, I am trying to find a platform which can appeal to both sides, namely civil rights for all Sri Lankans. More than anything this seems to piss everyone off online, but people I talk on the ground seem to generally agree. We’re all Sri Lankan and we all deserve the same rights. And we have a lot of work to do, notably in communicating to each other with mutual respect.
I didnt call you stupid. I called the argument stupid. As for ignorance i was seriously outraged by the last two posts. I have tried to explain and you have dismissed me as being verbose and incomprehensible. Mine hence you would appreciate was a natural response.
Indeed it looks like you are telling the Palestinians to give up the struggle for a Palestinian state, though i am not for a separate Tamil state. For me Sri Lanka should be a state accommodative of all its nations and peoples. A forced attempt at creating an identity that lacks content is a sham idea for me. I dont understand what you mean by a Sri Lankan nation state. I have painstakingly referred to my arguments in a comment to your other blog post as to why this individual rights framework wont work and hasn’t worked. The argument on your side is i have talked to people. and that you reflect their thought. How am i supposed to counter that?
You want us to come up with an argument that appeases the majority. You seem to argue that you have to make the argument to them in a way that pleases them. You are probably right on this. But 1) it offends my sense of justice and 2) i dont think it will work. Indeed the minorities in this country are more than ever before in the post independence history of this country at the mercy of the majority. At this point Indi i actually feel absolutely hopeless. But life and work has to continue. I ask you to reflect on the past and think of the contribution that you are making to this debate. I am afraid you are unconsciously playing into the hands of those who argue that Tamil people in this country have no problems. If that is what you desire i quit from this space. Thanks for reading. Always with respect, Aachcharya.
//I mean have you ever had a serious political chat with any Tamil?//
Having a serious chat in Sri Lanka with anyone with deferent views always a challenge. Normally those serious chats end accusing each other’s sexual orientation or something similar, but sometimes they tend to end up with sentences such as “i quit from this space”. so you should set an example and should not quite :)
“Normally those serious chats end accusing each other’s sexual orientation or something similar”
Sam you are brilliant.
I said i will quit if Indi tells me that by taking the position articulated in his last two posts on this subject, he is ok if it means playing directly into the hands of people who actually deny that Tamil people have problems. For God’s sake read.
:)
Why should it be illegal to advocate for a separate state? Is it so bad to say this, in a peaceful and democratic way? I recall reading that a politician recently said that parties with the word “Eelam” in their names should change their names or be banned, or some such.
I don’t know what kind of country you want this to be, Indi. I get your pragmatist approach but sometimes you sound a little too Dubya where you used to be kinda like Obama…
Yes, “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”, but we should not deny those freedoms unreasonably. Northern Ireland, Scotland, and many other places have devolved governance now, and they have secessionist parties in their parliament, but it all works. A pluralistic democracy shouldn’t ban a certain point-of-view if it is expressed in a non-violent way. Should it?
It’s like laws against Holocaust Denial – which I don’t agree with. However unsavoury I may find anyone’s views, I strongly believe that they should be able to express them freely and without prejudice – isn’t this the ideal we should be aspiring to?
The problem is that unlike the Europeans and Americans, the Sri Lankans never fought against monarchy. So they are not entirely averse to the negatives that follow from monarchy/what pretty much equates to monarchy – e.g. one-family rule, massive corruption, etc. On the other hand, people in the West have rejected monarchy in favor of parliamentary democracy , where the rights of individuals are not decided by the King, but clearly delineated in the Constitution. And it’s extremely taboo to try and mess with the Constitution, the way Rajapakse did.