The 13th Amendment and the Bhutanization project

Rajiv Gandhi and Narendra Modi, united in hegemonic intent

‘This is the beginning of the Bhutanization of Sri Lanka’ — Rajiv Gandhi

President Ranil Wickremesinghe has called on all political parties to submit their views on the 13th Amendment.  He, more than anyone else, should understand that right now the legitimacy of all political parties (including his) and all politicians (including himself) is suspect (and I am being kind here). Nothing illegal about his ascension to the post of president, nothing illegal about 225 persons representing various political parties remaining in Parliament, but legality and legitimacy are two different things.

Of course one may interject, ‘that’s subjective.’ Correct. If subjectivity is key then there was no case against Gotabaya Rajapaksa and those who bring that argument will have to say that the entire aragalaya and all the aragalists were out of order.

We can talk legality though, if that’s what you want. We can point out that the 13th Amendment was illegally ‘enacted.’ It was the product of an agreement signed by J.R. Jayewardene under duress. Rajiv Gandhi’s India (like his mother Indira Gandhi’s India before that) funded, trained and armed Tamil insurgents. This allowed those who had no qualms about frilling grievances in order to pad aspirations willy-nilly to marry fiction and thuggery. India helped up the ante to a point where it could orchestrate pernicious intervention ‘as a friend,’ and ‘to help resolve a problem (which of course India helped create in the first place!).’

The narrative of territory embedded in and which signatures the 13th was clearly based on a piece of fiction propagated by Tamil chauvinists enlarging on S J V Chelvanayakam’s pithy formula, ‘a little now, more later.’ It sought to legitimize a fictional homeland theory replete with well-defined boundaries that were randomly drawn by an invader (the British) with no basis whatsoever in history (or even legend!).

History and heritage don’t support the claims. We can go back to 18th century demographic data through the first official censuses or we could go back to the 10th Century AD and the time of Raja Raja Chola I. India’s Ministry of Culture will testify that the Archaeological Survey of India refers to various temples built by Raja Raja 1 using wealth plundered from various lands along with the names of the conquered territories. This island on which Rajiv Gandhi foisted the 13th Amendment at gunpoint was referred to as ‘The land of the warlike Singalas.’

If all that is ‘in the past,’ and it certainly is, we could go to today’s numbers. Those lines referred to above rebel against demographic reality; almost half the Tamil population live outside the so-called ‘exclusive traditional Tamil homelands.

Those who advocate devolution and have championed the 13th Amendment, even demanding ’13 Plus’ are fond of referring to the Sri Lankan population as being ‘multi ethnic’ and ‘multi religious.’ Correct. Only, they don’t talk about percentages. If they did, they would have to come up with some kind of justification for the fact that as per the current demarcation two thirds of the coastline and a third of the landmass would be controlled in the name of a community that barely makes 15% of the total population of the country. Except that this community, as pointed above, while concentrated in the Northern Province and parts of the Eastern Province (even as of now, more than half this province is made of what in separatist parlance could be called ‘Tradition Homelands of the Sinhalese’). In other words, mixed cultures or cultures amenable to mixing is what has always been the case. That’s not the same thing as assimilation, which of course can  happen. In any direction.

Those who talk of the 13th and even 13th Plus, don’t dare talk about 13 Minus. The 13th precipitated an uprising that led to the death of around 60,000 people in just two years. The 13th prolonged a conflict for a further 22 years. The costs are incalculable. Those who want to hang the ridiculous charge of genocide (the Canadian Prime Minister and the Canadian High Commissioner both need to take Canadian History 101 and Canada Today for the Indegene 101 at some point, the sooner the better) on Sri Lanka talk about hundreds of thousands being massacred. Well, India paved the way for that. If you want to argue it that way.

The almost 40 years that have passed clearly indicate that provincial councils are white elephants (during C V Wigneswaran’s watch the Northern Provincial Council couldn’t even spend the budgetary allocation) headed by political thugs. Today, in the year 2023 the provincial councils are dead. No elections. No talk of elections. No ‘aney apoi’ from democracy advocates who can’t stop talking about power-devolution. Not a single protest from any party or community or region over this.

Ranil Wickremesinghe is smart. He’s asking political parties to offer their views. He probably knows none of these parties can come up with anything coherent. Perhaps he has calculated that incoherence would pave the way for him to shrug shoulders and ‘do as India says.’

What India says and what India wants is exactly what Rajiv Gandhi said, wanted and believed he could obtain: the Bhutanization of Sri Lanka.

If political parties are serious (and they are probably not, let us not have illusions here), they can give a response in point form: 1) List all grievances, 2) Evaluate the logic of devolution as 'the only and therefore necessary mechanism to alleviate grievances,' 3) Call for a historical audit to assess the validity of 'exclusive traditional homelands, 4) Assess progress made on resolving grievances enumerated at the time the Indo-Lanka Accord was signed, 5) Revisit the 13th Amendment thereafter and decide whether it should remain, be amended or repealed altogether. 

RELATED ARTICLES

Let's go for 13 PLUS!

If 19 is to equal 13+...

Time to face the music in Geneva  

The 13th Amendment: by thugs, with thugs and for thugs

The forgotten 13th bears upon the 19th and 20th 

The LLRC and devolution: the politics of skipping the caveats

Reconciliation and hallucination 

Representations to the LLRC

LLRC Proposals: let there by no foot dragging 

13, 13+ and 13-

Pluses and minuses of the 13th Amendment 

The 13th Amendment and moral obligations

20th Amendment without repeal of the 13th a recipe for disaster 

Let the court of history summon all perception-peddlers

It is time to abrogate the 13th Amendment 

Narendra Modi spikes the good neighbor drink

India's 'love'

India reconfirms enemy status

India in Geneva: friend, foe or navel-gazer?

Modi as 'gonibilla' and maverick's plaything

First get the lines straightened out Jayampathy!

Devolution talk and devolution talkers  

Physician heal the real and not imagined malady!

Read more

The 13th Amendment: by thugs, with thugs and for thugs

There are some uncomfortable truths about the 13th Amendment, devolution of power and of course provincial councils. Let’s begin with the here-and-now.

Provincial Council elections haven’t been held in years. It is more than 10 years since the Eastern Provincial Council elections were held and more than nine since they were held for the Northern Provincial Council. Did the people in the Northern and Eastern provinces complain? Did their representatives complain? Did any who have screamed for devolution for the last forty years raise even a whimper? Did those who make a living out of talking democracy, reconciliation, good governance, devolution and conflict resolution complain? Have those who are now, in the name of democracy, agitating for local government elections, ever insisted that PC elections be held? Did anyone say ‘constitutional provisions should be implemented?’

No. Simply, no. Humbuggery, yes.

Let’s go back to 1987. Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, soon to be assassinated by the very terrorist outfit he and his mother before him funded, trained and armed, in effect held a gun to the head of the then President of Sri Lanka, J R Jayewardene, forcing him to sign the Into-Lanka Accord and thereafter get the then parliament (made of parliamentarians who he forced to sign undated letters of resignation) to pass the 13th Amendment. The people were not consulted. There was no debate. Illegality was written all over the document, its enactment and implementation.  

It was an act of thuggery endorsed by a man who had excellent thug-credentials (having bashed heads of striking workers in July 1980, looked aside while thugs from his party’s trade union unleashed violence on Tamils in July 1983 and under whose watch two university students were killed in June 1984). And it was designed to further a cause of a bunch of terrorists. Simply, thuggery.

Most importantly, it wrecked rather than made easy administrative functions a case in point being agriculture, in particular agricultural extension. It has been estimated that on average no less than two-thirds of monies allocated to provincial councils have been used to pay salaries and maintain offices. Some PCs, like the Northern Provincial Council, couldn’t even spend all the money allocated to it in certain years. Simply, a white elephant. Nine of them in fact. Nine rogue white elephants.

Today there’s talk of the 13th Amendment being implemented to the letter, meaning police and land powers would be devolved. First of all, not only was the 13th Amendment imposed by a thug and illegally enacted by thug and his minions for the benefit of another bunch of thugs, it had nothing to do with ground realities. Devolution of power as a remedy to stated grievances is a monumental joke given geographic, economical, historical and demographic realities. We need not elaborate, but if you really believe in the Eelamist lie about 'traditional homelands,' you could read up on Raja Raja Chola I and how that particular marauder who had no stake in championing 'Sinhala chauvinism' described this island: 'the land of the warlike Sinhalas,' no less. 

That said it has acquired legitimacy, if not in the circumstances of enactment by affirmation through practice — all major political parties have contested provincial council elections at one time or another. Not because they agreed with the narratives of ‘grievance’ and ‘aspirations,’ but that they saw it as a means to advance political projects, as individual politicians and as collectives.

Two factors may have serves to dispel concerns regarding the 13th Amendment. First, the powers vested in the office of the president was the insurance policy against separatism. Secondly, land and police powers were never devolved. With regard to police powers, several amendments beginning with the 17th, in effect, made such devolution unnecessary. Land was not even talked about.  

Now, if we are to go with the intent expressed by President Ranil Wickremesinghe, we could very well see Chief Ministers of Provincial Councils having the kind of sway that even the President does not enjoy with regard to policing in their respective domains. Now there’s also the threat of each Chief Minister having the power to override all central government safeguards with regard to the protection of forests and the preservation of archaeological sites at will.

We do know that certain Chief Ministers belonging to certain ethnic groups have been averse to archaeology perhaps out of fear that wild narratives about what happened and creative historiography will be proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be absolute bunkum. We also know that parties such as the JVP have at various points in their history talked of tearing down stupas so that building materials could be put to other use. We had Sunil Handunnetti recently ridicule Buddhists for their preferred forms of worship. What such people in the role of Chief Minister could do should be reason enough to be wary, extremely wary about devolving land powers.

Forests! There are protected areas in all provinces. Even without land powers being devolved forests are being cut down, partly in the name of development and probably more extensively on the sly. Just imagine nine politicians (and we know that it is a profession favoured by crooks, thugs and the uncivilised) with police and land powers running their own fiefdoms. Pretty? Pretty grim!

A word about the JVP is necessary. The JVP gained much ground riding the general antipathy to Indian intervention and opposition to the 13th amendment. Sixty thousand (60,000) people, INCLUDING JVP LEADERS AND ACTIVISTS died in a period of two years (1988-89). The JVP now wants the 13th Amendment to be fully implemented, i.e. with land and police powers devolved. Perhaps we’ve seen the last ‘Il Maha Samaruma’ of the JVP. Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Co., will have to answer to all the party members, supporters and others who perished during the bheeshanaya.  Will Dissanayake say ‘those sahodarayas were a bunch of idiots back then!’

What should be done with a piece of legislation describable as ‘by thugs, with thugs and for thugs’?

Repeal. Simply, repeal. 

Relevant Articles

The pluses and minuses of the 13th Amendment

The 13th Amendment and moral obligations

The forgotten 13th bears upon the 19th and 20th

What of the 13th, 19th, Circular 5/2001 and the MCC Compact?

20th Amendment without repeal of the 13th: a recipe for disaster

The 19th, 20th and sanctimonious humbuggery

Raja Raja Chola and the quicksand of Tamil Chauvinism 

The 'Traditional Homelands' tells a story  

How about including 'Reparations'  in school curricula? 

 

Read more

India reconfirms enemy-status

Yes, we need peace. We need reconciliation. Such needs are the inevitable outcomes of conflict-end. Fixing these to exaggerated grievances and out-of-this-world aspirations and tying it all to a constitutional amendment obtained by a bully is unacceptable. Ridiculous, in fact. 

Indra Mani Pandey. Remember the name. He’s India’s Permanent Representative in Geneva. He’s no novice in matters diplomatic, having joined the service more than 30 years ago. He would have been old enough even before that to know what’s what in Indo-Lanka relations, if he was inclined at the time to educate himself about international relations and in particular South Asian affairs.

So, to cut to the chase, when someone like Pandey says something about Sri Lanka, we need to take note. He has explained why India abstained on the vote against (yes) Sri Lanka at the UNHRC sessions and thereby has told us how India sees Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan issues and Sri Lanka’s future. We must thank him for being forthright: ‘we are grateful, Indra, for the honesty!’ The cheers stop right there, though.

Pandey waxes, not too eloquently: ‘India has always been guided by the two fundamental principles of support to the aspirations of the Tamils for equality, justice, dignity and peace and unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka.’

Always? Really? Why then did India arm, train and fund separatist terrorists? Was that to strengthen unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty? India was clearly intent on destabilising Sri Lanka. Indeed India was a major part of the problem. And, thereafter, we had the problem-creator (or problem-enhancer, if you want to be generous) stepping in to resolve the problem. Indra is a funny guy, folks. India is a funny country, one might say, except that there is nothing funny about doing everything possible to prolong an unnecessary conflict, directly or indirectly paving the way to death, destruction, dismemberment and displacement of a magnitude beyond calculation. Three years before Indra entered the service, India stepped in to effectively bail out the terrorists.

Yes, the Indo-Lanka Accord. Indra knows or has learned about it at some point, for he talks of the 13th Amendment. More waxing sans eloquence:  ‘While we have taken note of the commitments by the government of Sri Lanka on issues of implementation of the commitments in the spirit of the 13th Constitutional Amendment, meaningful devolution and the early conduct of provincial elections, we believe that the progress towards the same remains inadequate.’

Right. Here goes. The 13th Amendment was imposed on Sri Lanka at gun point by India. Rajiv Gandhi bragged at the time that it was the beginning of the Bhutanization of Sri Lanka. That’s a weird understanding of unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity, right? Let’s talk about commitment though.

India reneged on her commitment to disarm the terrorists. Sri Lanka had to do India’s job and it took a further 22 years. India should shut up about ‘commitments’ especially since India has enjoyed the advantages scripted into the Accord all these years, even after getting a BIG ‘F’ on the one thing India was supposed to do.

How about devolution? Well, on paper it’s not a bad thing, except of course that the relevant territorial demarcations rebel against demography (almost 50% of Tamils live outside the Northern and Eastern provinces), history (lines were drawn by European invaders arbitrarily) and economy (the Western Province’s contribution to the economy is a massive slice and if one pushed the logic of ‘devolution’ to any reasonable conclusion, other provinces will remain relatively impoverished). As for provincial council elections, none of the diehard devolutionists (well, they are really federalists or separatists) have agitated for them to be held over the last several years. Let’s not forget that the Northern Provincial Council couldn’t even spend monies allocated. All it did was to give legitimacy to an Eelam Map that symbolised just one thing: attempted land-theft by one particular ethnic group.

Aspirations. Indra talks about them. He has to, since it’s one of the two ‘fundamental principles of support.’ Tamil aspirations, someone should tell Indra, was essentially a desire to annex two-thirds of the coast and half the land mass for a little more than 5% of the population (considering almost half the so-called ‘Eelam Tamils’ live outside ‘Eelam’. Do the math, Indra/India. Maybe an Indian analogy would help; it would be like Muslims in India aspiring to have control over a territory equivalent to the sum of Rajastha, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat. That's an equivalency the likes of Indra would dare not consider.  

Yes, we need peace. We need reconciliation. Such needs are the inevitable outcomes of conflict-end. Fixing these to exaggerated grievances and out-of-this-world aspirations and tying it all to a constitutional amendment obtained by a bully is unacceptable. Ridiculous, in fact.

Indra sweetens the apology by talkie of India’s provision to relief, rehabilitation, resettlement and reconstruction efforts in Sri Lanka and assistance provided this year to mitigate the economic crises. Well, thank you. Very much. Still falls way short of compensation India ought to pay for all the miseries unleashed on Sri Lanka by hegemonic, arrogant and moronic Indian leaders though. Indra should know, because lately India has been belligerent in demanding reparations from Britain. The histories are different of course, but costs are costs, aggressors are known and if justice is about redress then India owes much and talks not at all about all this.  

So, in sum, Indra played a typical Indian card in Geneva. A lot of poppycock and hardly disguised enmity. Not surprising.

malindadocs@gmail.com

Read more

The forgotten 13th bears upon the 19th and 20th

Draconian. A plan for self-aggrandizement. The death of democracy. In violation of established parliamentary procedure. These are some of the terms and lines being used by those opposed to the 20th Amendment.

What’s funny is that most of the objectors played deaf-dumb when the 19th Amendment was brought in and were cosy with the executive presidency for decades or else supported the party that had absolutely no objection to it. For decades.

Ideally there should be balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the state. The 1978 Constitution wrecked that balance. Ideally, then, any regime that has secured a two-thirds majority or is confident of getting the arithmetic right at voting time should go for a new constitution rather than fixing anomalies through amendments. This government is confident of the numbers obviously; otherwise it wouldn’t go for an amendment. Why then an amendment and not a new constitution is a question that the government needs to answer.

That said, if the discussion is about the merits and demerits of the 20th Amendment in terms of the fears/whines expressed by the politically compromised and/or regime-loyalists who throw in issues such as executive powers when in fact their objection is limited to the dual-citizenship issue, then we need to consider the 13th, 19th and 20th amendments together.

Why the 13th, one might ask. Well, of the 13th Amendment the following must be mentioned: illegally instituted, an example of abject cowardice on the part of the then regime and a necessary building block for the Eelam case. The one thing that stood in the way of the separatists was, ironically, the executive presidency. A weak obstacle, but nevertheless a spanner in the works.

The 19th, whether or not the architects and approvers appreciated the above, was in effect a blow that targeted this obstacle. We are referring to the pruning of executive powers here. Sure, it was an exercise to transfer power to the office of the prime minister. Personal/party agenda obviously blinded people to the dangers. That is, if indeed such issues were important to them. My hunch is they were clueless and didn’t care either.

However, the 19th, by diminishing the executive presidency, effectively laid the foundation for another push for separatism, perhaps in ‘happier’ overall conditions. Now a strong government where there’s no confusion regarding who is in charge, where there’s ‘the executive’ is not split between two political groups, there’s nothing to worry about, one can argue. One can also interject ‘what if we have a president who is in line with the separatist agenda and chooses not to exercise executive options?’ Yes, that’s a problem, but then again, it stands to reason that such an individual can only become president if the voters themselves are generally agreeable to a division of the country, a weakening of the state etc., etc., in their wisdom or ignorance, as the case may be.

As things stand, however, the focus should be on the role of the executive, the power vested in the office etc., in relation to the real dangers embedded in the 13th Amendment. This, in addition to correcting the hideous and obvious confusion caused by the 19th regarding the various residences of executive power, which, among other things, facilitated the Easter Sunday tragedy.

Of course, if one is for separatism this is not a problem, and indeed many of the objectives are fixated on devolution-beyond-the-13th (at least the NGO personalities making noises these days). It's not a position that the allegedly horror-stricken objectors in the Opposition articulate, however.

Is the President going to be vested with dictatorial power upon the possible passing of the 20th Amendment? That’s a question that must be addressed. The Supreme Court determination on the matter is clear. The Supreme Court has recommended an amendment to Clause 5 (which is about immunity for the president) that would allow for the people to invoke jurisdiction of the SC under Article 126, where there’s alleged violation or alleged imminent violation of a Fundamental Right due to an act of the President. The Government is now forced to incorporate this suggestion or else go for a referendum on the matter.

[That is if this government doesn’t do a yahapalana number with the Supreme Court determination; the yahapalanists, contravening all established procedure, made sweeping changes to the draft 19th Amendment. It was virtually a different document. Here’s an aside within the aside: those who talk of procedural impropriety today were dead silent back then.]

So, in other words, if the correction is made, in conjunction with the retaining of term limits, the executive presidency would revert to the pre-2010 status or less. Note, that back then, i.e. before the 18th Amendment was mulled, few if any had drastic issues with the executive presidency. There was some noise, but certainly no shouting.  Sarath Fonseka, for example, didn't talk of abolishing or pruning the executive presidency and neither did his backers at the time.

Back to the 13th. The 13th Amendment is about provincial councils, at least in the operationalization of it. Provincial council elections haven’t been held in years. No one seems to mind, not even the diehard devolutionists, not even the democracy-or-death types who wake up whenever their political darlings are in trouble. So, one can ask, ‘what’s the issue then; if we don’t have the PCs, then this business of weak powers or no powers for the president is a non-issue, surely?’

Well, the problem is in the fact that illegally enacted though it is, the 13th is a part of the constitution. If it goes, we could even do away with the executive presidency and perhaps return to a pre-1978 Westminster system of government. It hasn’t gone away. It is there. Sleeping, for now, but can be roused; if roused in a context where there is an impotent or crippled executive presidency, it would be a beast.  

the drafting of a new constitution could sort out the matter, of course, but those in the opposition who are opposed to the 20th Amendment haven’t uttered a word about such an exercise. Ideally, as mentioned, the government would just move to shelve the 20th and go for a new constitution. There’s talk of a new constitution six month from now, but that’s just whisper as opposed to the shout that is the 20th Amendment. In the here and now, it’s about the 20th and if ‘executive’ is the bone of contention, then those who want a chew of it should take a few licks at the 13th. Unless of course they are doing nothing more than petty politicking (at which they have considerable experience, let us note). 

[This article was first published on October 22, 2020]

 malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

Narendra Modi spikes the good neighbor drink

 

Which country would not be happy if another country said ‘we have a you-first security policy?’ The cynical have the option of retorting ‘most countries would be terrified if, for example, the USA said something like that.’

The world is not flat. Not all countries are equal in terms of financial might and fire power. So when Sri Lanka says that she has an India-first security policy, it’s almost like saying ‘don’t worry, we will align ourselves with your interests and we will not shift loyalty.’ India-first is essentially ‘China is not first.’

India’s Deputy High Commissioner in Colombo Vinod K Jacob has found this ‘encouraging.’ Would India feel encouraged to be still more in-your-face, is that what he means? He could be thinking ‘encouraged by the prospects for better relations,’ but we know that countries love themselves, not others. Others, they use, if they can, and subdue if they can’t.

The generous reading is as follows: Sri Lanka understanding that India, having cottoned on to the Belt and Road Initiative rather late in the day, is jittery about China (so is the USA and this is what the ‘Quad’ which includes Japan and Australian is all about), offers an assurance, a good neighborly gesture.’

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has responded (and how!) in a virtual bilateral summit with the Sri Lankan Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa. Pleasantries were exchanged first. They did the we-are-old-friends number. Rajapaksa listed recent Indian gifts, said ‘thanks.’ Modi eventually got down to business. He called on the new government 'to work towards realizing the expectations of Tamils for equality, justice, peace and dignity within a united Sri Lanka by achieving reconciliation nurtured by implementation of the Constitutional provisions (as in the 13th Amendment).’ This, he believes, is non-negotiable if there’s to be peace and reconciliation.

When ‘should’ is used instead of ‘could,’ it is presumptuous. It’s like Modi saying ‘Thanks for having an us-first policy, but we are not saying “you-first” and neither are we budging from positions we have taken — just do as we say!’

First, the background. India imposed the 13th Amendment on Sri Lanka. India intervened at a point when the Sri Lankan security forces had cornered the LTTE and the military defeat of terrorism was imminent. All this after India had (perhaps worried about the then Sri Lankan government’s pro-US stand) worked tirelessly to harass Sri Lanka; India funded terrorist outfits, armed and trained them. When Sri Lanka took the hits, didn’t collapse and in fact was about to overcome the threat, India moved in. The terrorist threat, which was hours away from being eliminated, flourished for 22 years more. Tens of thousands perished. India hit national dignity. India cost us dearly.

The fact of the matter is that we’ve functioned without the principal product of the amendment, the provincial councils, for several years. No one is complaining.

And yet, Modi pins Tamil aspirations to the 13th Amendment and insists that this is how we get peace and reconciliation! As though India was ever interested in ‘Tamil aspirations’! The then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi wanted to Bhutanize Sri Lanka. High ups in the Indian Peace Keeping Force said it was a victory to stump Tamil parties and get Trinco and not Jaffna as the capital of the North-East.  It was about Indian foreign policy prerogatives. 

India inserted clauses to subvert Sri Lanka’s right to commerce with other nations on matters of security. The accord sought to concretize random boundary lines in terms of a homeland claim that has no basis in terms of history, archaeological record or demography, effectively helping turn myth into fact. It was illegal to boot.

The bill was presented in part to Parliament.  A 9-member bench of the Supreme Court could not conclude on constitutionality. They were divided 4-4. It took a Chief Justice (who happened to be a Tamil) to interpret the opinion of the 9th member in favor of ‘constitutional’.  The Provincial Council bill was passed immediately after the Indo-Lanka Accord was signed, as though father and son were birthed together!

Most importantly India failed to deliver on its side of the bargain. India failed to get the LTTE to join the democratic process by laying down arms. The disarming was eventually done by Sri Lanka. So, in effect, Sri Lanka did India’s work for her AND Sri Lanka continues to affirm her side of the bargain as scripted in the Indo-Lanka Accord. A win-win situation for India, a coup some would say.

Modi has told Rajapaksa about a ‘united’ Sri Lanka. He believes the 13th would do it. Well, the LTTE rejected it. They wanted more. Modi forgets that constitutional enactment does not necessarily yield unity and more crucially, ‘united’ is not a constitutional term. It’s descriptive of levels of solidarity within a well-defined sphere. Modi, knowingly or unknowingly has adopted the Eelamist vocabulary. Eelamists use the word ‘united’ to mitigate antipathy regarding the term ‘federal.’ It sounds like ‘unitary’ but has nothing to do with such an arrangement.  

So where do we stand now? Sri Lanka has gone the extra mile (the you-first gesture). India has said ‘thank you very much.’ India has not been moved by the gesture. Had India said ‘thanks bro, you do your thing, we won’t interfere — just leave China out of it,’ it would have been enough.

It’s like taking a hand extended in friendship, gripping it firm, emptying the vocabulary of a diplomat’s guidebook and then using the other hand to deliver a slap.

 

It’s all disingenuous. India’s ‘Kashmir Policy’ is a cuss word. One doesn’t have to take sides on the conflict here, but Modi’s moves regarding Kashmir clearly haven’t taken into consideration ‘expectations of Kashmiris for equality, justice, peace and dignity within a united India by achieving reconciliation nurtured by implementation of the Constitutional provisions so necessary for peace and reconciliation.’

Good neighbors often chat during unplanned encounters at property-boundaries. A bad neighbor jumps over the fence, stomps over the flowers and condescendingly tells his/her neighbors that their happiness depends on following his/her blueprint for success, taking care to engineer a situation where the neighbors are hesitant to form/strengthen relations with other neighbors.

Narendra Modi played 'bad neighbor.' It’s not a good thing to play one neighbor against another. There’s a commonly used Sinhala phrase that illuminates: apita apey paaduwe inna denna. ‘Paaduwa’ refers to loss. So, it means, ‘alright, we’ll take the hit, but don’t worry about it….just don’t interfere.’

 

malindasenevi@gmail.com  

Read more

Provincial Councils and the silence of the federalist ‘lambs’

M.A. Sumanthiran of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) makes much of caveats in the proposed constitution that makes ‘division impossible’. The call then is for a new constitution where ‘indivisibility’ is scripted in. 

That’s lovely. On paper. Politics doesn’t happen on paper and neither are constitutional proclamations worth the ink they are written on (if you have doubts, think ‘19th Amendment’). 

Loveliness on paper can be misleading. In this instance it is a clear sign to be cautious simply because it is Sumanthiran who is doing the decorations.  Let me elaborate.

A little over a year ago, Prof S. Ratnajeevan H. Hoole, in an article titled ‘On wise verbal concessions in the art of negotiations’ published in the Colombo Telegraph, salutes Sumanthiran for being clever with words.  Hoole, the TNA’s nominee to the Election Commission, noted that Sumanthiran had told him privately that ‘problems of negotiation should be approached judiciously without being hung up on words that can be inflammatory’.  

Sumanthiran had pointed to Article 18 of the constitution as an example of this ‘brilliance’: ‘While 18(1) says Sinhalese shall be the official language of Sri Lanka, Article 18(2) brilliantly goes on to subvert it saying that Tamil shall also be an official language. If we had been stuck on objecting to 18(1), Tamils could never have been liberated through 18(2). It is an oxymoron like 18(2) that can make Tamils get powers to take decision on those matters that concern our well-being through participatory governance.’

The problem with Sumanthiran is that he says one thing in one place and something else somewhere else, says something and says something else later. For all his ‘unitary’ posturing, he did state vehemently at the Parliament debate on the interim report of the Steering Committee of the Constitutional Assembly (as reported in the Daily Mirror on November 2, 2017) that the TNA wants a secular and federal Sri Lanka. He has not pointed out, as he did with respect to Article 18, that the non-secular clause (Article 9) is made meaningless by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).

Anyway, it seems a bit confusing. An indivisible federal state doesn’t sound right, especially when the indivisibility is marketed as keeping the unitary nature intact. Sumanthiran is word-playing here and we don’t need Hoole’s congratulatory observation to know it. 

Federalism comes from the late Latin word foedus, which means treaty, compact or contract. Interestingly, it comes from an older Latin word, fides, which means ‘trust’. Trust is not something we have here, Sumanthiran as Hoole explains unwittingly is not to be trusted, or rather, his words are oxymoronic and deliberately so. 

Politically, a federation refers the coming together (ok, on the basis of an agreement, based again on some degree of trust) of two or more distinct political entities. While we have the problem of Tamil nationalists, wide-eyed liberals (many of whom are rabidly anti-Sinhala or anti-Buddhist) of using demarcation lines that have no basis in history and are not derived from any important geographical factors, there are other issues that rebel against such an arrangement: a) demography (almost half the Tamils live outside the so-called exclusive traditional homelands), b) vast sections of the Eastern Province and considerable territory in the Northern Province are traditional homelands of Sinhalese, c) the archaeological evidence indicates that the North and East constitute the heartland of Buddhism in the island, and d) the alleviation of grievances (shorn of embellishment and exaggeration) does not necessarily require devolution. 

Importantly, the ‘coming together’ of it immediately creates the logic for ‘coming apart,’ never mind ambiguous caveats about indivisibility. We could have court determining that the ‘indivisible’ clause (stand-alone) is subservient to the ‘divisibility’ encrypted in the very definitions of division of power (context). Yes, like the 19th Amendment, where court determined that the power to dissolve is made meaningless by the removal of the power to devolve in the very same piece of paper! 

So we are compelled to suspect that the following are the key components of Sumanthiran’s game plan: 1) ‘Oxymoronize’ the constitution, 2) Get it approved through a referendum, banking on seemingly harmless wording (in isolation), 3) Get the Supreme Court to see it in context and not isolation, 4) a constitutionally federal Sri Lanka, and 5) separation (following the time-tested Chelvanayakam mantra: ‘a little now, more later’). Maybe Sumanthiran will not be around to wave the indivisibility flag by that time or maybe he will be silent and say ‘I simply changed my mind because, as any lawyer would tell you, circumstances alter cases’. Hoole, tellingly observes, ‘words do not matter so long as we get what we need!’ That’s Hoole on Sumanthiran. Need we say more?

We do. 

Why is Sumanthiran and the TNA silent on Provincial Council elections not being held? Why is the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) silent? Why are the born-again democrats, candlelight ladies and funded-voices silent? Are elections, in their minds, anathema to them? Are they not important elements of democracy? Is it that they are more camouflaged UNPers than anything else and are hell-bent on saving their political masters/heroes the blushes? 

That’s an aside, by the way. What’s pertinent is that the devolution-voices are dead silent when it comes to the provincial councils. We’ve gone more than a year since term-expiration in relation to three councils and several months in relation to three more. The country hasn’t collapsed. The people have not protested about the relevant representational-deficit.  In short, PCs or no PCs, things are fine. They weren’t needed in the first place (India stuffed them down our throats). They served only politicians and political parties. They were veritable training grounds in crookery for politicians seeking even better pastures. 

We can do without them, Sumanthiran, the TNA, the JVP and the UNP have in their silence and their complicity in the non-holding of election, have proven. The President wants them but let’s not fool ourselves that he believes in the virtues of power-devolution. The same goes for the Sri Lanka  Podujana Peramuna (SLPP). They are looking for legitimacy and political momentum, nothing else. 

What’s clear is that the people are not interested in devolution. As of now, only Sumanthiran is keen on it. All moves for a new constitution, therefore, need to be seen as being key elements of Sumanthiran’s political agenda, and subscription to it by Tamil Nationalists can only be surmised by their silence and tacit agreement. And, in his case, it’s not just any kind of devolution he’s proposing.  He’s going for broke. He’s batting for federalism as a necessary precondition for division. It’s easier, compared to armed insurrection, let us not forget. 

Let us not forget and let us not be swayed by flowery language and assurances made meaningless by a virtually acknowledged strategy of subterfuge. As for provincial councils, it’s high time that the truth is recognized: they never worked and they are not needed. Out with them, and with the pernicious 13th Amendment to the Constitution! 

RELATED ARTICLES

Sophomoric legislators cannot fix constitution-flaws

Some new projects for funded-voices, candlelight-ladies and born-again democrats

A 20th amendment without repeal of the 13th a recipe for disaster

Provincial Councils, anyone?

Let the court of history summon all perception-peddlers 

malindasenevi@gmail.com.

Read more

20th Amendment without repeal of 13A: A recipe for disaster

‘Stand Alone’ is a term that was used a lot during the discussion on the power of the president to dissolve parliament. The issue was whether the clause preventing dissolution until Parliament completes four and a half years supersedes the surreptitiously inserted clause permitting dissolution. That insertion was pernicious as was the entire 19th Amendment, clearly introduced for partisan purposes by the chief architects, meaning representatives of the United National Party and the Tamil National Alliance (Jayampathy Wickramaratne and M.A. Sumanthiran respectively). That the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) voted for it should be noted and seen as an example of political puerility.  

Well, that’s been resolved by the Supreme Court. At the end of the day, much heartache  was caused to diehard UNPers thinly disguised as born-again democrats. They are cured now and the chances are that they will retire their democratic urges until the party’s political future is next threatened. 

There were positives. The notion of a ‘national government,’ in effect rather than in constitutional edict, was sorted out. The UNP plus the Sri Lanka Musilm Congress will not add up to ‘national government.’  So, although the ‘national government’ clause was inserted (against surreptitiously and against the grain of ‘good governance as well as rhetoric regarding cabinet size), the cabinet will be limited to 30. Secondly, the post of Leader of the Opposition went to the true Opposition instead of a staunch pro-government adjunct, the TNA, that is currently a tail wagging the dog as the adage goes.

There’s a third positive. It’s a positive that might jog the memories of retired leftists who’ve found lucrative positions in the NGO industry, have long since forgotten class struggle, have no qualms about being quiet on capitalism and would love people to believe that the UNP is the vanguard of the democratic revolution. Simply, Maithripala Sirisena is the first President of the country to actually speak up against neoliberalism.  

His word? Well! But that’s a different matter. It’s a small positive, that’s it.

The talk now is about the Executive Presidency. That’s where the ‘stand alone’ matter comes into play. People talk about the Executive Presidency as the Mother of All Anti-Democratic Evils. 

Make no mistake, there’s nothing angelic about the executive presidency. On the other hand, we need to remember that it is not the only evil around. And, as evil goes, it has its redeeming features, especially with respect to what I consider the most pernicious piece of legislation to follow J.R. Jayewardene’s constitutional tinkering exercise, i.e. the 13th Amendment.

The people of this country were conspicuously absent(ed) in that process. It was thrust down our throats to resolve a mis-defined ‘conflict’ and (partially, according to some, including the aggrieved) exaggerated grievances.  And today, ladies and gentlemen (especially those chest-beating ‘democrats’ who came out of the woodworks recently), no one seems to really care about Provincial Councils. Six PCs are effectively non-functional. The terms of three more will expire in a few months. Not even the TNA, a party that wants more than what the 13th gave by way of devolution, doesn’t appear to mind the current state of affairs. As for the people, they have not uttered one word of concern.  

That said, the 13th is still a part of the Constitution. This is where the 20th Amendment (which proposes to abolish the Executive Presidency) comes into play. The executive president is a key part of the 13th Amendment because it carries the safeguards against moves by provinces to break away.

Any move to abolish the executive presidency that does not at the same time address the impact of such an amendment to the operationalizing of the 13th is erroneous and irresponsible. Patali Champika Ranawaka’s party, the Jathika Hela Urumaya has consistently reminded lawmakers and others of this danger. What Ranawaka has to say now will indicate to what extent the party (and of course he himself) has dissolved its ideology for political profit.  

A related issue is the fact that it would be a travesty of justice if these 225 Members of Parliament touch this constitution. Sure, that’s part of the Job Description as per the constitution, but they’ve demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that they are absolutely incompetent. 

Only one member, Sarath Weerasekera, objected to the 19th Amendment, let us not forget, and that is as mentioned above a piece of garbage.

Moreover they had the opportunity to do away with the executive presidency (Note: Sirisena’s manifesto mentioned ‘change’ and not ‘abolish’). They didn’t. Events proved that the 19th, as far as pruning presidential powers, was eyewash. The checks introduced, namely the independent institutions, constituted a monumental joke considering the composition of the Constitutional Council (politician-heavy, federalist-heavy) and in terms of the appointments they oversaw (bypassing seniority in appointing judges for example).  

Today, after being stumped by the hero-turned-zero Sirisena, those who used him and turned a blind eye to his many faults, want to bulldoze his office. That’s what it boils down to. And that’s exactly the wrong reason to engage in constitutional reform. You don’t do things just because you like the immediate beneficiary or because it helps you checkmate with a political opponent. 

That’s the logic that has prevailed in the 40 years that passed after the Second Republican Constitution was instituted. Apart from the 17th, it was all about political expedience (leaving out the 13th because it was extracted from a weak UNP President who, like his successors didn’t have faith in the citizens of this country) and not about the larger interests of the nation. 

This parliament has outlived it’s usefulness on account of incompetence, subterfuge and downright disrespect for the people. They’ve prostituted the word ‘democracy’ enough. They are not to be trusted. Today, the movers and shakers in Parliament are essentially the Jathana Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the TNA, the former a shameless lackey of the UNP and the latter operating as though the UNP is its lackey.  Both parties have terrorist pasts: the JVP in 1971 and in 1988//89 and the TNA as the mouthpiece of the LTTE. They are batting here with the UNP, which while in power unleashed terror and ‘disappeared’ some 60,000 Thajudeens, Ekneligodas and Lasanthas.  The SLFP has it’s own violent history (1971). All these parties have shamed themselves to the point that they really don’t deserve the right to use the word ‘democracy’.  

Ideally, the people should have the opportunity to state their opinion of this lot in a General Election. This side of such an eventuality, it is appropriate to point out the danger of constitutional tinkering by this Parliament. The 20th, as proposed, is a mischievous and dangerous document which can only make sense if the 13th Amendment is repealed simultaneously.  

The UNP, fighting shy of holding even PC elections, ought to salivate at the prospect of not having to face the people before a General or Presidential Election, but this is not about the political tastes of a particular party. It is about sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is also about the blood and lost body parts of all those who fought against separatist terrorists. That memory must also be factored in.  

If true representational democracy, territorial integrity and sovereignty are babies, then you can make a case for calling the executive presidency ‘bathwater’ but let’s not forget that the baby will be at risk of all kinds of infections if you throw THAT bathwater out whilst keeping the toilet wash that is the 13th Amendment.

malindasenevi@gmail.com. www.malindawords.blogspot.com 

Read more

Provincial Councils, anyone?

The terms of the North-Central, Eastern and Sabaragamuwa Provincial Councils expired in September 2017 and those of the Central, Northern and Northwestern Provincial Councils will end this September.  As of now, there’s no sign that the Government is interested in holding these elections. 

Perhaps being decimated at the local government elections in February 2018 has made the Yahapalana bigwigs wary of facing the people. Perhaps they feel it’s best to wait for a winner-takes-much General Election of a winner-takes-even-more Presidential Election rather than risk another debacle that would take away whatever oomph is left in the regime, we don’t know for sure.  The government is sitting on the matter, that’s clear. 

The Chairman, Elections Commission, Mahinda Deshapriya is not pleased. He knows what’s happening. He has summoned representatives of political parties and told them that he had informed the Local Government and Provincial Councils Minister Faizer Mustapha not to delay the PC elections any longer, it is reported.  It is also reported that he had vowed ‘to take stern action’ if elections were postponed.  

Perhaps this ‘stern action’ includes taking the matter up in courts, we do not know.  In such an eventuality what the courts would determine we do not know either. I wouldn’t bet on either Deshapriya or the courts.  

The Yahapalanists are terrified of facing the people. This is clear. Those who want to oust the Yahapalanists, i.e. the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna, don’t seem interested in provincial council elections either, but for different reasons. 

They have gauged the temper of the electorate. They can factor in a further decline in the popularity of this regime. They can do the relevant arithmetic. Perhaps they are confident that they are politically poised to capture power in a major election. ‘Why waste resources, then?’ they might have asked themselves. Makes sense. 

That, however, is politics as usual. More about power than about democracy. More about political fortunes than about basic principles.  We can talk about all relevant political forces being disinterested about the importance of holding elections on time. We can talk about how postponement costs those who do the postponing. Sirimavo Bandaranaike and the SLFP were swept out in 1977. J.R. Jayewardene and the UNP caused a bloodbath in the eighties. The Maithri-Ranil coalition were humiliated in February 2010. However, there’s a small matter than is being ignored in all this.

Chairman of the SLPP, Prof G.L. Peiris, put a finger on it.  He said ‘people would question the practical need for provincial councils if the government delayed elections to them any further.’  Well, it is not that the people have not had reason to question the practical need for provincial councils until now. After all they were thrust down the people’s throat by a belligerent neighbor with a salute and courtesy from a weak leader, J.R. Jayewardene.  Peiris’ observation, however, is interesting, not because it might make the people ask questions, but the near absolute silence on the part of diehard devolutionists about the implications of not holding provincial councils.

The North Central, Eastern and Sabaragamuwa provinces did not dissolve and disappear from the map of Sri Lanka in the 10 months that have passed since the relevant provincial councils ceased to function.  It is unlikely, also, that the Central,Northern and Northwestern provinces will collapse into utter chaos or that there will be rampant famine, war and such.  

The point is, these provinces are not worse off than they were when the relevant PCs were functioning. A study into the before and after of it all would probably reveal that there are other factors which impact the wellbeing of the people and the economy of the area, and that the PCs are in fact far less relevant than they are made out to be (e.g. warranting an invasion, the imposition of constitutional amendment).  

Now the argument can be made that effectiveness has been blunted by not implementing the 13th Amendment to the letter. However, the counter argument can be made if unnecessary medicine does nothing the remedy is not to prescribe a bigger dosage. 

The second and more telling point is that this delay in holding elections has not prompted any howls of protests from those who treat devolution as an article of faith. They are not the least bit bothered, it seems.  But why not?  

Have they dropped the conviction that devolution (plus) is a non-negotiable for reconciliation and peace? Have they found other income sources, those who considered devolution ranting their bread and butter? We don’t know.

However, when the previous regime held provincial council elections in a staggered manner, we did here the so-called civil society cry out in horror about democratic principles being violated. One can’t help imagining what they would have said had the previous regime postponed PC elections. It would not have been about democracy alone that they would have screamed. They would have tossed in devolution, reconciliation, majoritarianism and what not to spice up their agitational soup. 

So why, this silence?  Well, it looks like their thinking is shaped by the political logic of the Yahapalana government and in particular the UNP sections within it.   Is ‘Whatever Ranil says’ the framework within which they have to (or prefer to) operate? 

If they are not interested and if it doesn’t make any difference to the citizens (including those in the North and East), then why not scrap the 13th altogether? That’s where we are at.  The fortunes of parties and politicians do impact our lives, unfortunately, but if something positive were to come out of the postponement of provincial council elections, then let it be the acknowledgment that they really don’t matter. 

Let’s spell it out: a) provincial councils have no overwhelming impact to warrant their existence, b) the administrative apparatus despite flaws, delivered, c) no one is upset about elections not being held.  It’s time to take all this to the logical conclusion: repeal of the 13th. Less politicians to rob, less money wasted on bodies that do nothing of any serious consequences, a more healthy citizenry.  

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. Twitter: malindasene. 

Read more

Let the Court of History summon all perception-peddlers

Dayan Jayatilleka is absolutely opposed to any move that goes beyond the 13th Amendment (in terms of power-devolution).  ‘Not even a single millimeter!’ is he ready to concede.  He adds a caveat: ‘even the implementation of the 13th amendment must be gradual and conditional on conduct.’

The ‘conduct’ element has been prompted by a recent speech by the Chief Minister of the Northern Provincial Council, C.V Wigneswaran, delivered in Jaffna to an audience that included some British parliamentarians and members of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. 

Percipere: seize, understand

In that speech, speaking on ‘reconciliation,’ Wigneswaran makes the pertinent point that it is ‘mind-oriented’ as opposed to reconstruction, which is physical.  Therefore, he argues, that one has to appreciate the role of perceptions.  Thereafter, he proceeded to list the relevant ‘percepts.’  Let us note, parenthetically, that the word ‘perception’ derives from the Latin ‘percipere’ which means seize or understand.  

Perspective, in the sense the word is used, is about regarding, understanding or interpreting something.  Objectivity is not assumed, naturally.  In other words, we are not talking about claims that can be or need to be substantiated. 

Anyway, Wigneswaran proceeded to lay out the percepts which, as per his own preamble, would permit others to dismiss as ‘sheer lunacy,’ given different perceptions (if we are to be generous to Wigneswaran).  Dayan has picked the appropriate Voltaire quote here: “if you believe absurdities you will commit atrocities”.   Appropriate because Wigneswaran is not calling for an audit of perceptions in terms of historical evidence (including, if he so wishes, community-glorifying literature, but certainly not limited to such ‘tracts’).  Appropriate, also, because he is essentially mimicking his predecessors in the line of Tamil chauvinists — drawing heavily from the politicizing script of tall tales, creations and/or exaggeration of grievances and the painting of myth and rank falsehood as truth and historical fact.  But let’s put all that as ‘perception’.

Wigneswaran’s exercise clearly and unabashedly is one of setting up preamble to the statement of objective, namely ‘federalism’.  This is how he puts it:

“The Sinhalese are allergic to the term federalism since the politicians of both communities have created the belief that federalism is separation or federalism leads to separation. Both ideas are incorrect. Federalism joins together disparate entities of people. This perception of the Sinhalese that Federalism is separation and/ or leads to separation has stood in the way of reconciliation.”

Now the above can be dismissed as ‘perception’ or can be countered by a painting of ‘Tamil (chauvinistic) beliefs’ and relevant ‘allergies’.  We can then demonstrate that Tamils and not Sinhalese have stood in the way of reconciliation.  But if we were to strip the federalist ‘imperative’ (couched inside a narrative about perceptions) of its racial frills, we have to contend with the issue of ‘disparate entities’.  That, of course, makes imperative a historical audit or a comprehensive assessment of all claims, ‘perceptions’ if you will.   It will, for example, force us to examine the ‘logic’ of provincial boundaries; i.e. whether or not they contain ‘historical communities’.  All of Wigneswaran’s claims (and of course the claims of other chauvinists, Tamils and also Sinhalese) would have to be ‘strained’ through such an audit to obtain something rational to frame reconciliation with.  

It is clear that Wigneswaran would not want this for if he did (because, say, he was actually convinced that his claims would stand the test of scrutiny with respect to historicity) he would have been the first to call for a historical audit.  Instead, he wriggles around it.  He says, quite pompously and self-righteously, “Lots of our Tamil leaders would shudder to say these truths (sic) for fear they would hurt the feelings of the Sinhalese,’ and adds, ‘by not informing the truth we are consolidating the wrong perceptions fed into the Sinhalese mind.’   

He would have to concede the equal pertinence of a perception along the following lines: ‘Tamil leaders would shudder to utter such preposterous claims for fear that they would be called out for lunacy.’  And this: ‘in truth Wigneswaran is consolidating the perception that Tamil chauvinists such as himself are not interested in reconciliation because they are not interested in eliciting the truth of history-claims.’

This brings us back to Dayan’s ‘conduct clause’.  If Wigneswaran (or anyone else) conducted him/herself in non-lunatic ways (let’s say), should the 13th Amendment be implemented?  The problem is that if we were to probe ‘conduct’ on the basis of lunacy (and there can be many strains to this malady) and the truth-value of history-claims, then we should begin with a review of the 13th Amendment itself by questioning its preamble which, we all know, was obtained from Tamil chauvinist narratives and not from the outcome of a historical audit. 

Of course there are grievances which were and still are real, but for the solution to be a map-based one, then lines have to have history-worth especially since the overall narrative is history-laden.  In any event, quite apart from history, the relevant geographic, demographic and economic elements need to be factored in.  The 13th clearly did nothing of the kind.  

My contention is that a sober laying out of facts would necessitate a review of the 13th Amendment.  Such sobriety would have to include a consideration of claims, tall or otherwise, uttered by the sober or by the lunatics.  Wigneswaran, as things stand, doesn’t seem to be interested.  He is not engaging with the Sinhalese.  He is not interested in the truth. Perceptions dressed up as biblical truth constitutes political bread and butter, one might conclude.  He can peddle absurdities because he can afford to do so.  

He can crank his fairy-tale machine and serve these to a naive audience of foreigners predisposed to a) believing minorities never lie and b) terrorists are actually freedom fighters if they are doing the killing in some other country.  He can do that because it costs him nothing.  He is no fool.  He knows what is what.  He is not interested in reconciliation. He would go with ‘atrocity’ if that’s what it takes to remain politically relevant.  

However, if anyone is truly serious about reconciliation (reconciliation peddlers please note!) then why should there not be a serious discussion about claims?  Why not call for it?  History, as I have argued frequently, ought to chair the reconciliation process if not for anything because (let’s humour him!) Wigneswaran is clamouring for it.  Let the man and his words stand trial before we talk ‘reconciliation’.  The issue of ‘conduct’ would no doubt be resolved in the process along with the the more important issue of conflicting claims (perceptions, if you will).

RELATED ARTICLES:

Wiggy missed a train

Wigneswaran and the resolve to hate

NPC resolution a threat and an opportunity

Let's listen to Wigneswaran

The quiet and shout of the racist label

President Sirisena has spoken (on Eelam myth mongering)!

The 'National Question' and the vague-speak of 'Tamil Moderates'

Wigneswaran and puppeteering with ghosts

Sinhala and Tamil traces in an island history

Wigneswaran: the judge who forgot 'the whole truth'

Read more