posted July 06, 2000 01:06 AM            

BALASINGHAM - INTERVIEW

While asserting that India has an active role to play in Sri Lanka, LTTE idealogue
Anton Balasingham told S M Murari that New Delhi cannot play that role so long as the LTTE remains a banned organisation.

Anton Balasingham, the LTTE's idealogue since the inception of the organisation 25 years ago, feels an independent Eelam may well become a reality in his life time. In an exclusive interview at his suburban home in Streatham in South-East London, he told S Murari of Deccan Herald that the political package put forward by the Sri Lankan government is totally unacceptable.

DH: Why have you rejected the package even without looking at it?
AB: When the package was first made public in 1995, we felt that it had severe limitations and failed to meet the political aspirations of our people. We were the first political movement to reject it. We have been insisting that any political solution should address our key demands articulated in the Thimpu declaration. To elaborate further, the package was reformu- lated in 1996 and the final draft was presented in 1997. Now the UNP and the PA are discussing the final draft. In these five years of reformulating the draft, lots of powers originally proposed to be allocated to the Tamils have been whittled down. Now we find that the package as it stands is totally unacceptable not only to the LTTE but also to the other Tamil par- ties. The TULF has openly said it is unhappy about it.

Where we differ is that the problem should be treated as a nationality issue. Sri Lanka is try- ing to treat it as a minority prob- lem. We are of the view that the Tamil people of the north and east should be construed as a nation with their own language, culture, history and contiguous territory, components which constitute a nation.

The package serves the interests of the majority commu- nity and fails to address the nationality or ethnic issue. It is part of a new constitution which reinforces the interests of the majority by upholding the supremacy of the Buddhist reli- gion and the Sinhala language, ignoring the fact that the Tamils also have their own religious and cultural identity. It is not a secu- lar constitution. Nor is it federal in that it envisages only regions and a centre. Further, the package gives the President the extraordi- nary power to dissolve a regional council which, in his or her view, is acting prejudicial to the inter- ests of the State.

After having struggled for the past 50 years, 25 years peacefully and 25 years through an armed movement, we cannot accept a solution that is not permanent.

Given the fact that the Sinhalese have abrogated so many pacts in the past, the LTTE has to be extremely careful. After having sacrificed 70,000 civilians and 15,000 fighters, we cannot just accept whatever is offered by the Sinhala establishment.

DH: The LTTE launched Operation Unceasing Waves when the Norwegian initiative was underway. Now, by rejecting the package even without looking at it, will you not be giving credence to President Kumaratunga`s charge that you are a war monger?

AB: The cur- rent offensive has nothing to do with the peace initiative.

Norway had been trying for the past one year to broker peace.

We found there was no common ground for starting negotiations.

We suggested a ceasefire to create conditions of normality and mutu- al trust. But the Sri Lankan gov- ernment was not agreeable to it.

They said lets talk while we fight.

So the war was going on and the LTTE's Operation Unceasing Waves Three is a continuation of this. Sri Lanka wants to annihi- late the Tigers. During the last five years, they had taken over Jaffna and quite a large extent of area in the Wanni region.

Everyone thought the LTTE would be finished and kept quiet.

But when we fought back and regained all the territory in Wanni last year and then moved back to Jaffna, everybody was panic stricken. The panic is quite unnecessary as what we see now is status quo ante 1995. It is not a deliberate attempt on our part to disrupt the peace process but there is an ever widening gap between the Sri Lankan govern- ment and the LTTE.

We don't trust the government. The govern- ment wants to crush us. The Sinhalese people treat us as enemy No 1 and feel we have to be wiped out. So we have to fight back and survive.

We can't lay down arms after 50 years of strug- gle.

DH: Won`t rejecting the package at a time when the international community is taking an active interest in the issue give you a negative image?

AB: It is the right of any libera- tion movement to articulate the views of its people whether the international community likes it or not.

DH: Ms Kumaratunga has made it clear that if you don`t accept the package, she will nevertheless push it through Parliament. What options will you have in such an eventuality?

AB: Chandrika has a scheme of things to do within a timeframe and she expects others to fit into it. She has wasted five years and now in the last moment, she is pushing through a set of constitu- tional reforms to suit her own interests in elections. We are say- ing it is a very complicated, intractable problem.

You have talked to the Sinhala parties for five years and you want to give just two weeks to the Tamil Tigers.

We are not saying we want a new Constitution. We are not a political party but a national movement and 70 per cent of the land mass in the north and east is under our control and we have the backing of the people.

DH: You say the Thimpu principles, which includes right to self-determination, can be a basis for negotiations...

AB: The Thimpu principles are totally misconstrued. Right to self- determination means we might choose to associate with the Sinhala government or accept a federal autonomy. Sri Lanka should not see self-determi- nation as a right to separa- tion.

It only means that the Tamil people have the right to decide their own political destiny. Accept the principles first and let us negotiate.

DH: The Thimpu principles were enunciated in 1985. But ypu atleast initially accepted the 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka agreement which envisaged only provincial autonomy against the regional autonomy now on offer. Why do you think the package is not even worth considering?

AB: The Indo-Sri Lanka accord had several positive features. It recognised the north and east as Tamil homeland by declaring they were areas of historical habita- tion. It temporarily merged the north and east.

Now the unit of devolution is yet to be agreed upon. You want to have an interim council when you are saying you want to solve the problem permanently.

You talk of a referendum to decide if the east should be per- manently merged with the north.

If the majority of the Sinhalese and Muslims vote together against such a merger, it will mean bifurcation of the north and east. That is an issue we cannot accept.

Even though the Indo-Sri Lanka agreement also envisaged a referendum, we were pressing for a permanent merger and discus- sions were held. If we accept regional council and lay down arms, what is the guarantee that tomorrow the president will not dissolve the council?

DH: After the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, there has been a paradigm shift in India`s stand towards the LTTE. But there is renewed interest in India now about the Lanka developments. Do you think India can play a mediatory role?

AB: I will say India has a role to play.. it is a regional super power and we cannot wish it away. What we feel is our struggle will not undermine India's geo- political interests.

We have already formally said we will never do anything that will be prejudicial to India's inter- ests or interfere in its internal politics. There is apprehension in India that the Tamils' struggle for a separate Eelam will have reper- cussions in Tamil Nadu. I think it is an over-exaggerated fear.

India is a federal state and there is no oppression of Tamils like we are facing in Sri Lanka.

There is no demand for separation in Tamil Nadu. Our struggle is entirely different. We don't want to create any kind of pseudo- nationalist parties in Tamil Nadu.

We need India, we need the sup- port of the Indian people.

Both sides may have made mis- takes in the past. We want to for- get them and enter into a new relationship with India. We feel we are a friendly ally of India.

Presently, India is supporting the government of Sri Lanka and there is no link between the Tamils of Eelam and the Tamils of India. But India cannot play an active role so long as we remain a banned organisation. We recog- nise India's predominance in the region and we look forward to the time when it will lift the ban on our organisation.

DH: In 1989-90 when you entered into an understanding with President Premadasa, you said it was an internal problem of Sri Lanka and India had no role to play and it culminated in the withdrawal of the IPKF. Why do you look to India now?

AB: When we entered into negotiations with President Premadasa, we were on the brink of destruction. The IPKF had taken over the entire north and east and the LTTE and Prabhakaran were fighting for survival. So we entered into an understanding with Premadasa to escape from total annihilation.

Now the situation is totally differ- ent. For the past ten years, India has practically abandoned the Tamils. But now there seems to be renewed interest in the wake of the escalation of the violence. We are willing to accept India's role.

DH: Your aborted negotiations with Mr Premadasa as well as Ms Chandrika Kumaratunga have exposed you to the charge that you use the negotiation process only to regroup and strike again. What have you to say to that?

AB: The LTTE does not have to bide for time to regroup or reor- ganise. We are an organised polit- ical force and we have even grown to the extent of a semi-conven- tional army. It is not as though we want to break talks and start fighting. We are not that mad. We go on fighting because we have no other alternative. We are fighting to survive.

The Sri Lankan government is rounding up Tamils not only in the north and east but also in Colombo and plantation areas and so many atrocities are being com- mitted. But the Indian media is completely ignoring them. The monumental tragedy of the Tamil people, how they are facing up to genocidal oppression by the Sinhala State is not portrayed.

Whether the world supports us or not, we are fighting for the rights of our people.

Otherwise, we cannot have sus- tained this movement for 25 years.

DH: India and the US favour a negotiated settlement within the framework of a united Sri Lanka. Both have banned your organisation because of your pursuit of politics of assassination as an instrument of your struggle. Can you sustain your movement and achieve your ultimate goal without international support?

AB: It is true both the US and India have banned us. But for dif- ferent reasons. India and the US have their own geo-political rea- sons.

Sri Lanka too has banned us.

We realise it will be a difficult task to gain international recogni- tion. We have to rethink and ret- rospect and overcome the odds.

DH: Do you think there is any prospect for peace in the island?

AB: The Sri Lankan govern- ment is determined to pursue the military option. It is buying a lot of modern weapons and is recruiting and training a large number of army person- nel.

They feel they can destroy the LTTE and push through the package. But the Tamil people are unhappy with the package. So we see no prospects for talks.

DH: Do you think Eelam will become a reality in your life time?

AB: We already control 70 per cent of the territory in the north and east and most areas of Jaffna are now under our control. We are not going to keep quiet. We will take Jaffna and that will give us our cultural capital.

DH: Do you think the Sinhala establishment will keep quiet even if you are able to completely eject the Sri Lankan army from the Jaffna peninsula? Do you think that in the next few years you will have enough military force to retain territory?

AB: Why do you think we can- not retain territory. We already do control vast areas, including in the east. We will build up till we achieve our goal. I am confident of that.

*****

Rejected at the outset

While Sri Lanka`s ruling con-People's Alliance (PA) and the main opposition party, the United National Party (UNP), arrived at a consensus to set up an interim council to administer the north-east, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) has warned that any move to set up an interim administra- tion would prove to be a non- starter.

In an interview to the Tamil 100/-Guardian, LTTE idealogue, Dr Anton Balasingham said that the LTTE would not allow the interim council to function. He wondered how the interim administration could work when the north-east provincial administration had not been able to function even under the Indian army.

"We have already instituted a de facto State in the territories under our control. We run a per- manent administration there. We are not that stupid to seek a few seats in a temporary administra- tive set-up renouncing our peo- ple's only means of defence .i.e.arms," Mr Balasingham said.

Last week, the PA and UNP had agreed to set up an interim admin- istration in the north-east, with the proviso that at the end of five years, a referendum would be held on the merger of the two provinces. The proposal was rejected by seven Tamil parties.

The concept of an interim coun- cil was initially mooted by the Eelam People's Democratic Party (EPDP) of which Douglas Devananda, Jaffna district MP, is the leader. The EPDP made its proposal to the government requesting that an interim council be set up in the temporarily merged province. Devananda said that this would set the stage for a permanent solution to the ongoing crisis. It was widely believed that in the event of such an interim council being set up, Devananda would be made the chief of the council. But none of the other Tamil parties agreed to this.

With the exception of the EPDP, all the Tamil parties have rejected the idea of creating an interim administration.

According to N Srikantha, leader of the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation (TELO), an interim council is not neces- sary at present. Following discus- sions with the UNP, the govern- ment must place before the LTTE a comprehensive political pack- age. What is important is a con- crete solution, he says. "It is like putting the cart before the horse.

This exposes the short-sighted- ness and a lack of political sagaci- ty on the part of the party in power," Srikantha points out.

Even parties like the Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC), Democratic Workers Congress (DWC), Upcountry People's Front and the Ceylon National Workers Congress, all representing the interests of the Tamils of Indian origin have in a statement criti- cised the emerging consensus between the PA and the UNP in the draft peace package.

In a joint statement issued about two weeks ago the Tamil parties warned that a referendum in the East and the constitution of an interim council would further complicate the problem. They said that the ongoing PA-UNP discus- sion have lost direction by deviat- ing from the original objective of reaching an agreement and pre- senting that to the LTTE.

The Tamil parties have stated that they could agree to the set- ting up of an interim council pro- vided the LTTE is also invited.

The LTTE is a key player and should be invited or consulted in any decision making process, they maintain. They have said that the demand that the LTTE surrenders its weapons is ridiculous. They have also opposed the bifurcation of the north and east.

The interim council that is being discussed will replace a proper provincial administration introduced under the 13th amend- ment to the Constitution. The greatest irony of the 13th amend- ment is that it is not operative in the area it was chiefly designed to benefit, namely the northern and eastern provinces. Passed under the Indo-Lanka accord of 1987, this constitutional amendment provid- ed for the establishment of a provincial council in each of the nine administrative provinces of Sri Lanka but unfortunately in the northern and eastern provinces such an administration was never implemented fully.

The Provincial Council Act of 1987 required that the President should not make a proclamation linking both the north and east which were temporarily merged unless he/she is satisfied that; "arms, ammunition, weapons, explosives and other military equipment which on July 29, 1987 were held or under the control of terrorist, militant or other groups having as their objective the establishment of a separate State, have been surrendered to the gov- ernment of Sri Lanka or to the authorities designated by it, and that there has been a cessation of hostilities and other acts of vio- lence by such groups in the said provinces." While this was said there was no surrender of weapons nor was there any cessa- tion of hostilities which virtually sealed the fate of the northeast provincial council.

When the government could not achieve the establishment of a provincial administration, how is it going to be possible to establish an interim council not including the LTTE? Political analysts say that the government must offer the Tigers something solid, bring them into the decision making process and make them also par- ticipants in the final decision.

Otherwise they will continue to oppose anything that is put for- ward and the situation will be back to square one.

Political observers are pointing out that the proposed interim council arrangement is unaccept- able to the very people - the Tamils - whom it is meant to ben- efit. This seems to be yet another attempt by the Sinhalese majority to decide what the Tamils want and to push that solution down their throats, they are saying.

Wilson Gnanadass
in Colombo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© Copyright, 1999 The Printers (Mysore)Ltd.
[E-mail to Editor] [Main Page..Text Version] [Main Page..Graphic Version]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------