posted December 21, 2001 03:00 PM            

Do you know EAI would serve fresh Jaffna TODDY in their International flights?

posted December 21, 2001 04:13 PM            

My boozing days are over now.Now I am very careful on what I eat and drink.When I visited Jaffna in 95 I had a blast with the coconut and Palmyrah toddy allmost every day.Stinking Jaffna toddy now is no different than the toddy that was available once.Careful with that stuff if you are planning on drinking.You can get hooked on to that stuff easily.

All the Tamil stores in Canada have panam kaddi and ellu paku.

posted December 22, 2001 08:46 PM            

By: J. S. Tissainayagam

The formation of the TNA has ruffled more than a few feathers. Certain Tamil MPs are irked realising their customary slogan after elections, "We have been elected by the people," will not give them adequate licence to disregard their voters and forget their election pledges, as they did before. But many others too, not so intimately connected with Tamil politics, are uneasy with these developments.

While moves may be in the air to effect Tamil disunity by luring individual MPs through a crossover bill, these political machinations are not quite our concern right now. There are also many moderate voices within the Sinhala community that have expressed disappointment over the formation of the TNA. Their lament is that this umbrella organisation has led to the disappearance of the 'middle ground' and that the so-called moderate parties have either been co-opted by extremist forces or forced to toe their line. The concerned go a step further stating that this could lead the TNA making maximalist demands in the future.

These concerns have to be taken seriously as they come from a section of the south that has displayed keen interest in resolving the ethnic conflict through dialogue and compromise. Their premise is that the more 'extreme' Tamil demands are, the more difficult they will be to market in the south, thereby creating an impasse and a prolongation of the war. They state, while the TULF and by extension the other parties that gave up militancy after signing the Indo-Lanka Accord remained 'moderate' a compromise was possible. But the shift in the position of these parties with the formation of the TNA will only be another impediment to negotiate a settlement.

While respecting that such sentiments are sincere and well-meaning, the basic flaws in the assumptions that have gone into such thinking have to be pointed out. What is important to note is that it is inevitable that such misconceptions should surface because of the cunning with which ethnic politics have been played in this country with the intention of dividing the Tamil ranks, a matter that was a subject in these columns a few weeks ago.

The term 'moderate' in reference to Tamil political parties usually goes to define the TULF. The TULF was formed in 1976 with its backbone comprising the more progressive and strident elements from the Federal Party and the Tamil Congress. The TULF went on to articulate as its political credo that only a separate, Tamil-majority state would suffice if Tamil identity and citizenship were to be adequately protected. The Vaddukodai Resolution was an affirmation of this, rejecting federalism or power-sharing at the centre, which were the dominant models that were contemplated till then. Those who view the TULF as a 'moderate', ignore this fundamental point.

Secondly, the TULF is regarded as 'moderate' because it never bore arms. This again is not totally correct. The transformation of Tamil politics from the FP demanding a federal solution to militant groups waging an armed struggle for a separate state is too long to describe here. Suffice it to say that there were three important strands, the youth fronts of the Federal Party and the TULF and the incipient armed militant groups that were active in the late 1970s and early 1980s, all which contributed towards this transformation. What is more, they all received backing and indeed patronage, from the TULF.

Thirdly, though there is the adjective 'moderate' applied when referring to the TULF, it (with other political parties including the Tamil Congress) consistently exploited the LTTE and its cry for Tamil Eelam, to come to power. This has been a pattern at all elections post-1977. How this is compatible with 'moderate' politics as defined by the south, is a little difficult to understand.

The dichotomy between 'moderate' and 'extremist' was paraded in earnest in the 1980s with the heightening of armed conflict. India recognised the armed groups and did business with them. But the TULF, to protect itself from being outflanked by the militants in its dealings with India, other foreign states and the Sri Lankan government, began to rely more and more on its 'moderate' status.

The myth stood the TULF better stead later. The Indo-Lanka Accord was signed in 1987, signaling the most cynical episode in the weakening of Tamil nationalism. India was to cleverly manipulate the difference between 'moderate' and 'extremist' in making not only the TULF, but even the ex-militant groups to do its biding. The moderates were those parties prepared to toe the Indian line and settle for counterfeit devolution under the Accord, while the LTTE was demonised as intransigent and uncompromising.

But even within the group of Tamil parties that was in favour of the Accord and professing to democracy, the TULF was to display a fastidiousness by staying aloof over certain crucial issues saying that as a 'moderate' party it could not break bread with groups that once bore arms.

This dichotomy between 'moderate' and 'extremist' has given successive governments tremendous leverage against the LTTE. By playing one against the other, anti-Tamil forces were able carry out an effective counter-insurgency strategy, which denied the LTTE its demands as being too extreme, while adroitly side stepping the demands of the 'moderate' parties with evasive excuses. The history of negotiations with the LTTE and different schemes to devolve power manifest this only too clearly.

But while the politics of dividing Tamil opposition was being played out, the horror of the 20-year war had not only taken its toll on Tamil society, but had steeled that community's resolve to express its protest more forcefully than merely relying on effete Tamil 'moderates' sitting in parliament. This evolved into people's protests, where Tamils spoke in one voice - one group with arms, the other non-violently.

There have been numerous protests and demonstrations by Tamils through people's movements against excesses as different as aerial bombardment at Puthukudiyiruupu, holding civilians as human shields in Kilali, the rape and torture of women and restrictions on fishing in the north-east. Bodies as diverse as mothers' fronts, lorry drivers' associations, Tamil media organisations and fishermen's co-operatives have taken part in them, while volume was provided by ordinary civilians, the hapless victims of a predatory state.

These protests took on a more political role with the LTTE announcing a cease-fire exactly one year ago and agreeing to begin negotiations with the government. The ponguthamil elurchchi, the protest against the EPDP's alleged involvement in the murder of BBC journalist M. Nimalarajan and the illegal creation of a local government area to deprive Tamils of their land in northern Batticaloa (Koralaipattru) are among them.

It was when this form of people's protests were well on their way that the Tamil political parties grouped themselves into the 10-party alliance in early 2001. Agitation for the government to reciprocate the LTTE cease-fire, protests against the rape of Vijikala and Sivamani in Uppukulam and the massacre at the Bindunuwewa rehabilitation camp were among the protests carried out by them.

It should be noted that the LTTE and the various people's movements, both in the 'cleared' and 'uncleared' areas, had already taken a strong and decisive step towards unified action against the state by the time the 10 Tamil parties were bestirring themselves. This unity was not based on elections, but independent of it.

The general elections came on December 5. The new turn parliamentary politics had taken the north-east was seen from TULF leaders such as R. Sampanthan (in Mutur) and Joseph Pararajasingham (in Paduwankarai) both strongholds of the LTTE, being allowed to campaign in those areas. The campaign and the election results confirm a unified purpose today between people's movements, the TNA and the LTTE.

This is no attempt to stigmatise the 'moderates' as 'extremists.' Rather, it is to demonstrate the long journey that has brought the TULF and other 'moderate' parties back to their roots. Both Tamil armed rebellion and non-violent agitation for Tamil rights had the same origins and today they are closer to being unified than they have been in the last one-and-a-half decades.

One reason for appeals made by the 'moderates' in the south to the Tamil parliamentary parties to compromise on basics like the Thimphu principles not achieving the projected success, was due to the essential natures of these parties remaining wedded to their roots. Though their leaderships expressed a willingness to compromise on certain basic issues, they were not allowed to as their support bases did not encourage them.

Today, a Tamil voice that still engages in dividing the Tamils without a conscience is that of the EPDP, which returned two MPs to parliament. One is the discredited and pathetic Douglas Devananda and the other is Mathiyugaraja, who is wanted by the police.

The TNA it is reported is not going to be the loose umbrella organisation for much longer. Moves are afoot to register it as a party and draw up a constitution to regulate its functioning, thereby formalising this common endeavor.

December 23rd, 2001