Ironically, the unity and peace that existed in Sri Lanka/Ceylon before independence faded soon after because of the divisive ways the governing power was sought and utilized. With another tragic phase of the resultant ethnic conflict coming to an end, the concern now of many peace-loving citizens and foreign governments is on the political resolution of the conflict that has caused enormous losses to all communities and hindered national development. Many opportunities for settling the conflict amicably were lost because of the internal power struggle. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has been projecting himself at various regional and international meetings as a national leader committed to end permanently the protracted conflict via political settlement acceptable to all ethnic communities. But conflicting decisions and actions as well as the insensitive utterances of some influential persons close to him including the army commander have not been assuring.

‘Mahinda Chinthanaya’

The political thinking of President Mahinda Rajapaksa before the November 2005 Presidential election was conveyed to the electorate in his election manifesto - ‘Mahinda Chinthanaya’. It helped to win the support of many Sinhalese voters and the chauvinistic parties, the JVP and JHU. These two parties were dead against the placatory approach to peace of the UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, who as Prime Minister confidently signed the ceasefire agreement with the LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran in February 2002. Norway’s intermediary role in drafting the agreement and later as facilitator of the peace process arranging the ‘Peace Talks’ was also detested by the Sinhala patriots. They still vehemently oppose the intervention of foreign parties in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs. Any political solution that undermines the supremacy of the Sinhalese is unacceptable to them. Their main attraction in ‘Mahinda Chinthanaya’ is the firm commitment of the President to the present unitary structure that is synonymous with Sinhala majority rule.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s stand on the resolution of the ethnic conflict is markedly different from that of his predecessor Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, who was also the previous leader of the SLFP. The party opted then for a quasi-federal solution to the ethnic conflict. The former leader also took an accommodative approach to entice the LTTE into the democratic mainstream. In Sri Lankan politics, members of political parties generally follow the stand of their party leaders on national issues. The present SLFP leader President Rajapaksa, as a senior member of the party had earlier accepted the devolution proposals including the transformation of the unitary State into union of regions of his predecessor.

Sumanasiri Liyanage, a senior lecturer in economics University of Peradeniya in his introduction to the book ‘A Glimmer of Hope’ published by South Asia Peace Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka in 2007 (the other co-editor is M. Sinnathamby) has given two explanations for regarding ‘Mahinda Chinthanaya’ as flexible with regard to the ethnic question. On this important issue, ‘Mahinda Chinthanaya’ is said to be subordinate to the three basic principles, namely, “an undivided country, national consensus and honourable peace”. There is no problem with regard to the first, as the division of the island into two independent States is neither desirable nor feasible. The whole world including the most concerned country, India is against absolute division. With regard to national consensus, at present there is no consensus even within the Sinhala polity on the fundamentals. With the rise of Sinhala nationalism after the November 2005 Presidential election, the voice of the Sinhala supremacists who are against devolution of powers is deafening. What is honourable peace? Is it the peace that comes from the faithful observance of the dignity and equality of all citizens, regardless of the differences in ethnicity, religion, caste and wealth, which entail the acceptance of the diverse makeup of the Nation or the peace in the minds of the Sinhala supremacists on their terms? These questions would have seemed stupid or chauvinistic 50 years ago but not now after the damage done to the trust in governments, respect for human rights and the sense of belonging to one nation.

Dodging the challenges

By setting up the APC and the APRC (All Party Representative Committee constituted in April 2006), the President left the onus of finding a political solution to the national problem to the political parties (except the Tamil National Alliance the proxy of the warring LTTE in the Parliament/outside the North-East) that are deeply divided even on the concepts of nation and democracy. With the upsurge in the notion of Sinhala Buddhist supremacy, the challenges in uniting the divided nation and securing lasting peace have also become increasingly difficult. This development does not seem to bother the President, as he is not going to swim against the rising tide in the south. However, he is very keen on projecting himself as committed to political settlement of the ethnic conflict. This has become necessary now more than ever before. The APC and APRC processes are now seen by many as handy tools in sustaining this image. The formation of an Expert Panel with members from all ethnic communities (not in active politics) to advise the APRC on the proposals for constitutional reform needed for political settlement also buttressed the President’s commitment to consensual political settlement.

But the dubious motive behind the ‘All Party’ approach to seek a reasonable political solution to the national problem became apparent when the report containing the recommendations of the majority members of the Expert Panel was rejected. The recommendations were inconsistent with the stances of Sinhala-Buddhist nationalists. The ‘interim’ report of the minority group in the Panel instead of addressing the root causes of the conflict focused on safeguarding the interests of the majority ethnic Sinhalese, their dominant role in. government and against secession. The majority (Expert Panel A) report contained the joint recommendations of eleven members from all three ethnic communities, whereas the minority report (expert Panel B) was endorsed by four members, all prominent Sinhalese professionals - H.L. De Silva PC, Professor G.H. Peiris, Gomin Dayasiri Attorney-at-Law and Manohara R De Silva PC.

The details are in the aforementioned book “A glimmer of hope”. Although the title has lost its full relevance now because of subsequent developments discussed here, the contents are very useful to understand the forces hindering the political solution needed to settle the conflict. A critique of this minority report by this writer titled, “Minimum ‘Devolution’ and Maximum Safeguards” posted in www.tamilweek.com 24-30 December 2006 is also in this book. While Panel A has taken a positive approach based on one integrated multi-ethnic nation, Panel B has been on the defensive assuming the existence of an enemy within waiting to overpower the Sinhalese. The latter cannot be a basis for national unity. The argument, the Sinhalese unlike the Tamils have only Sri Lanka as their native land and hence the need for special protection against secession is fallacious. Also, the existence of a Tamil State in south India does not invalidate the existence of time-honoured Tamil homeland in N-E Sri Lanka.

The letter sent on 19 January 2007 to the eleven Members of the Panel A by a group of liberals residing in and outside Sri Lanka, including the APRC Chairman Prof. Tissa Vitharana, who is also the Minister of Science and Technology praising their work on formulating a ‘Constitutional Framework for the Political Resolution of Sri Lanka’s National Problem’ stated: “The document that you have produced is of immense importance for Sri Lanka’s political and constitutional future and your collective effort in producing it will go down in history as an act of rare courage, bold vision and great integrity. While reflecting the rich diversity of the ‘constituent peoples of Sri Lanka’, you have risen above our ethnic differences and brought into political relief our common humanity. You have proposed the foundation upon which we can build a new Lanka, inclusive of the Sinhalese, the Sri Lankan Tamils, the Muslims and the Upcountry Tamils”. A great opportunity was lost and with it the APRC too lost its significance.

With regard to the rejection of both the Majority and Minority Reports by the Sinhala chauvinistic parties the JVP and the JHU the letter confidently said, “(This) should not prevent the movement towards a political solution”. The subsequent events showed the opponents of fair political solution granting due rights of the ethnic minorities are within the government itself in high positions. The JHU is a partner in the coalition government. The leader of National Freedom Front (NFF), a breakaway group of Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), Wimal Weerawansa said recently: “The war conducted by the Sri Lankan government against the LTTE is the political solution for the national question.” Although the NFF is not a coalition partner, it is also a political ally of the present government and is against those countries pressing for a political settlement. The President also rejected the report prepared by the APRC Chairman, Prof. Tissa Vitharana, fusing the majority and minority reports whilst retaining most of the recommendations in the former. It too was politically unsuitable.

The majority report as commended by broad-minded persons in their letter is a sound basis for the much needed and long overdue constitutional reform to rid the country of the troubles, tribulations and under development endured over the past several decades. But the forces responsible for these misfortunes rose again to scuttle the positive move. Appendix 3 in the aforementioned book pp 182-199 has Prof. Tissa Vitharan’s, “Main proposals to form the basis of a future Constitution”. The preceding Appendices 1 (pp 81-103) and 2 (pp 104-181) have the full majority and minority reports.

Back to the 13th Amendment

After rejecting the reports of the Expert Panel and the APRC Chairman, President Mahinda Rajapaksa instructed the latter to submit the full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution as interim recommendation of the APRC. This was in January 2008 after 63 sittings of the Committee over nearly one and half years. In the interview Wilson Gnanadass of the Sunday weekly ‘The Nation’ (3 February 2008) had with the APRC chairman Prof. Tissa Vitharana, the latter had hinted that the question of 13th Amendment was thrust upon the APRC. The intent of President Rajapaksa to give hope rather than seek boldly the political solution acceptable to the ethnic minorities was clear from his reply to the question: “How do you interpret President Rajapaksa's suggestion to delay the whole process?”

The APRC Chairman replied: “The President had laid certain dead line in January for handing over to him the final set of proposals that the APRC had been developing over the last one and half hears. But later he indicated to us that the 13th Amendment was sufficient for him to act in the interest of winning over the Tamil speaking people, and also to convince the international community of his commitment to a political solution to the conflict, and therefore we could take our time over the main set of proposals which he would be ready to receive”. Now nearly nine months have elapsed, the powers of the Provincial Councils remain as restricted as before and not as in the PC Act passed two decades ago. The usefulness of the APC and APRC to the President is now increasingly evident with the mounting calls for political solution from the international community, notably India. The latter is being pressurized by political parties in Tamil Nadu.

No sign of true believers

In support of President Rajapaksa’s campaign to convince intensely the international community of his commitment to political settlement, Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa on October 18 announced that he rejected the claim by Sinhala extremists that military victory by the government forces is the final solution to the national problem. He also agreed, there is no military solution to the long-drawn-out conflict in Sri Lanka. The Defence Secretary who is also President’s brother and former military officer is also anxious that emphasis on the political resolution issue should not hinder the thrust of the military offensive at this critical time. Military victory is also crucial to the Government for political reasons.

Prof. V. Suriyanarayan, author of several books on recent developments in Sri Lanka in a recent interview told Shobha Warrier on the current situation: “The present (Sri Lankan) government is only doing lip service to constitutional reforms”. He also cited the telephone conversation N Ram Editor-in-Chief of the Indian daily, ‘The Hindu’ had with President Rajapaksa on October 16 in which the latter had told Ram, “I am firmly committed to a just and enduring political solution to the Tamil question in Sri Lanka and am clear that there are no military solutions to political questions” and the political solution will come later (The Hindu October 17). Earlier on October 11 the President told the All Party Conference, hurriedly convened by him that he intends to go for a political solution. At the beginning, when the APRC process was enthusiastically launched, President Rajapaksa kept on repeating that there would be “maximum devolution” for the North and East. This has now been withdrawn, probably sensing some strong opposition within his camp.

President Rajapaksa had also reminded N. Ram, it was political India that introduced the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution and “it was not implemented earlier on account of opposition in the South but in the Eastern Province we have shown we are interested in implementing it.” As usual showing interest and actual implementation are completely different matters in Sri Lanka. Will the Sinhala nationalists agree to asymmetrical devolution with more powers devolved to North and East? With regard to the ‘liberated’ Eastern Province, the Brussels based International Crisis Group in their latest report No. 159, 15 October 2008 has drawn attention to the delay in taking important actions to restore normalcy and create conditions helpful for the promised development. It has stated that the “Government must address the security needs and land-related grievances of all ethnic communities or risk losing a unique opportunity for development and peace”. It “must devolve real power to the new Eastern Provincial Council, end impunity for ongoing rights violations and work to develop a lasting political consensus on issues of land, security and power sharing with independent representatives of all communities”. None has happened.

In order “to build confidence among all three communities, the government should develop transparent policies on security, the fair allocation of state land, the legitimate protection of religious sites and the equitable distribution of the benefits of economic development”. The Group has recommended actions to be taken by all stakeholders. The report is useful to grasp the reason behind the failure of the authorities to act in good faith. Official statements of intents hardly get transformed into corresponding actions on the ground. All the citizens right down to the grass roots level must experience the benefits of socio-economic development. Mere words cannot win the hearts and minds of the people. Balanced development that benefits all ethnic communities is also crucial for unity and peace. Unfortunately, this has not been the case since independence. It is not the people but egoistic power greedy politicians who destroyed unity and peace.

Professor Suriyanarayan well aware of usual happenings in Sri Lankan politics told Shobha: “But if you go by the record of Colombo on how they have fulfilled the obligations and commitments, the probability of constitutional reforms is very bleak”. He also told the interviewer: “You can now hear powerful voices being expressed that it is a Sinhala country, and Sinhalese are the majority and therefore, the majority will has to prevail. In multi- ethnic societies, some of us believe that rights of the minorities are equally important”.

On military victory first political solution later, who can believe the solution of the victor, if and when one is offered, will be generous to accommodate the aspirations and concerns of the powerless ethnic minorities? Gamini Weerakoon has quite rightly pointed out that after eliminating the military prowess of the LTTE, the political solution will be one dictated by the President. He has also dismissed the APRC process as a futile exercise, although the President expects “the people to believe that the APRC comprising of volatile and combustible forces such as the JHU, JVP, TMVP and EPDP to get together and work out a compromise solution!” (SL Guardian 19 Oct. 2008).

It is more likely the practice of giving promises and offering positions and concessions to amenable minority leaders as happening now will be followed more eagerly. If this is the case, the present divisive system will continue and the ethnic majority-minority divide will hinder national unity and peace. This uncertainty is greater now than in the past because of President’s close connection with the champions of Sinhala supremacy and Sinhala majority rule. There is definitely a similarity between the approaches to win and consolidate power taken in 1956 and now. 50 years seem not long enough to know in advance the difference between the consequences of parochial and national politics. The military victory is certainly not a lasting victory for the island nation. This would have been the case had the LTTE been defeated politically by sensible changes to the present system that assure the ethnic minorities their legitimate rights, safety, security and equal opportunities to succeed.

At the dead end with damaged credibility

In his recent comments on the tense situation that has arisen after India’s renewed concern over the plight of Tamil civilians in the North, former Ambassador K. Godage said that his Indian friends had told him, a credibility gap has been created “by promising their PM that we would come up with a political package to address the grievances of the Tamil people shortly after the government came to office and then seeking to cheat them by appointing the APRC which has according to them transparently dragged on the process unnecessarily till a military ‘victory’ was achieved. They claim that this (deceiving) act of the government has become so clear they find it difficult to accept its word any more”. His suggestion is to “reach out to the minorities with credible constitutional proposals immediately.”

He has also drawn attention to the unanimous desire of all political parties in Tamil Nadu that “the Tamils of Lanka must be able to live as equal citizens in dignity, in security and be able to decide on their own destiny in keeping with the principle of ‘subsidiarity’ within a united sovereign Sri Lanka. The ball, according to them, is in our court to come up with an offer which would be endorsed by them (India) and which the LTTE (also other Tamil nationalists) would not be able to refuse”.

In this regard, the former Ambassador has boldly suggested that the Sri Lankan government should “formulate such an offer with the assistance of Indian constitutional experts in line with the Oslo formula. But the offer should be conditional upon the LTTE renouncing its goal of Eelam, renouncing violence as a means to achieve its political objective, agreeing to a phased demilitarization in keeping with their own security and accepting the principles set out in the Tokyo Declaration”. This may seem sensible to pragmatic persons but nauseating to the Sinhala patriots who detest any foreign involvement, especially Indian. It is doubtful even the modest Mangala Moonesinghe Select Committee proposals based on the Indian devolution model and two separate Councils for North and East with an Apex Assembly consisting of Members of both Councils to plan common policies and co-ordinate programmes will be acceptable to the Sinhala nationalists, who are opposed to any change in the present power structure. The de-merger of the North-East Province by Supreme Court ruling is considered to be a significant achievement in their campaign to preserve the structure of the State in its present form.

The Sunday Island editorial (October 19) has drawn attention to the web of forces created by President Mahinda Rajapaksa to strengthen his hold on power. These very forces have now put him in a tight spot. It stated: “The government needs to make a course correction but can it do so, given the symbiotic connection between President Rajapaksa and the Sinhala supremacists? Can the President, without endangering his very survival, muzzle the Army Commander, restrain the Defence Secretary, neutralise the JHU, and other assorted Sinhala hardliners, allow adequate humanitarian assistance to get through to the war displaced, soften the stance on human rights and come up with a political solution ideally based on the Indian model?”

The whole country is now entangled in his netting. Following the Army Commander’s challenging statement, “the latest historically inaccurate and racially bigoted outpourings of Environment and Natural Resources Minister Champika Ranawaka indicate the impossibility of the task (course correction)”. The Environment Minister told Shakuntala Perera of the Daily Mirror (October 16 issue): "The Sinhalese are the only organic race of Sri Lanka. Other communities are all visitors to the country, whose arrival was never challenged out of the compassion of Buddhists. But they must not take this compassion for granted. The Muslims are here because our kings let them trade here and the Tamils because they were allowed to take refuge when the Moguls were invading them in India. What is happening today is pure ingratitude on the part of these visitors." Such statements contrary to the declared intents of the President, who is the head of State, head of government and Commander-in- Chief of the Armed Forces are not withdrawn or corrected. Who can expect unity and peace to emerge from this muddle? The Sri Lankan society is now increasingly polarized and the apprehension is also greater because of the deterioration in the economic and public financial situations, due to high military spending, increasing debt service payments and dim prospects for exports in the light of global recession.

Conclusion

The fundamentals for creating the climate for national unity and peace have been and still are being ignored. All communities must feel confident of their safety, security and future in the political system. Mutual trust is essential for gaining this confidence. All citizens regardless of their ethnic, religious and regional identities must have equal rights, privileges and opportunities. The legitimate rights of ethnic minorities recognized by the UN must be observed. The political system must provide means for fulfilling their reasonable aspirations. Devolution and power sharing will be useful here and should not be viewed as a threat to the future of the ethnic Sinhalese. It is illusory to think unity and peace could be achieved by some ‘clever’ means without relevant changes to the present system. The perception that it is an effective safeguard against Tamil domination and secession is another delusion. It is not only the interests of the majority Sinhala community but also those of the ethnic minorities that need to be protected. Many misconceptions are based on medieval history. Almost all developed countries have histories of foreign invasion and conquest of territories but these do not influence the thinking of their present political leaders.

It is now clear constitutional reform per se without the commitment to equality and the basics of well functioning democratic system in plural societies and the will to implement the Constitution, its amendments and enacted laws, the climate for unity and peace will not improve much. Although Great Britain has no written Constitution, the parliamentary system of government with extensive powers devolved to Scotland functions smoothly because all the main political parties there have embraced pluralism and democratic values. One can say this consciousness is intrinsic to the culture of the multi-ethnic society there. Our political culture has acquired notoriety because of the disregard for human rights, good governance, Rule of Law, social justice and free and fair elections. A sea change in attitudes is also needed to secure national unity and peace.

[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]