One-Text Initiative

A.HRC.27.CRP.2_AV

Address by President Rajapaksa at the 69th Session of the United Nations General Assembly

The start of the UN Human Rights Council’s 27th session this week saw the welcome reaffirmation of resolve to pursue accountability for mass atrocities in Sri Lanka through a UN inquiry from the newly appointed High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid al-Hussein and the US and UK missions. Amid the crises unfolding in Iraq, Syria and Ukraine, the High Commissioner’s pointed statement highlighting the importance he places on the OHCHR Investigation into Sri Lanka (OISL) is a significant pledge to fulfill the commendable legacy of his predecessor, Navi Pillay. Equally resolved however was Sri Lanka in its determination to oppose it. Reiterating its categorical rejection of the inquiry, Sri Lanka renewed its refusal to cooperate with UN investigators. Its seemingly desperate attempts to block the functioning of the inquiry, only serve to vindicate the basis on which member states led and supported the resolution in March mandating an international inquiry – Sri Lanka will not deliver accountability and justice for the deaths of over 70,000 Tamils during the final stages of the armed conflict itself.

In the five months since the resolution, Sri Lanka has systematically sought to criminalise NGOs and activists who were principal in its passage, proscribing key Tamil diaspora organisations and activists as ‘terrorists’ and imposing restrictions targeting the notable handful of Sinhala human rights activists and organisations who supported the inquiry. The diaspora proscriptions not only target those individuals, but seek to prevent evidence outflow from Tamils on the island, to the UN investigators via diaspora networks. Meanwhile, Tamils in the North-East have been collectively punished for their support of the inquiry and are increasingly terrorised in an effort to stop them from engaging with it. Many of the Tamils arrested in mass round-ups around March, including the prominent disappearances campaigner Balendran Jeyakumari, remain under detention in prisons notorious for torture and sexual violence. Tamils found talking to international officials have faced harassment and death threats by state backed mobs and military intelligence officers, while government officials have openly discussed the possibility of reprisal measures against individuals who engage with the inquiry.

It is in this context of five years of absolute refusal to even acknowledge mass atrocities committed against the Tamil people followed by five months of increasingly frenzied attempts to obstruct the international inquiry, that Sri Lanka’s claims to the Council of domestic accountability via an internal probe with an international garnish must be viewed. Sri Lanka cannot investigate itself. The alleged crimes are too grave and the state has over several decades under successive administrations, proved itself unwilling to deliver justice to the Tamil people. Indeed even now, the opposition UNP, far from pressing the government to cooperate with the inquiry, criticises the government for placing Sri Lanka under international scrutiny and its armed forces at risk of prosecution.

Amid this intensifying climate of intimidation, the willingness of Tamil people – living under effective military occupation in the North-East and having sought asylum abroad – to come forward as witnesses at great risk to themselves and their families, demonstrates the Tamil people’s resolve to pursue accountability, and ultimately justice. It was for these victims that the Council voted to mandate the inquiry, and it is for them that the Council must now ensure sustained scrutiny of Sri Lanka over coming months. Intoxicated with the impunity it continues to enjoy, Sri Lanka’s conduct illustrates it will not think twice before intensifying repression of the Tamil people. As the March 2015 deadline for the inquiry approaches, it is clear attacks on Tamils will increase. It beholds member states to ensure the safety of witnesses and safeguard them from reprisal. This must go beyond calls on Sri Lanka to restrain itself and become tangible reprimand and action.

Source: http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2014/09/renewing-resolve.html

Near verbatim translation of an article by Victor Ivon published in Ravaya Newspaper on 31st of August, 2014 page 07

In my perspective, Sarath Nanda Silva is a person who is well versed in legal knowledge. But he was the first Chief Justice of Sri Lanka who betrayed the forward march of the judiciary for the needs of the executive and also for his personal benefits. Thus he tarnished the respectable image and the good name of the judiciary. In a time his neck was tightened as the Attorney General, President Chandrika saved him. In return, he made the judiciary a puppet of the executive. By the end of the second term of the President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumarathunga, he had a dispute with her.  The reason apparently is one of her contemptible remark about him before a group of other judges. He revenged her eventually by making her a political invalid.

He manipulated her oath taking as President to make her an invalid. Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva had himself advised her to take oaths once in public and again secretly.

With one hand he abolished Chandrika’s existence and with the other hand he eradicated the barriers for Mahinda Rajapaksa to become the President. Mahinda might not be elevated to Presidency sans his assistance. He expected bigger rewards for the help granted by him but President Mahinda Rajapaksa did not want to grant him such favours, similar to ones he had obtained from him. As a result, Sarath Nanda Silva had disputes with President Mahinda Rajapaksa also. He tried to hurt Mahinda gravely as Chief Justice but Mahinda did not hit back and waited patiently perhaps because of his gratefulness. The President also averted an organized plan to beat the retiring Chief Justice and send him home bleeding.

Although his role as the Chief Justice was despicable, he had a chance to become the common candidate of the opposition at the 2010 Presidential unless Sarath Fonseka came forward. After the 2010 Presidential, he again began to advise the President.

He supported impeaching Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranaike. Apparently, he wanted to appoint Shirani Thilakawardhana to the post and manipulate the judiciary through her since then. However, although President Mahinda Rajapaksa solicited advice of Sarath Nanda Silva to send Shirani Bandaranaike home, he appeared not willing of appointing Sarath Silva’s cohort Shirani Thilakawardhana to the position. Sarath Nanda Silva again pushed to a stand of attacking the President with this incident.

Legal bomb

Eventually he appears found a legal formula to end the political existence of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. His formula is so constitutional and logical that the President faces extreme difficulty in safeguarding his political existence. Sarath Nanda Silva may perhaps enter into the history as a person who ended the political career of both President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumarathunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa the hero who defeated Prabakaran.

I personally don’t like Sarath Nanda Silva. It is not easy to forget the serious errors and destruction he committed to  the judiciary. But I think his proposition that the President Mahinda Rajapaksa has not qualified to contest for third election under the 18^th amendment to the constitution is an unbeatable and complete legal analysis. He has shown not only his legal and constitutional knowledge but also the instinct he has. His thesis is so strong and not easy to be defeated.

His proposition can be summarized as follows:

01.  The 1978 constitution naturally limits the number of times a President can hold the position to two consecutive terms.

02.  A President who swears in the position for a second term loses his chance to contest for a third election as soon as he takes oath.

03.  Article 31 (2) describes the context as follows: “No person who has been twice elected to the office of President by the People shall be qualified thereafter to be elected to such office by the People.”

04.  President Mahinda Rajapaksa was sworn in for his second term on 27^th January 2010. He has lost the chance to contest for a third election since that moment.

05.  The 18^th amendment to the constitution was enacted on September 9, 2010.

06.  Although the constitutional amendment grants the right for the Presidents that elect after the President Mahinda Rajapaksa to elect for a third term, provisions have not been included to the new constitution to grant that benefit to President Mahinda Rajapaksa who was sworn in for his second term on 27^th January 2010 and lost the chance to contest for a third election  since that moment.

07.  The article 31(2) has been repealed from the 18^th amendment to the constitution. But President Mahinda Rajapaksa who has disqualified to be elected for a third term since he was sworn in on 27^th January 2010, by the time the 18^th amendment was enacted on September 10, 2010, may not regain the right to contest for a third election merely because the article 31 (2) was repealed.

08.  He loses that right since the law is valid for the future and not for the past. Article 6 (3) of the Interpretation Act clearly states that such disqualification is not removed with such legal reform. According to the act, such disqualification is removed only that disqualification is specifically repealed through the amendment. Such provision is not included in the 18^th amendment to the constitution regarding President Mahinda Rajapaksa who had been disqualified by the time the 18^th amendment was enacted on.

09.  Therefore, President Mahinda Rajapaksa has no right to contest for the third election under the amended constitution.

He has no right even to call for an election after the completion of four years in his term.  The Election Commissioner has no powers to organize such election called by the President.  The only thing the Election Commissioner can do is seeking advice from the Supreme Court. 

 Unfulfilled dream

President J.R. Jayawardana was the first person who dreamt for a third election. He had even drafted a constitutional amendment for this purpose, according to the biography of J.R. Jayawardana written by K.M. de Silva. But he revoked his plan due to the rebellion of the JVP and also due to possible backlash from R. Premadasa.

President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumarathunga also had interest to elect for a third term after completing her second term and had certain unclear plan for that. But she had to revoke it due to the verdict delivered by then Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa went forward with regard to this dream and passed a constitutional amendment also but he may lose the opportunity to contest for a third election due to a hole in the amendment. If the original 1978 constitution can be considered paving way for 12 year dictatorship, the 18^th amendment can be defined as a path for a dictatorship for a limitless time. This amendment was passed as an urgent measure covering to the war victory without adhering to the democratic principles and traditions, without dialogue on it. The Supreme Court has not considered the shortcomings of the 18^th amendment and also the destructive effect of the constitutional amendment. As Sarath Nanda Silva has pointed out, the Supreme Court has even failed to see the holes in the law.

The difference between the two systems

The Supreme Court does not appear to have considered the way the amendment affects the sovereignty of people. Although a parliamentary system does not limit the number of terms of a Prime Minister, all countries that have executive presidency system have limited the number of terms of a President. Supreme Court has not considered the reasons for that.

Under a parliamentary system, the executive Prime Minister is elected from the parliament. The Prime Minister and the cabinet can exist only until they have the trust of the parliament. Under that system, the legislature has powers to defeat the executive. A Prime Minister is not a very powerful character under that system.

But the situation of an executive President is different. Executive President is both the leader of the government and state. Executive President’s powers are broader than the powers of a Prime Minister. A President cannot be changed with the power of the legislature or the people. In that sense, he is far powerful than a Prime Minister.   The President is permanent. The President can be considered a constitutional dictator compared to a Prime Minister.

The limit of terms of a President has been introduced considering the damage such a powerful President can cause in terms of the length of time.

US President Franklin Roosevelt also did what President Mahinda Rajapaksa attempted to do. The term of a US President is four years. The original constitution of USA had no limitation for the number of terms of a President. The first President George Washington was elected for two terms but he did not contest for a third term. The tradition of the US Presidents was to contest only for two terms and to retire. But the President Roosevelt breached the tradition, contested the 1940 and 1944 elections also after his second term and held the position for four terms.  His act was focus for lengthy dialogue in USA and eventually the number of terms of a President was limited to two under the 22^nd amendment to the constitution which was enacted on February 27, 1951.

Under the executive Presidency introduced to France by De Gaulle the original maximum mandate for a President was two terms of seven years. But this term was considered too long and it was mitigated to five years in 2000.

In Brazil, a President could hold the position for only one term of five years. This was amended in 1997 so as a President can hold the position for two terms of four years.

In each democratic country under executive presidency, the number of terms a President can elect has been limited to two. In South Africa, it is two terms of five years.  In Mexico, it is one term of six years. In Venezuela, it is two terms of six years. In Argentina, two terms of four years. In Ireland, two terms of four years. In Finland, two terms of six years. In Portugal, two terms of five years. In Philippines, two terms of five years.

 What should happen?

In a context all the democratic countries have limited the number of terms of a President to two of maximum six years; President Mahinda Rajapaksa has brought amendment to remove the limit of number of terms of presidency aiming to establish a permanent constitutional dictatorship. Many of the government MPs also voted for this amendment against their conscience. But the amendment has failed to achieve its aim not because of people’s pressure but because of the ignorance of the legal drafters who compiled the constitutional amendment. It is a chance of hard luck of the citizens although the same is bad luck of the President.

As I understand, what is needed now is all the activists who are pro and against the executive presidency unite to keep on a struggle to hold an attempt to call for a snap Presidential. If we succeed in this attempt, it will definitely be a turning point for strong political reforms of this country.

If the President tries to proceed with the attempt to elect for a third term ignoring the defects of the constitutional amendment brought with that purpose, he will only go to history as an anti people cruel ruler. What he can do to safeguard his respect and security is to understand that he is a President who is to be invalid soon under the law and to use his upcoming two years in his term to muster the support of the opposition to change the rotting system and to act to change it into a system that can win the trust of all sections of the society. Resolving the ethnic issues is also very important. The President can wash his sins to certain extent by way of this. He may be able to retire peacefully without guilty consciousness.

original version of article in Sinhala from Ravaya newspaper 

සරත් සිල්වාගේ කාල බෝම්බය වික්ටර් අයිවන්

සරත් නන්ද සිල්වා මා දකිනුයේ නීතිය පිළිබඳව හසළ දැනුමක් ඇති එහෙත්  විධායකයේ හා සිය පටු වුවමනාවන් වෙනුවෙන් අධිකරණයේ ඉදිරි ගමන ආපස්සට හරවා අධිකරණයට තිබූ ගෞරවය හා තේජස අහිමි කරනු ලැබූ පළමු අගවිනිසුරුවරයා ලෙසය. නීතිපති ධුරයේ සිටියදී ඔහුගේ බෙල්ල තීරණාත්මක ලෙස හිරවී තිබූ අවස්ථාවකදී ඔහු බේරාගත්තේ ජනාධිපතිනි චන්ද්‍රිකා කුමාරතුංගය. ඒ වෙනුවෙන් ඔහු අධිකරණය ඇගේ දේශපාලන වුවමනාවන්ට ගැළපෙන ලෙස නැටවිය හැකි ආයතනයක් බවට පත් කළේය. ඇගේ දෙවැනි ධුර කාලය අවසන් වනවිට ඔහු ජනාධිපතිනිය සමග ආරාවුලක් ඇති කරගෙන තිබුණේය. ආරාවුලට බලපෑ හේතුව ලෙස පෙනෙන්නේ වෙනත් විනිසුරුවරුන් පිරිසක් ඉදිරියේ ඇය අගවිනිසුරුවරයා කෙරෙහි අවඥාවක් ඇතිවන ලෙස කතා කිරීමය. අවසානයේ ඔහු ඇගෙන් පළිගත්තේය. ඇගේ දේශපාලන පැවැත්ම අහෝසි කොට ඇය කිසිදු බලයක් නැති කෙනකු බවට පත් කළේය.

ඇගේ පැවැත්ම බලරහිත කරන නඩු තීන්දුව සඳහා ඔහු පාදක කොටගත්තේ ඇගේ දිවුරුමය. ඇය වරක් ප‍්‍රසිද්ධියේද, තවත් වරක් අප‍්‍රසිද්ධියේද යනාදී වශයෙන් දෙවරක් දිවුරුම් දී තිබුණේ අගවිනිසුරු සරත් නන්ද සිල්වාගේම උපදෙස් අනුවය.

 ඔහු එක් අතකට චන්ද්‍රිකාගේ පැවැත්ම අහිමි කරන විට අනෙක් අතට ජනාධිපති ධුරයට ඒමට මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂට තිබූ සම්බාධක ඉවත් කොට ඔහුට ජනාධිපති ධුරයට පත්වීමට අවශ්‍ය මග එළිපෙහෙළි කර දුන්නේය. ඔහු එසේ නොකරන්නට මහින්දට එම ඉලක්කයට එන්නට බැරිවන්නට ඉඩ තිබුණි. ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂට කරන ලද උදව් වෙනුවෙන් ඔහුද ලොකු ප‍්‍රතිඋපකාර බලාපොරොත්තු විය. ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ ඔහුගෙන් ලොකු උපකාර ලබාගෙන තිබුණද සරත් නන්ද සිල්වා අපේක්ෂා කළ දේවල් දෙන්න කැමති නොවීය. ඒ නිසා සරත් නන්ද සිල්වා ජනාධිපති මහින්ද සමගද මතභේද ඇති කරගත්තේය. අගවිනිසුරු ධුරයේ සිටියදී ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂට රිදවන්නට බලවත් උත්සාහයක් තිබියදීත් ලැබී තිබුණු පෙර උපකාර නිසාදෝ සිදුවූ කෙණෙහිලිකම් ඉවසා සිටියා මිස මහින්ද කෝපයෙන් ආපසු හැරී පහර දෙන තැනකටද නොගියේය. සරත් නන්ද සිල්වා විශ‍්‍රාම යන අවස්ථාවේදී විශ‍්‍රාම යන අගවිනිසුරුට පහරදී ඔහුට තුවාල කොට ගෙදර යැවීම සඳහා තිබූ සංවිධානාත්මක උත්සාහයක් වළකා තිබෙන්නේද ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂය.

අගවිනිසුරු ධුරයේ සිටියදී සරත් නන්ද සිල්වා රඟපෑ භූමිකාව කොතරම් ජුගුප්සාජනක වුවද ජෙනරල් ෆොන්සේකා හදිසියේ දේශපාලනයට කඩා නොවැටෙන්නට 2010 ජනාධිපතිවරණයේදී විරුද්ධ පක්ෂවල පොදු අපේක්ෂකයා වන්නට ඉඩ තිබුණේද සරත් නන්ද සිල්වාය. 2010 ජනාධිපතිවරණයෙන් පසු නැවත එක්තරා ප‍්‍රමාණයකට ජනාධිපතිට ළංවෙමින් ඔහුට උපදෙස් දෙන තැනකට ගියේය.

 අගවිනිසුරු ශිරාණි බණ්ඩාරනායකට එරෙහිව ඉදිරිපත්වූ දෝෂාභියෝගයේදී ඇය තනතුරෙන් එලවා දැමීමේ ක‍්‍රියාදාමයට සහයෝගය දුන්නේය. ඇය තනතුරෙන් එලවා දැමීමෙන් පසු විනිසුරු ශිරාණි තිලකවර්ධන එම තනතුරට ගනිමින් අධිකරණය අනියම් ලෙස පාලනය කළ හැකි තත්ත්වයක් ඇතිකර ගැනීම සරත් නන්ද සිල්වාගේ උපාය මාර්ගය වූ බව පෙනෙන්නට තිබේ. ශිරාණි බණ්ඩාරනායක තනතුරෙන් එලවා දැමීමේ කාර්යයේදී සරත් නන්ද සිල්වාගෙන් ඵල ප‍්‍රයෝජනය ලබාගත්තද ඔහුට සමීප කෙනකු ලෙස පෙනුණු ශිරාණි තිලකවර්ධන ඒ තනතුරට පත්කිරීමට ජනාධිපති කැමති වූයේ නැත. එම අත්දැකීමෙන් පසු සරත් නන්ද සිල්වා නැවත ජනාධිපතිට එරෙහිව පහර ගසන තැනකට ගියේය.

 නෛතික බෝම්බය

 මෙම ගමනේ අවසානයේදී ඔහු මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේද දේශපාලන පැවැත්ම කම්මුතු කිරීමට හේතුවන නෛතික සූත‍්‍රයක් සොයා ගැනීමට සමත් වී තිබෙන බව පෙනේ. ඔහු සොයාගත් එම නෛතික සූත‍්‍රය කොතරම් තර්කානුකූල හා ව්‍යවස්ථානුකූල හා බලවත් වේද කියන්නේ නම් ජනාධිපතිවරයා කොතරම් බලවත් වුවත් ඔහුගේ නෛතික කාල බෝම්බයට මුහුණ දී සිය දේශපාලන පැවැත්ම ආරක්ෂා කරගැනීම ඉතා දුෂ්කර වනු ඇතැ’යි කිව හැකිය. ඒ අර්ථයෙන් සමහරවිට ඔහු ඉතිහාසයට එකතු වනු ඇත්තේ ජනාධිපතිනි චන්ද්‍රිකා කුමාරතුංගගේ පැවැත්ම පමණක් නොව ප‍්‍රභාකරන් පරාජය කළ වීරයා වූ මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ ජනාධිපතිගේ ද දේශපාලන පැවැත්ම අහෝසි කළ පුද්ගලයා වශයෙනි.

මා සරත් නන්ද සිල්වාට කැමති නැත. ඔහු සිය තනතුරේ සිටියදී කරන ලද බරපතළ වැරදි හා ඒ මගින් අධිකරණයට ඇති කළ විනාශය පහසුවෙන් අමතක කළ නොහැකිය. ඒ සියල්ල එසේ තිබියදීත් ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂට තුන්වැනි ධුර කාලයක් සඳහා තරග කිරීමේ හැකියාවක් 18 වැනි සංශෝධනය නිසා ලැබී නැති බවට ඔහු ඉදිරිපත් කර තිබෙන නෛතික ප‍්‍රවාදය බිඳ හෙළිය නොහැකි පරිපූර්ණ නෛතික විවරණයක තත්ත්වයක තිබේය යන්න මගේ මතයයි. ඒ මගින් ව්‍යවස්ථාමය නීතිය පිළිබඳව තමන්ට තිබෙන දැනුමේ ප‍්‍රමාණය පමණක් නොව ඔහුට තිබෙන ඉවේ ප‍්‍රමාණයද හොඳින් පෙන්නුම් කර ඇතැ’යි කිව හැකිය. ඔහු ඉදිරිපත් කර තිබෙන ප‍්‍රවාදය බිඳ හෙළිය නොහැකි තරම් ශක්තිමත් තත්ත්වයක තිබෙන බවද කිව යුතුය.

ඔහුගේ ප‍්‍රවාදය මෙසේ පිඬු කළ හැකිය.

i.    78 ව්‍යවස්ථාව සකස් කර තිබුණේම ජනාධිපතිවරයකුට ධුරයේ සිටිය හැකි කාලය එකිනෙකට සම්බන්ධ ධුර කාල දෙකකට සීමාවන ආකාරයටය.

ii.  එම ව්‍යවස්ථාව යටතේ දෙවැනි ධුර කාලය සඳහා දිවුරුම් දෙන ජනාධිපතිවරයෙක් එම දිවුරුම් දුන් දිනයේ සිටම තවත් ධුර කාලයක් සඳහා තරග කිරීමට තිබෙන අයිතිය අහිමි කරගනී.

iii.   එය ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ 31 (2) වගන්තිය අනුව විස්තර කොට තිබෙන්නේ මෙසේය.

 ‘ජනතාව විසින් දෙවරක් ජනාධිපති ධුරයට තෝරා පත්කර ගනු ලැබූ කිසිම තැනැත්තෙක් ඉන්පසුව එම ධුරයට ජනතාව විසින් තෝරා පත්කර ගනු ලැබීමට සුදුස්සෙක් නොවන්නේය.’

iv. ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ දෙවැනි ධුර කාලය සඳහා දිවුරුම් දෙන ලද්දේ 2010 ජනවාරි 27 වැනිදාය. එම මොහොතේ සිටම ඔහු එම ධුරයට නැවත තරග කළ නොහැකි කෙනකු බවට පත්ව සිටියේය.

v. 18 වැනි ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය නීතිගත කෙරුණේ 2010 සැප්තැම්බර් 9 වැනිදාය.

vi. එම සංශෝධනය අනුව මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ ජනාධිපතිගෙන් පසු එම තනතුරට පත්වන ජනාධිපතිවරුන්ට ධුර කාල දෙකෙන් පසුද නැවත ජනාධිපතිවරණවලට තරග කිරීමේ අයිතිය ලබාදී ඇතත් 2010 ජනවාරි 27 වැනිදා දෙවැනි වර දිවුරුම්දීමත් සමග එදා සිට නැවත තරග කිරීමේ හැකියාව අහිමි කරගෙන සිටි මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ ජනාධිපතිවරයාට නැවත තරග කිරීමේ අයිතිය ලැබෙන විධිවිධාන ඇතුළත් කෙරෙන ආකාරයට එම සංශෝධනය සකස් කර නැත.

vii   18 වැනි ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයෙන් ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ 31 (2) වගන්තිය ඉවත් කර තිබේ. එහෙත් එම ඉවත් කිරීම සිදුවන අවස්ථාව වනවිට (2010 සැප්තැම්බර් 10) ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ 2010 ජනවාරි 27 වැනිදා කරන ලද දිවුරුම් දීම මගින් නැවත තේරී පත්වීමකට අයිතියක් නැති නුසුදුස්සෙකු බවට පත්ව සිටීම තුළ 31 (2) ඉවත් කළ පමණින් නැවත තරග කිරීමේ අයිතිය මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ ජනාධිපතිට හිමිවන්නේ නැත.

viii    ඔහුට එම අයිතිය අහිමිවී තිබෙන්නේ නීතිය ක‍්‍රියාත්මක වන්නේ ඉදිරියට මිස ආපස්සට නොවීම නිසාය. අර්ථකථන පනතේ 6(3) වගන්තිය අනුව එවැනි නීති සංශෝධනයකදී තිබෙන නුසුදුසුකමක් හෝ දඬුවමක් ඉවත් නොවන බව පැහැදිලිව සඳහන් වේ. එම පනත අනුව එවැනි නුසුදුසුකමක් ඉවත් කළ හැක්කේ නිශ්චිත වශයෙන්ම එම නුසුදුසුකම ඉවත් කෙරෙන විධිවිධාන එම සංශෝධනයට ඇතුළත් කිරීමෙන් පමණය. එහෙත් මේ නීතිය සංශෝධනය කෙරෙන අවස්ථාව වනවිට 2010 ජනවාරි 27 වැනිදා සිට ක‍්‍රියාත්මක වන පරිදි නැවත ජනාධිපතිවරණයකට තරග කිරීමට නුසුදුස්සෙකු වී සිටි ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂගේ නුසුදුසුකම ඉවත් කරන විධිවිධාන 18 වන සංශෝධනයට ඇතුළත් කර නැත.

ix. එම නිසා ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂට තුන්වැනි ධුර කාලයක් සඳහා තරග කිරීමේ අයිතියක් සංශෝධිත ව්‍යවස්ථාව අනුව නැත.

 ඒ අනුව දෙවැනි ධුර කාලය හතර වසරක් සම්පූර්ණ කිරීමෙන් පසු ජනාධිපතිවරණයක් කැඳවීමේ අයිතිය පවා ජනාධිපතිවරයාට හිමිවන්නේ නැත. ඒ නිසා ජනාධිපතිවරයා කැඳවන එවැනි ජනාධිපතිවරණයක් බාරගැනීමේ හැකියාව මැතිවරණ කොමසාරිස්වරයාටද නැත. මැතිවරණ කොමසාරිස්වරයාට එහිදී කළ හැකිව තිබෙන එකම දේ ඒ ගැන වන අර්ථකථනයක් ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටීමය.

සැබෑ නොවූ සිහින

 දෙවැනි ධුර කාලය සම්පූර්ණ වීමෙන් පසු තුන්වැනි ධුර කාලයක් ගැන සිහින දකින්නට උත්සාහ කළ පළමු පුද්ගලයා වනුයේ ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ නොව ජනාධිපති ජේ.ආර්. ජයවර්ධනය. ආචාර්ය කේ.එම්. ද සිල්වා විසින් ලියන ලද ජේ.ආර්. ජයවර්ධන චරිතාපදානයේ එන තොරතුරුවලට අනුව ජනාධිපති ජේ.ආර්. ජයවර්ධන ඒ අරමුණ වෙනුවෙන් ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයක්ද කෙටුම්පත් කරවාගෙන තිබුණේය. එහෙත් ඒ සඳහා වන ඔහුගේ වැඩපිළිවෙළ හකුළුවා ගන්නා ලද්දේ ජේවීපී දෙවැනි කැරැුල්ල හා අගමැති පේ‍්‍රමදාසගෙන් එල්ල විය හැකි බලවත් විරෝධය සලකාය. ජනාධිපති චන්ද්‍රිකා කුමාරතුංගටද දෙවැනි ධුර කාලය සම්පූර්ණ කිරීමෙන් පසුත් තවදුරටත් බලයේ රැුඳී සිටීම සඳහා වන උනන්දුවක් සේ ම ඒ සඳහා වන නොපැහැදිලි වැඩපිළිවෙළක්ද තිබුණා වුවත් එම වැඩසටහන හකුළුවා ගන්නට සිදුවූයේ සරත් නන්ද සිල්වා දෙන ලද තීන්දුව නිසාය. මෙම ජනාධිපතිවරුන් දෙදෙනාට වඩා ජනාධිපති මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ දකින ලද සිහිනයේදී ඔහු සිය පූර්වගාමීන්ට වඩා බලවත් එක වැදගත් පියවරක් ඉදිරියට තබමින් ඒ සඳහා වන ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයක් සම්මත කරගැනීමට සමත් වුවද සම්මත කරගන්නා ලද සංශෝධනයේ තිබෙන ලොකු හිලක් නිසා මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ ජනාධිපතිවරයාද අවසානයේ සිය අරමුණ සපුරාගත නොහැකි අසරණ තත්ත්වයකට ඇද වැටෙමින් සිටින්නේයැ’යි කිව හැකිය. තිබුණු විධායක ජනාධිපති ක‍්‍රමය අවුරුදු 12කට සීමාවූ ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක ඒකාධිපති ක‍්‍රමයක් ලෙස සැලකිය හැකි නම් 18 වැනි සංශෝධනය සැලකිය හැක්කේ එම අවුරුදු 12 කාලසීමාව අතික‍්‍රමණය කරමින් වඩා දීර්ඝකාලීන ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක ඒකාධිපතිත්වයකට පාර කැපූ ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයක් ලෙසය. යුද්ධයේ ජයග‍්‍රහණයට මුවාවී මෙම ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය සම්මත කරගන්නා ලද්දේ ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයකදී සාමාන්‍යයෙන් අනුගමනය කළයුතු ප‍්‍රජාතන්ත‍්‍රවාදී සම්ප‍්‍රදායන්ද නොසලකාය. එය සම්මත කරගන්නා ලද්දේද හදිසි කටයුත්තක් ලෙස සලකාය. මෙම ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය අධිකරණයට ඉදිරිපත්වූ අවස්ථාවේදී පවා අධිකරණය එහි තිබෙන වැරදි අඩුපාඩු පමණක් නොව එය ආණ්ඩු ක‍්‍රමයට ඇති කරන විනාශකාරී බලපෑම හොඳින් සලකා බැලූ බවක් පෙනෙන්නට නැත. සරත් නන්ද සිල්වා පෙන්වා දී තිබෙන ආකාරයට ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයේ ලොකු හිලක් තිබීමෙන්ම පෙනීයන්නේ ඒ හිල පවා කල් තියා දකින්නට අධිකරණය අපොහොසත්ව ඇති බවය.

ක‍්‍රම දෙකේ වෙනස

සංශෝධනය සලකා බැලීමේදී ජනතාවගේ පරමාධිපත්‍ය බලය කෙරෙහි එය බලපාන ආකාරය පිළිබඳව අධිකරණය සාධාරණව කරුණු සලකා බැලීමක් කර තිබෙන බවක් පෙනෙන්නට නැත. පාර්ලිමේන්තු ආණ්ඩු ක‍්‍රමයක් තුළ අගමැතිවරයකුට එම ධුරයට තේරී පත්විය හැකි වාර ගණන ගැන සීමාවක් නැතත් විධායක ජනාධිපති ක‍්‍රමයක් ඇති හැම ප‍්‍රජාතන්ත‍්‍රවාදී රටකම පාහේ ජනාධිපතිවරයකුට ධුරයේ සිටිය හැකි වාර ගණන සඳහා පනවන ලද සීමාවක් පවතී. ඒ ඇයිද යන ප‍්‍රශ්නය අධිකරණය එහිදී හොඳින් සලකා බැලූ බවක් පෙනෙන්නට නැත.

පාර්ලිමේන්තු ආණ්ඩු ක‍්‍රමයක් තුළ ආණ්ඩුවේ ප‍්‍රධාන විධායකයා ලෙස ක‍්‍රියාකරන අගමැති තෝරා පත් කරගනු ලබන්නේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසිනි. අගමැති ඇතුළු ඔහු විසින් තෝරාපත්කර ගන්නා කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලයට පැවතිය හැක්කේ පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ විශ්වාසය තිබෙන තාක් කල් පමණය. නැතහොත් ඒ ක‍්‍රමය තුළ විධායකය පරාජය කිරීමේ බලය ව්‍යවස්ථාදායකයද සතුය. ඒ අර්ථයෙන් අගමැතිවරයකුගේ පැවැත්ම ස්ථිරසාර නැත. ඔහුගේ තත්ත්වය දුර්වලය.

එහෙත් විධායක ජනාධිපතිවරයකුගේ තත්ත්වය ඊට වෙනස්ය. ඔහු ආණ්ඩුවේ නායකයා පමණක් නොව රාජ්‍ය නායකයාද වේ. ඔහුට තිබෙන බලතල අගමැතිවරයකුට තිබෙන බලතලවලට වඩා විශාල වන අතර ව්‍යවස්ථාදායකයේ හෝ මහජන බලපෑමෙන් ජනාධිපතිවරයකු වෙනස් කළ නොහැකිය. ඒ අර්ථයෙන් ඔහු පාර්ලිමේන්තු ආණ්ඩු ක‍්‍රමයක් යටතේ සිටින අගමැතිවරයෙකුට වඩා ඉතා බලවත්ය. ඔහුගේ පැවැත්මද ස්ථිරසාරය. අගමැතිවරයකුට වෙනස්ව ජනාධිපති නියමිත කාලසීමාවක් සඳහා වන ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක ඒකාධිපතියකු ලෙස සැලකිය හැකිය.

ධුර කාල සඳහා පාර්ලිමේන්තු ආණ්ඩු ක‍්‍රමයක් තුළ අගමැතිවරයකුට නැති සීමාවක් ජනාධිපති ක‍්‍රමය තුළ ජනාධිපතිවරයකුට පනවා ඇත්තේ එතරම් විශාල බලයක් ඇතිව දීර්ඝ කාලයක් එකම පුද්ගලයකු තනතුරේ ඉඳීමෙන් විය හැකි හානිය සලකාය.

 මහින්ද රාජපක්ෂ ජනාධිපති ලංකාවේ කරන්නට හැදූ දේ මීට පෙර ජනාධිපති ක‍්‍රමයක් ඇති ඇමරිකාවේ ජනාධිපති රූස්වෙල්ට්ද කර තිබුණේය. ඇමරිකානු ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ ධුර කාලය අපේ මෙන් අවුරුදු හයක් නොව අවුරුදු හතරකි. මුලදී ඇමරිකන් ආණ්ඩුක‍්‍රම ව්‍යවස්ථාවේදී ජනාධිපතිවරයෙකුට ධුරයේ සිටිය හැකි වාර ගණන ගැන කිසිදු සීමා පැනවීමක් නොතිබුණි. පළමු ජනාධිපතිවරයා වූ ජෝර්ජ් වොෂින්ටන් දෙවරක්ම තෝරාපත් කරනු ලැබීය. එහෙත් ඔහු තුන්වැනි වතාවට ඡුන්දයට ඉදිරිපත් නොවීය. එතැන් පටන් හැම ජනාධිපතිවරයෙකුම අනුගමනය කළ සම්ප‍්‍රදාය එය විය. ජනාධිපතිවරයෙකුට ධුරයේ සිටිය හැකි ධුර කාල ගණන ධුර දෙකකට ව්‍යවස්ථාවෙන් නොව සම්ප‍්‍රදායෙන් තීරණය වී තිබුණි.

 මෙම සම්ප‍්‍රදාය දිගු කලක් තිස්සේ ඉතාමත් සුපරීක්ෂාකාරී ලෙස රැුකගෙන ඉදිරියට එමින් තිබුණද ජනාධිපති ප‍්‍රෑන්ක්ලින් රූස්වෙල්ට් මෙම අනගි සම්ප‍්‍රදාය උල්ලංඝනය කරමින් දෙවැනි ධුර කාලය සම්පූර්ණ කිරීමෙන් පසු නැවත 1940දී හා 1944දී ජනාධිපතිවරණ දෙකට තරග කොට ඒවා ජයගනිමින් ධුර කාල හතරක් ජනාධිපති ධුරය හොබවනු ලැබුවේය. ඔහුගේ මෙම හිතුවක්කාරි හා සම්ප‍්‍රදාය විරෝධී ක‍්‍රියා පිළිවෙත බලවත් ලෙස රටේ සාකච්ඡුාවලට ලක්වූ අතර එහි ප‍්‍රතිඵලයක් වශයෙන් ජනාධිපතිවරයකුට ධුරයේ සිටිය හැකි වාර ගණන දෙකක් ලෙස නියම කෙරෙන ආකාරයට සංශෝධනයක් (22 වැනි සංශෝධනය නීතිගත වූයේ 1951 පෙබරවාරි 27 වැනිදාය.) ඇති කරගන්නා ලද්දේ එවැනි අයෝග්‍ය දෙයක් නැවත ඇති නොවන තත්ත්වයක් සහතික කිරීම සඳහාය.

ඩිගොල් ප‍්‍රංශයේ ඇති කළ ජනාධිපති ක‍්‍රමයේද ධුරයේ සිටිය හැකි වාර ගණන සඳහා සීමා පැනවීමක් තිබුණි. මුලදී තිබුණේ ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ ධුර කාලය අවුරුදු 7ක් වශයෙනි. ජනාධිපතිවරයෙකුට තනතුරේ සිටිය හැක්කේ ධුර කාල දෙකක් පමණය. ජනාධිපතිවරයකුගේ ධුර කාලයට තිබූ අවුරුදු හතේ කාලසීමාව  ඕනෑවට වැඩි දීර්ඝ කාලයක් ලෙස සලකා 2000 වසරේදී එය අවුරුදු 5 දක්වා අඩු කරන ලදි.

 බ‍්‍රසීලයේ මුලින් තිබුණු ක‍්‍රමය අනුව ජනාධිපතිවරයකුට ධුරයේ සිටිය හැක්කේ එක ධුර කාලයක් පමණය. ධුර කාලය අවුරුදු පහකි. එහෙත් 1997දී ඒ ක‍්‍රමය වෙනස් කළේය. ධුර කාලය අවුරුදු 4 දක්වා අඩු කොට එක ජනාධිපතිවරයකුට තේරී පත්විය හැකි වාර ගණන දෙකක් බවට පත් කළේය.

 ජනාධිපති ක‍්‍රමයක් තිබෙන ප‍්‍රජාතන්ත‍්‍රවාදී හැම රටකම පාහේ ජනාධිපතිවරයකුට තේරී පත්විය හැකි වාර ගණන දෙකකට සීමා කොට ඇති බව දැකිය හැකිය. දකුණු අප‍්‍රිකාවේ ධුර කාලය අවුරුදු 5කි. තේරී පත්විය හැකි වාර ගණන දෙකකි. මැක්සිකෝවේ ධුර කාලය අවුරුදු 6ක් වනවිට තේරී පත්විය හැකි වාර ගණන එකකි. වෙනිසියුලාවේ ධුර කාලය අවුරුදු 6ක් වනවිට තේරී පත්විය හැකි වාර ගණන දෙකකි. ආර්ජන්ටිනාවේ ධුර කාලය වසර හතරකි. තේරී පත්විය හැකි වාර ගණන දෙකකි. අයර්ලන්තය ධුර කාලය වසර හතකි. තේරී පත්විය හැකි වාර ගණන දෙකකි. පින්ලන්තයේ ධුර කාලය වසර හයකි. තේරී පත්විය හැකි වාර ගණන දෙකකි. පෘතුගාලය ධුර කාලය වසර පහකි. තේරී පත්විය හැකි වාර ගණන දෙකකි. පිලිපීනයේද ධුර කාලය වසර පහකි. තේරී පත්විය හැකි වාර ගණන දෙකකි.

විය යුත්තේ කුමක්ද?

ලෝකයේ ජනාධිපති ක‍්‍රමයක් තිබෙන හැම රටකම පාහේ ජනාධිපතිවරයකුට ධුරයේ සිටිය හැකි වාර ගණන වාර දෙකකට සීමාකර තිබියදී හා ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ ධුර කාලය අවුරුදු හයක් තරම් දීර්ඝ කාලයක තිබියදී ජනාධිපතිවරයා යුද්ධයේ ජයග‍්‍රහණය මුවාවක් කරගනිමින් ධුරයේ සිටිය හැකි වාර ගණනට පනවා තිබූ සීමාව ඉවත් කරගැනීම සඳහා ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයක් ඉදිරියට ගෙනාවේ තිබුණ සීමාසහිත ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක ආඥාදායකත්වය සීමා රහිත ව්‍යවස්ථාදායක ආඥාදායකත්වයක් බවට පත්කර ගැනීම සඳහාය. මෙම සංශෝධනයට ඡුන්දය දුන් ආණ්ඩු පක්ෂයේ සැලකිය යුතු පිරිසක්ද ඊට ඡුන්දය දුන්නේ හිතට විරුද්ධවය. එහෙත් මහජනයාගෙන් එල්ල වූ බලපෑම නිසා නොව එම ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය කෙටුම්පත් කළ අයගේ නොසැලකිල්ල හා ඔලමොට්ටලකම නිසා එම සංශෝධනයෙන් අපේක්ෂා කළ අරමුණු සපුරාගත නොහැකි විකටරූපී දෙයක් බවට දැන් පත්වී තිබේ. එය රටේ ජනතාවගේ වාසනාවටත් ජනාධිපතිවරයාගේ අවාසනාවටත් සිදුවී තිබෙන අහම්බයක් ලෙස සැලකිය හැකිය.

 මට පෙනෙන අන්දමට දැන් සිදුවිය යුතුව තිබෙන්නේ 18 වැනි සංශෝධනයට විරුද්ධව, ජනාධිපති ක‍්‍රමයට විරුද්ධ හා ජනාධිපති ක‍්‍රමයකට පක්ෂ වුවත් රටේ පවතින අශීලාචාර ජනාධිපති ක‍්‍රමයට විරුද්ධ වන සියලූදෙනා එක පොදියක් මෙන් එකට එකතු වී 18 ඇති නීති විරෝධී බව නොසලකා හදිසි, නීති විරෝධී, ජනාධිපතිවරණයක් ඉදිරියට ගැනීමට ඉඩ නොදෙන දැඩි ප‍්‍රතිපත්තියක් අනුගමනය කිරීමය. එසේ කිරීමට සමත් වෙතොත් එය බලවත් දේශපාලන ප‍්‍රතිසංස්කරණ ඇති කිරීමට හේතුවන හැරවුම් ලක්ෂ්‍යයක් ලෙස ක‍්‍රියාකරනු ඇත.

 මෙම ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනයට ආවේණික වැරදි හා අඩුපාඩු නිසා ඇතිවී තිබෙන නීති විරෝධී තත්්ත්වය නොසලකා බලහත්කාරී ලෙස ඉක්මන් ජනාධිපතිවරණයක් ඉදිරියට ගැනීමට ජනාධිපතිවරයා උත්සාහ කළහොත් ඒ නිසා විය හැකි එකම දේ ඔහු ජනතා විරෝධී කෲර පාලකයකු ලෙස ඉතිහාසයේ කුණු කූඩයට එකතුවීමය. ඔහුට සිය ආරක්ෂාව හා ගෞරවය සඳහා තෝරාගත හැකි එකම මග වනුයේ තමන් නීතිය අනුව ඉක්මනින් අවලංගුභාවයට පත්වෙමින් සිටින ජනාධිපතිවරයකු බව තේරුම් ගනිමින් ධුරයෙන් විශ‍්‍රාම ගැනීමට නියමිත අවුරුදු දෙකක කාලය තුළ භේදයෙන් තොරව විරුද්ධ පක්ෂ බලවේගයන්ගේ සහාය ඇතිව සුළු ජාතීන්ගේ ප‍්‍රශ්නද විසඳාගත හැකි ආකාරයට මජර ගලන තරමට කුණුවී තිබෙන මෙම පීඩාකාරී හා දූෂිත දේශපාලන ක‍්‍රමය සියලූදෙනාගේ විශ්වාසයට හා ගෞරවයට හේතුවන ලෙස වෙනස් කිරීම සඳහා ක‍්‍රියාකිරීමය. ජනාධිපතිවරයාට තමන් විසින් ඇති කරගෙන තිබෙන පව් කිසියම් ප‍්‍රමාණයකට හෝ සෝදාගත හැකිවනු ඇත්තේද ඒ ආකාරයට පමණය. වරදකාරී හැඟීමකින් තොරව සන්සුන් සිතකින් යුතුව විශ‍්‍රාම යෑමට හැකිවනු ඇත්තේද එවිටය.

 Source: http://ravaya.lk/?p=4091

The recent visit of a six-member Tamil National Alliance (TNA) delegation to New Delhi marks an important milestone in India’s Sri Lanka policy. The delegation had a free and frank exchange of views with the prime minister, the minister for external affairs and the national security adviser. In a conversation with this author, Sampanthan pointed out that the talks were highly rewarding and instructive. New Delhi reiterated its commitment that it stood solidly behind TNA in its objective to get substantial autonomy to Tamil areas within a united Sri Lanka. Narendra Modi urged all stakeholders to engage constructively in a spirit of partnership and mutual accommodation to find a political solution on the basis of the 13th Amendment. In a rare gesture of goodwill the delegation called on former prime minister Manmohan Singh and requested him to inform the present government as to how Mahinda Rajapaksa had gone back on the solemn commitments he had made to the Government of India.

The visit is significant for another reason. Colombo had played up certain statements made by Indian friends of Mahinda Rajapaksa that the BJP-led government has revised its Sri Lanka policy. Subramaniam Swamy is reported to have stated that the prime minister will not meet the TNA without prior approval of the Sri Lankan government. He had also remarked that there was no ethnic problem in Sri Lanka, but only a linguistic problem. He also stated that in India there were certain states which did not have police powers, which was music to Sinhalese ears. Avadash Kaushal, recently appointed Indian adviser to the presidential commission on disappearances and war crimes, expressed his disapproval of the TNA visit to New Delhi and asked, “How will we in India feel if Sri Lanka calls and talks to Indian separatists?”

The above statements do not reflect the reality of the situation. Since July 1983, India is actively involved in the ethnic imbroglio. It was due to New Delhi’s good offices that the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) was persuaded to come back to the negotiating table, though the party had decided in the Mannar convention not to have any more talks with the government. From their goal of an independent state of Tamil Eelam, TULF scaled down its demand to a union of states within a united Sri Lanka. However the hope that Annexure C, drafted in consultation with New Delhi, would form the basis of negotiations was soon shattered. The all -party conference ceased to be a conference of recognised political parties, with a number of them walking in and out as and when it suited the government.

What was highlighted was the fact that the present dialogue with TNA was an integral part of India’s continuing engagement with all stakeholders. It was not intended to promote separation; on the contrary, its objective was to foster unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.

A careful analysis of peace initiatives since 1987 clearly shows that Sri Lanka has gone far beyond the 13th Amendment. Therefore, New Delhi should insist that all home grown solutions put forward at regular intervals — the Mangala Moonasinghe report, the draft 2000 constitution, report of the expert committee appointed by Tissa Vitharana — all of them, in addition to 13th Amendment, should form the basis of negotiations. Also, the dialogue between the TNA and the government should immediately resume. The parliamentary select committee, where the TNA will be a miniscule minority, is intended to impose the will of the brute Sinhala majority. Simultaneously, New Delhi should mobilise the support of the United States and European Union and make a joint demand for resumption of direct talks between Colombo and TNA.

Subramaniam Swamy’s statement that Sri Lanka does not have an ethnic problem, but only a linguistic problem, is far off the mark. Significant sections of Sri Lankan population feel that the Tamils had to face innumerable problems since the dawn of independence, relating to language, land colonisation, education, employment opportunities, militarisation and security of life. In fact, in its 1977 election manifesto the United National Party (UNP) spelt out these grievances and assured that if voted to power it would hold an all-party conference to find an amicable solution. Such an assurance enabled Jayewardene to get the solid support of minorities outside the north and the east. But after his landslide victory, there was a lot of foot dragging which disillusioned the Tamils; militancy gradually crept into Tamil politics, culminating in the ethnic riots in July 1983.

It will be a step forward if the government of India deputes a team of experts, well-versed in Tamil, to study the manifold problems faced by the Tamils — the efficacy of rehabilitation measures, the on-going Indian projects and bottlenecks in their implementation, the tragic plight of Tamil widows, travails of Indian and Sri Lankan Tamil fishermen in the Palk Bay, on-going militarisation and impact of high security zones, fears of land colonisation, tragedy of the hill country Tamils who migrated to the north after 1977 ethnic riots, why the refugees in Tamil Nadu are reluctant to go back to Sri Lanka, fears of LTTE resurgence, radicalisation of the Muslim community and, above all, obstacles confronted by the TNA government in administering the Northern Province. Their report could form the basis of fresh initiatives in India’s policy.

The TNA should join hands with Tamil-speaking Muslims and hill country Tamils in their joint endeavour to find amicable solutions to their manifold problems. As far as Muslims and hill country Tamils are concerned, being non-territorial minorities, devolution to the provinces will not be a panacea to their problems; what is required is devolution from provinces to Pradeshiya Sabhas and entrenched constitutional provisions to protect their linguistic and cultural rights. The Sinhala fear that devolution to provinces will be the first step towards separation can be assuaged by incorporating iron clad guarantees in the Constitution to prevent such a possibility.

A redeeming feature is that Tamil Diaspora, which fuelled the Tiger war machine, is today involved in considerable soul searching. Many influential leaders in the Global Tamil Forum (GTF), which was established in 2009 after the end of the war, have realised the futility of armed struggle. It will be in New Delhi’s interest to open a dialogue with them and explain the emerging trends in India’s Sri Lanka policy.

by V Suryanarayan

( September 10, 2014, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian)

 Source: http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2014/09/india-next-move-on-lanka-policy.html

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,

Who never to himself hath said,

This is my own, my native land!

Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d,

As home his footsteps he hath turn’d,

From wandering on a foreign strand!

If such there breathe, go, mark him well;

For him no Minstrel raptures swell;

High though his titles, proud his name,

Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;

Despite those titles, power, and pelf,

The wretch, concentred all in self,

Living, shall forfeit fair renown,

And, doubly dying, shall go down

To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,

Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung. – Sir Walter Scott

Tamils have been forced to flee their native land in indecent haste leaving behind their homes, possessions and loved ones due to intolerance of the majority Sinhalese who unleashed untold misery on them since independence. They are second class citizens in their adopted homes in the West and they can draw parallel to the Palestinians, Kurds, Sunni Muslims and the Karen community in Myanmar among many other oppressed people in their native lands. Patriotism is the furthest from the minds of the average Tamil when his own survival is under threat.

It is towards this injustice that the United Nations promulgated Geneva Convention of 1951 on refugees following the annihilation of six million Jews during World War 11 by the maniac Adolf Hitler in his relentless pursuit of a blue-eyed and blonde Aryan race.

UNHRC High Commissioner Navi Pillay’s exit is not the end of war crimes probe. The message is loud and clear. Investigations into war crimes are going ahead, Ms Pillay has done her homework and they are gathering momentum. That she relinquished her tenure does not mean Sri Lanka could lie on its lotuses and say good riddance of a pesky UN diplomat who they felt was an unwelcoming and interfering busybody who pokes her nose into affairs which it felt was beyond her mandate. Her relentless pursuit in bringing redress to war victims who were subjected to state oppression will not fade away with her retirement.

It is Ms Pillay’s persistence which brought alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka to world scrutiny. History will record that Tamils and other minorities have been systemically side-lined in their legitimate rights and distribution of wealth disproportionately.

Seventy three year old Navaneethem “Navi” Pillay born on 23 September 1941 was the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. A South African of Indian Tamil origin, Ms Pillay was the first non-white woman judge of the High Court of South Africa, and she has also served as a judge of the ICC (International Criminal Court) and President of the ICT (International Criminal Tribunal) for Rwanda. Her four-year term as High Commissioner for Human Rights began on 1 September 2008 and was extended an additional two years in 2012.

It is her tenacity, awareness of injustice against minorities which took her to the pinnacle of fighting for the oppressed. The daughter of a humble bus driver growing up in apartheid South Africa and being of Tamil origin, she had to endure racism not just among elite whites but also Africans who viewed Indians with suspicion that they were bettering themselves in the economic and political arena.

Her human rights advocacy needs no publicity since it is well documented in that she fought for Nelson Mandela’s release.

Where does Sri Lanka stand in UNHRC investigations into alleged war crimes? Would blocking access to UNHRC panel thwart the attempt to bring perpetrators to book? Local mechanism in the form of LLRC (Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission) based on South Africa’s TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission) and the government orchestrated international panel who are paid handsomely cannot mitigate or justify war crimes committed in 2008/2009.

It is the stubborn stance of the government that it only sought to wipe out LTTE terrorism and its abysmal failure to acknowledge that it committed genocide against minority Tamils.

Taking step by step what does UNHRC propose to achieve? It has a universal mandate to probe into human rights violations be they state orchestrated or otherwise. The LTTE committed heinous crimes in the name of carving out an enclave in the North and East for Tamils which it perceived were receiving short shrift from the government. The LTTE’s suicide attacks on innocent civilians in the South have not gone un-noticed.

As much as the Sinhala majority were terrorised by the LTTE not to mention its own Marxist JVPers in the two decades between 1971 and 1990 the country underwent a turbulent period of fear psychosis and intervention by India to bring some kind of sanity in quelling their upsurge. The government’s knee-jerk reaction to these uprisings did not help. While JRJ sought India’s help in quelling both the LTTE and JVP insurgency his successor Ranasinghe Premadasa would boot out Indian forces who he felt were interfering into affairs of the country beyond their mandate. The love-hate relationship between and India and Sri Lanka is well-documented in former Indian High Commissioner J.N.Dixit’s book, Assignment Colombo, which he wrote after his tenure.

Premadasa’s apparent apprehension was that once the IPKF (Indian Peace-keeping Force) became redundant they had no business to remain in Sri Lanka thereby dictating to the government how it should handle its insurgency both from the JVP and the LTTE. Ergo he told in no uncertain terms the IPKF should pack its bags and go home by March 1990.

The war waged on the LTTE did not bring the peace dividends since none of the leaders had a clear-cut strategy to sustain its soldiers or the war victims to join the mainstream and provide them with a promising future. The soldiers decamped with weapons who became minor mercenaries who would be hired to kill at will for a small price and the Tamils forced to live under the jackboot of military control even the as the war was deemed over.

For Tamils to regain their legitimate place in the island’s polity there should be a clear strategy in place both by the government and Tamil politicians who seem to be at loggerheads with each other.

War crimes probe aside it would do bode well for all parties be they the government, segments of Tamil leadership to arrive at a concensus so we do not have another Black July or blood-letting in Nanthikadal. We owe it to all our people to make them proud that this is our own, our native land.

by Pearl Thevanayagam

Source: http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2014/09/war-is-over-peace-is-yet-to-come.html

One of the many benefits of the end of the war is the ability of Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims to mix with one another without the prospect of getting into trouble. During the time of war, such mixing was potentially problematic, as those who were Tamil could easily be suspected of having links with the LTTE.  Therefore even those who were engaged in peace building were wary of bringing members of all ethnic communities together.  There was also a second reason.  This was the polarization that existed within the communities as they supported one side or the other.  This was something that was far too volatile and controversial for anyone or any group to take up.  So the issue of the war was, by and large, not discussed in multi-ethnic settings.  It was safer to do so in mono-ethnic settings.

However, the end of the war has provided the opportunity for people from the different ethnic communities to come together and to discuss issues. There is less of a need to support one side or the other, as to seek ways to jointly address people’s minds to bringing reconciliation and a political solution which is a mutually shared goal. People at the community level are prepared and willing to engage in joint activities, whether it is discussing together or doing something concrete together, that will heal the wounds of the war. Discussing the causes of the war and how it was fought can still be polarizing.  But the search for a solution can be undertaken jointly, as indeed it must, at both the community and national levels.  In this context, it is unfortunate that civil society interactions to promote mutual understanding of each other’s sufferings and the way forward are being viewed by sections of the government with suspicion.

In discussing prospects for national unity in the former war zones of the North and East, one of the messages that comes through is that all communities feel that they are victims.  As they were separated from each other during the war, and there was no sustained effort to bring them together, they are unfamiliar with the sufferings of other communities.  The failure of Sri Lanka’s post-war transition has been primarily due to the unwillingness of the government to transcend the pursuit of political power to build inter-community harmony. The latest half yearly report produced by the Secretariat for Muslims has given details of anti-Muslim incidents that occurred in the first half of this year.

The report start with an introduction refers to “the general deterioration of relations at all levels.” The report notes that “Additionally during this time we saw the oft repeated government line in the form of both the categorical rejection of the idea that religious unrest is evident in the country, to the more nuanced dismissal of the accusations on the basis that the places that are attacked are either unregistered or illegitimate in some other way, and that the incidents were generally reactions of the communities of which they are a part.” It can be seen from this statement that what the government is seen to be doing can become counter-productive to the national unity that the government wishes to bring about.

Important Task

The desire of communities to live together is visible in the enthusiasm that is invariably demonstrated when civil society groups take steps to organize inter-community events.  A recent example was an amity camp in Addalachenai in the east organized by civil society groups. Youth from the Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities present at the camp made carefully prepared cultural performances.  A Muslim girls school team from the area which had won third place in an all country cultural competition sang a religious song, which might have been expected, and also performed a secular dance which depicted the farming life.  As a farming community these Muslims were no different to their Sinhalese and Tamil neigbours, even though they were different in their religion and this performance was appreciated as a result.

This same commitment to inter-community harmony is also manifest in other parts of the country. In Hatton, for instance, an inter-religious group there organized an art exhibition on inter-community harmony. One of the prize winning entries depicted a novice monk (samanera) tying a Vesak lantern to a tree, while below him Muslim and Tamil children were assisting him and doing their own decorations.  Needless to say, it was the encouragement given by the elders in the community that enabled the children to get together in this manner. When invited to speak a few words, a prize winner said that her painting described the amity that she wished to see, and urged the older generation present to make this a reality.

In the present context, an important task for civil society organizations would be to strengthen the bonds between the communities at the local level. The community leaders at the local level belonging to all communities may have no serious problem with each other.  But they will generally not make much of an effort to engage with each other as they are too busy interacting with their own communities. Therefore they need to be supported with societal and logistical assistance to bring the different communities together. Such getting together to sustain inter-ethnic and inter-religious harmony is an important national objective. This is a task that has been taken on by civil society organizations.  They contribute to national unity in this manner as they help to build relations between the various ethnic and religious communities.

However, there are certain problems at the community level that civil society groups cannot resolve by themselves, and which need action by the government which is vested with the power of decision making and enforcement.  One major problem concerns people who were displaced from the land due to war. Most of the attention has fallen on the issue of High Security Zones and the government’s decisions to take over large extents of land to bolster the military presence in the North and East. However, there are also land problems that are prevalent at the inter-community level and which could cause stress to their relationships unless there is problem solving at the governmental level.

Similar Problems

In parts of the East, Tamil and Muslim villages are adjacent to one another. Tiraikerni is one of these villages. It is a Tamil majority which suffered a great deal during the war. It was on the coastal route used by the LTTE during the war.  Therefore its inhabitants were viewed with suspicion as being supporters of the LTTE.  In 1990 when the LTTE attacked Muslims in their mosques on a large scale and killed hundreds of them, there was retaliation by Muslims against villages such as Tiraikerni. Virtually the entire Tamil community fled, with many of them selling their land at cheap prices. When they returned after the war, they have had to rent their homes from their Muslim neighbours who purchased them.

This problem is not dissimilar to the plight of Muslims in Mannar who fled when the LTTE expelled them and had to sell their land to their Tamil neigbours at cheap prices.  Now when they return they no longer own the land they once lived on. However, in the North, as the elected representatives of the Muslim people are part of the government, they are able to obtain alternative state land and resources to restart the lives of the displaced Muslims.  This is unfortunately not the case in the East, where the Tamil people voted for elected representatives who are in the opposition and therefore are unable to obtain state resources for them. Civil society organizations are unable to provide the people with the material resources on the scale they need, which can only be provided by the government. This is why the TNA parliamentarians who represent the Tamil people need to find ways to engage constructively with the government in order to provide for the people who rely on them.

The Sinhalese living in the East too have their own grievances. At the conclusion of another civic interaction in Karaitivu in the East, one Tamil participant noted that only now did he realize how badly the Sinhalese in the East had suffered during the war. Most of them have come in as settlers in the past several decades, brought to the East by successive governments under various land settlement and irrigation schemes with the promise of land and resources.  But those Sinhalese who live as minorities in Tamil and Muslim majority areas of the East find themselves to be as poor and marginalized as their neigbours.  Some of them who live in Deegavapi continue to live in house made of baked earth and coconut cadjan roofs which are at risk of being flattened by elephants.

There is more the government can do in terms of physical infrastructure and economic development for the multi ethnic population of the East who have been victims many times over.   The government must also encourage and give support to civil society to have interactions and promote mutual understanding among the different ethnic and religious communities.

By Jehan Perera

Source: https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/doing-more-to-promote-reconciliation-at-local-level-to-solve-peoples-problems/

Colloquium –  Issues of Truth and Accountability; Narration III; The Last Stage of the War in Sri Lanka

I would like to share with you a few ideas in relation to the 3^rd narrative of the last stage of the war in Sri Lanka.

I will try to make myself as clear as possible!

I don’t believe in this notion that it is the influence of the Tamil Diaspora that determines Washington’s foreign policy and that of its Western allies! And I think it is very wrong and dangerous to put all the Tamil Diaspora in one basket. Most Tamils I know outside this country do not support a separate State. They are not separatists, and they are not Terrorists.

 If Sri Lanka is to formulate an offensive strategy rather than a defensive one, it should take all these into consideration!

Of course, the Tamil separatist forces outside do have relations with Washington and its allies, but these relations are determined by the national and geostrategic objectives of the US and its allies, as we have seen in Afghanistan, or now in Iraq, Syria and the Ukraine. For the West, when it suits their objectives, they are good Tamil Tigers and when it doesn’t, they are bad Tamil Tigers, like the good jihadists and bad Jihadists. It all depends on the circumstances. Today, the LTTE has been defeated, but tomorrow it can become useful again!

That is why I find most of the political comments and reflections in Sri Lanka very introspective. They are not concrete observations of the reality.

1.   When I speak of reality, I mean today’s global reality, with its tensions, its geopolitical, economic, security and military challenges. How can we speak of a third narrative on the last period of the war without taking into account the reality of the world, its balance of forces as it was then, and as it is today?

Once a very senior French Ambassador told me in Beijing, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union: “to understand the meaning of international and diplomatic relations, you must look at a map and understand the relation between geography and strategy.” He was quite right. Years later, when I read Zbignew Brejinski’s book “ The Grand Chessboard,” where he affirms “we must always fear Russia, even a capitalist Russia, and an anti-hegemonic alliance between China, Russia and India,“ I understood even better what this very senior French Ambassador had meant.

Therefore, if you look at a map of today’s global chessboard, characterized by the strategy of encirclement to roll back the space of Russia, China, India, or when you see where the conflicts are taking place, or where NATO’s ballistic defense system is placed and the disposition of US and NATO forces in this region, especially naval forces, you will understand why the war in Sri Lanka lasted 30 years and why today the US needs to get a foothold here! That’s why they need a regime change, and they can do it with or without sections of the Tamil diaspora. But, regime change is not their finality, but only a means to facilitate their global objectives.

I think, if a narrative is to make any sense, we must take a closer look at this fundamental aspect of the international situation and how it has influenced the conflict in Sri Lanka!

To understand the international aspects of what has happened and what is happening now in Sri Lanka, we must understand the UN as a reflection of this global reality. In fact, the UN, which is a multilateral system and belongs to all of us, is totally dependent and manipulated by civil society mercenaries that are financed by the US and the EU, as shown in the implementation of R2P. It is the use of “soft power” that Joseph Nye talks about.

When you play chess, every move has an importance! The problem here is that not enough people think globally.

Your adversary is the US, but the name of the US is never pronounced, it has become a taboo and very few speak about Obama’s “Asia pivot strategy”. How do we analyze the objectives of Washington in Sri Lanka and the methods used compared to those used in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, the Gaza, or to destabilize progressive regimes in Latin America?

These conflicts and tensions are the consequences of a global strategy and have to do with gaining access to energy resources and control over production and transport of oil, gas and water through domination of economic corridors, especially maritime corridors. The acceleration of conflicts and tensions is the result of the sharpening of the systemic crisis of the capitalist system. Today, with the declining means to guarantee its global supremacy, Washington is faced with a crisis of leadership. The desperate attempts of a dying super power to maintain global supremacy was one of the main reasons for the dismantling of former Yugoslavia and more recently Libya. Today, the same is true for Ukraine and the challenge represented by its enormous reserves of shale gaz.

2.   Now, this is my second remark. I have try to show why the US and its western allies are involved in Sri Lanka. Now I would like to look at the type of soft power they are likely to use?

In 500 years BC, Sun Tzu wrote in his book “The Art of war”: ”supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”

Strategic ‘Balkanisation’ of societies everywhere is being utilized to destabilize entire continents. This is done through provoking tidal waves of ethnic, religious, and political anarchy that can dismember countries and civilizations. The idea is to create ‘black holes of chaos’.

The US has historically undertaken regime change operations as a method of advancing continental destabilization and pushing Western power deeper into Eurasia. But I repeat, regime change is not the finality, it is only the means by which Washington seeks to achieve its ‘black holes of chaos’ strategy.

People here often speak of regime change in a very simplistic way as if the West was jealous of Sri Lanka’s achievements and its ability to defeat the most ruthless terrorist organization, the LTTE. But no one explains why this little island of Sri Lanka, even should it one day become the Wonder of Asia, arouses so much attention in Washington and Brussels!

Regime change has always been a characteristic of American foreign policy. Since Syria in 1949, it is estimated that the CIA has overthrown or attempted to overthrow over 50 governments, although it has only admitted to 7. Today covert regime change operations are preferred when the interests of Great Powers are at stake.

Colour Revolutions are externally supported pro-Western “coups d’états”. They specifically use social media and NGOs as tools to infiltrate societies, increase their ranks, and to expand their efficiency once the regime change operation has commenced. By manipulating large groups of people, the illusion is created of a broad grassroots movement of disaffected masses rising up against a tyrannical dictatorship.

This misleading perception enables the coup attempt to gain wide support and acceptance among the Western community and civil society, and also denigrates the legitimate authorities that are trying to put down the illegal overthrow.

This new Obama method of soft warfare is extremely effective. It presents the affected State or government with the dilemma – to use force against the civilian protesters or resign! Therefore it is not difficult to see why they have been deployed all over. They have replaced ‘traditional’ CIA coup action and have become the modus operandi of covert regime change.

A global shift in US strategy is currently underway, with the US shifting from being “global policeman” to  “Lead from Behind” mastermind providing support to Colour Revolutions. Washington prefers a strategy of indirect approaches to projecting power rather than massive invasions and bombing runs.

3.   In conclusion, as shown by the vote for the US resolution in Geneva, today the balance of forces has grown in favor of the West and against Sri Lanka!  Why? How do we explain this dangerous trend? The US buys the votes of certain countries, but that is not new, and the argument is not sufficient! More important they have been allowed to hijack the UN institution and this is widely underestimated. Sri Lanka is going in a wrong direction by privileging bilateral negotiations with an unequal “partner”! The UN was created in favor of small countries, guaranteeing sovereign equality among all States. Therefore, for countries such as Sri Lanka, the only political choice is to negotiate within a multilateral framework, where it can build a balance of forces in its favour.

Sri Lanka, during the war and since, has had to confront these geostrategic challenges. If Sri Lanka is to formulate an offensive strategy rather than a defensive one, it should take all these into consideration!

By Jean-Pierre Page 

Source: https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/critique-of-the-marga-colloquium-on-the-last-stages-of-the-war-in-sri-lanka/

Investing resources judiciously, creating wealth, consolidating it and distributing it appropriately are prime tasks of governance – Thirukkural.

People with a History

Sangam literature serves the Tamils well in the study of their social and economic history. The better known Chola exploits of a millennium back owe their origin to the Sangam era. The first Tamil Poet Laureate of Tamil Nadu after India got independence was Namakkal Kavignar. He said “We Tamils are legatees to great achievements; let us do all that is appropriate to regain our past glory”. Life affirmation and material prosperity characterized earlier times. Full awareness of it influences their thought and action in both places across the Straits. With such consciousness perhaps Edmund Samarakkody MP speaking in Parliament in 1961 said; “Tamils are a proud people, a people with a history”. Yes, people with a rich heritage will seek to reassert their rights to give the appropriate economic dimension to their aspirations.

What stands in their path and against their forward movement will have to move out of their way. When the Treaty of Versailles heaped humiliation on Germany, Mao Tse Tung as a young revolutionary of age 25, addressed some French leaders in 1918, along these lines – You people think you have done something great. In ten or twenty years war will break out – What a warning it was to those insensitive to the susceptibilities of the defeated and impervious to the inevitable destined to follow. What a parallel it has to the war and its aftermath in Sri Lanka.

Human Resources

The unconventional way in which Japan and Singapore grew in recent times has dazzled the world. The irrepressible energy of the Japanese was duly channeled by good governance to make the economy top notch. The mental energy of a single leader in Singapore has taken the nation to laudable status among first world economies. They have blasted the notion of richness in indigenous natural resources as basic to create more wealth. To them the richest resource was the people to whom modern education was provided and skills imparted. As important or more was the luring of foreign finance together with transfer of technology.

Sri Lanka and the Northern segment are rich in human resources, though yet to be cut, polished and value added. The last three-quarter century has shown the world over, how material wealth can enhance human resources that have remained stagnant for long. For the segment of the North, economic opportunities abroad have opened up possibilities never considered practicable earlier. It is to such material that those in governance owe an obligation to provide the environment for further growth.

Attractions of the Modern

To cite but one area of meaningful and profitable engagement it is tourism. A post Tsunami inspection took my colleague and me in early 2005 to coastal Mullaitivu where we marveled at the tourism potential of NANDIKADAL. How many really know of the incredible tourism resources allowed to lie fallow? Do many Sri Lankans know that Singapore on par with Ceylon in tourism 50 years back gets 15 times as many tourists now? This would show potential but let it not go by default for want of clear thinking. The writer knows as much as any Tamil that education, IT, health, agriculture, food security, infrastructure and housing count for more. What is considered practicable for the bulk of diaspora financing is investing with a modern flavour. Their business like computations will smack of the ultra-modern.

Tamil Diaspora as Investor

With a global perspective World Bank says quite assertively that Diaspora can be a source of capital, investment and technology transfer. International migrants in 2013 estimated at 230 million by WB compose 3% of world population. Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora approximates 30% of its parent community in Sri Lanka. Its earning capacity is therefore disproportionately higher compared to that of 3%. It is further pointed out that recorded remittances received by developing countries at $ 404 billion in 2013 exceeds official aid flows. Capital from Tamils mobilisable abroad and investible in the North is huge. But what flows in as of now is only a fraction.

It comes in disjointed driblets merely to make life tolerable to their near ones. Why such a phenomenon? The prevailing no-war situation has failed to create an environment of calm or repose. The bitterness of war is made to fester. The heavy presence of the military is a constant abrasion to foil any healing of the Southern ulcer. Lest they begin to forget, there is a raucous reminder of it in the annual calendar of celebrations. In the fifties Japanese imports bore the label ‘Made in Occupied Japan’. That was designed to rub insult upon injury. Even without it, General MacArthur blazoned it with his presence. The existence of the military Governor in the North is precisely to reinforce such animosiy. To rub in that the East is no less prostrate than the North, there is a military Governor there as well. The government relishes the thought that a perfect ensemble is in place as a rivet of its despotism.

Why Tamils Recoil

Are learned theses necessary to explain why the diaspora does not invest in the North or in the rest of the country? Whatever goodwill that existed even during the conflict is being dissipated by a single entity –the government. It is doing all within its power not to abate ill feeling but to embed antipathy. What the diaspora thinks is in sync with Tamils throughout the globe. More importantly, it resonates with the feelings of the parent community resident in the land of their birth. It was this unity that brought the jitters and forced a weird theory upon the LLRC. There is a good Tamil diaspora and a bad. A patriotic SL government should entice the former, alienate the latter and marginalize both.

What a strategy; using a wedge to unite! The approach of the government is same as the Britisher’s attitude to India’s aspiration to freedom. Bharathi puts across in memorable words as coming from the white man – “A slave born to labour, how dare you nurture thoughts of being free. Have you known it before? Can you ever use it?” The poet repudiates, “Those robustly intent upon independence, will never settle for anything less. With a keenness for nectar, will they ever waste their breath on toddy?” (read 13A). An effusion of stirring lines decades before independence galvanized the Tamils. With the government standing asininely insensitive to Tamil aspirations, they too will remain equally obdurate. Five years have remained the same and Tamils have little thought of investing nearer home. Yet a change in national consciousness induced by a new leadership can make the difference. In that hope some ideas are outlined.

Investment Climate

When a nation is pressed against the wall it is constrained to go for climate change. Many a state has opted for it and herein we have seen economic progress. Consequent to the climate change, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) which started in $ millions in the sixties reached billions in a few decades and then touched $2 trillion in 2007. The slide since then is now getting reversed and in 2013, $ 1.461 trillion was recorded. FDI projected for 2016 is $ 1.8 trillion.

Global FDI stock has now reached $25.5 trillion. Global investment needs are in the order of $ 5 to 7 trillion per year. It is assessed that developing countries need $ 3.3 to 4.5 trillion, which is mainly for basic infrastructure. It may also be noted that in 2013, 54% of FDI inflow was to developing countries. Developing Asia is No. 1 global investment destination – (source: UNCTAD). The significance of FDI to Sri Lanka and inflow from diaspora may be seen in such perspective.

UNCTAD’s Investment Policy (IP) Emphases

Outlining 11 core principles in the area of FDI, the UN body says in 3 of them:

“Investment policies should be developed involving all stakeholders, and embedded in an institutional framework based on the rule of law that adheres to high standards of public governance and ensures predictable, efficient and transparent procedures for investors”.

“In line with each country’s development strategy, investment policy should establish open, stable and predictable entry conditions for investment”.

“Investment policies should provide adequate protection to established investors. The treatment of established investors should be non-discriminatory in nature”. (emphases added)

The most salient are highlighted. How many of them obtain in the Northern Province or in the country? Expected Investments have not measured up to the billions devoted to the reconstruction effort. Tamils know of the energy and resources that have been channeled in more than restituting road and rail infrastructure together with bridges and as relevantly power and communication network. When they are not purposefully utilized to attract foreign inflows or for governmental investment, no worthwhile results follow. We have seen it in recent years.

In the last few years World Fact Book did not even publish the FDI data of Sri Lanka. SL had lost her credibility. WFB wished to retain its name for reliability. Prior to that the information showed an upward variance compared to statistics elsewhere on SL.  Zimbabwe is in the same boat.

Aversion to Northern Development – Why?

Reference to North is the precisely demarcated Northern Province. Statistics are official. Perceptions are not confined to a single ethnic entity. Of late they are very much at variance with official pronouncements. The percipient and the honest accept only what is tenable and credible.

It is sought to examine why the North has not surged from May 2009. The present and the future are inseparable from the past. The germ of constraining one community was well planted in the last century.

It was in full political flush before independence. Its growth was inhibited by the ruling power – the British. Since then it was war by other means – politics – till 1983. “Extension of politics by other means”- war- followed. From 2009 it is war under camouflage. Tamils are not naïve to wish for the fruit of war to fall from defeat. The benefits are scrupulously reserved for the victor. In what form?

In the North a show of development with high visibility structures for visitors. To the gilt cage some shine is added. Life is certainly made more tolerable with easier commuting, good communications and the benefits of electricity. Very little is added to economic progress or employment or the quality of life. They are however no substitute for self-government. The Provincial Council is instituted for the purpose of engaging the people in their own governance. But it is negated through Governor’s government, a single orifice that constricts any meaningful development. Where did the Province stand in 2008, assessed through economic and social criteria? LAST in the country. Where does it stand in 2014? LAST in the country.

When the Province is circumscribed in every respect by central authority and displays only negative features, what is the attraction for foreign or Diaspora investment? Military infestation was irksome to everybody. Para militaries made it worse. High Security Zones had expelled tens of thousands. Iniquitous land misappropriation has added to displacement. There is no resumption of normality and this is not the way to attract investment or development. Tamils are wont to think that this is by intent and design. Making the investment climate hospitable is the first step in drawing investments to the North.

What the Future Holds

A reputed writer in a recent publication of his has expressed a worthwhile and credible viewpoint. Put in my words, a statesman in the mould of Mandela may have the stature to attempt a change of national consciousness among his people (Sinhala). But he must have a higher vision to be worthy of such a mission.

Having said that, he adds that only President Rajapaksa himself personally can find a way out of this impasse. “However, given the elements that comprise Mahinda Rajapaksa’s consciousness, such a transformation in the southern consciousness is not likely to happen. What is more likely is that Rajapaksa will stoke the southern supremacist consciousness in a downward spiral into a deeper and wider conflict”.

It is difficult not to hold with the writer. If that be the reality, Tamils have to be prepared for a long haul to experience the benefits of peace. It would seem that our path to redemption is not laid out in velvet. Government’s proactive policies, responded to by Tamils with investment, development and economic progress can deflect dire prospects.

By S. Sivathasan

Source: https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/north-sri-lanka-growth-and-development/