Dr Nirmala Chandrahasan (LLB, LLM, PhD, Attorney-at-Law) in an article titled “National Question and grievances faced by a minority’ (which she claims is a response to a piece I wrote, ‘Let’s make Sampanthan’s New Year wish come true’) offers some sober reflections on the issue of grievances, lists what she considers the most important and makes recommendations for their resolution. They warrant discussion.
Nirmala begins by quoting the LLRC (Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission) report: ‘The Commission takes the view that the root cause of the ethnic conflict lies in the failure of successive governments to address the genuine grievances of the Tamil people (Chapter 9 para 184).’
Nirmala has flagged eight points of contention:
1. Implementation of the Language Act.
2. Equal access to services and opportunities.
3. The principle of equality in the dispensation of justice.
4. Fair and just treatment of those detained.
5. Transitional justice.
6. Return to rightful owners of private properties secured by the State during the conflict (Points 4, 5 and 6 being essentially elaborations of Point 3).
7. Lack of State-sponsored economic development in the Northern and Eastern provinces and
8. Non-implementation in full of the 13th Amendment.
These we shall consider keeping in mind the keyword ‘genuine’ in the quote above, framed of course by the ‘root cause’ narrative.
Of these, Points 3-6 and 8 are not root causes (I deliberately leave the first two points for the last for reasons that will become obvious). Points 3 to 6 are issues that have arisen long after tensions snowballed into a full blown armed conflict and Point 8 is a recommendation. Even Point 2 touches on language-related issues. They are certainly valid concerns and anything less than comprehensive addressing of the same cannot help the cause of reconciliation. However, to flag these as valid or strong justification for ‘devolution’ is simplistic and demonstrates the pretty thin case for federalism championed by Tamil nationalists long before the LTTE came into the equation.
It is the State that has to pick up after the fact, yes. Those who funded, armed and in other ways backed the LTTE can adopt and have adopted a hands-off policy in the matter of infrastructure development and other necessary action to rebuild conflict-ridden territories including rebuilding livelihoods. It’s never enough, of course, but the important thing here is the ‘after the fact’ element. It doesn’t go with ‘root cause’.
The issue of justice (Points 3, 4 and 5) are valid. In fact the entire justice system in its operation heavily favours the privileged. Privilege is not the preserve of any particular community. Nirmala’s point is valid when it comes to disappearances. Proper investigation and follow-up action are necessary and sadly have been most manifest in absence. Just to get the ‘ethnic’ dimensions of the perspective right, the kind of justice that is sought was something that was offered to victims of the 1988/89 insurrection either. And, in the larger narrative of ‘reconciliation’, it has to be remembered that it was not just the security forces that were engaged in strewing misery. We can’t talk of certain widows and not others, certain orphans and not others.
Allegations have to be investigated. The LLRC is absolutely right on this. Nirmala has picked the correct quote which bears re-telling: ‘The government is duty bound to direct the law enforcement officers to take immediate steps to ensure that these allegations are properly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. It will be recalled that this report came out quite a few years ago, but evidently these recommendations have fallen on deaf ears.’
It is a grievance. Not a root cause. Perhaps a ‘cause’ for delay in reconciliation or even a cause for another round of violence, but certainly not a ‘root cause’ that warranted armed insurrection or even a demand for devolution simply because of the error of chronology. The same holds for Point 4, the indictment or release of those held in detention. The release of more than 90% of those taken into custody at the end of the conflict, many of them, as mentioned above, after being provided the opportunity to obtain marketable skills and useful qualifications, is not a valid excuse for denying justice to those who remain in custody. Again, as pointed above, ‘not a root cause’ but a consequent whose genesis is not neat, not tidy and not the lot of any single community. The state has to hold the baby of course since no one is saying ‘I am an LTTE member’ these days, but this doesn’t mean that we say nothing of the baby’s parentage. Not a ‘root cause’ though.
Point 6 is also an issue of justice. However, demilitarization is a process and no one can say that this Government or the one before did nothing on this count. Security is and always will be an issue, but return to normalcy requires that properties secured for whatever reason be returned to rightful owners, subject of course to the often difficult process of establishing legality of claim. Thorny, but addressable. Not a ‘root cause’ though.
The implementation of the Language Act has been slow. Nirmala is correct. Reasons include lack of resources and lack of political will. There’s movement on both, however. It is a grievance that needs to be rectified, the LLRC is correct. Perhaps it is a root cause in generating a sense of being subject to discrimination, but whether the dimensions were significant enough to warrant insurrection is not clear.
Point 2. Equal access to services and opportunities. Of course. The Tamils were favoured by the British in the public service and that edge did erode. If that’s a grievance and therefore should be addressed by restoring the percentages we had in 1948, then the Sinhalese would be edged out for all time. We can play the proportions game in many ways.
We call it multi-ethnic and multi-religious as though the population is equally divided among ethnicities and religious communities. Not true, but it’s not said is it? That said, she is absolutely correct about the low representation of Tamils and Muslims in the armed forces and the Police. This has to be rectified. It will be slow, in the case of Tamils at least, for understandable reasons, but progress should be made. The recruitment of a full complement of Tamil speaking officials as per the requirement of providing meaningful services to all citizens is a non-negotiable. Here too, Nirmala is absolutely correct. Point 2 is a demand and it outlines a genuine grievance. A root cause? Well, as much or as little as Point 1, as argued above.
As for job opportunities and the lack of effort by governments to set up factories in the conflict-ridden areas (the ‘development-deficit’ mentioned in Point 7), one must understand that it was not possible for thirty years and little thanks to those who went around burning all State institutions, factories included. Clearing the ground for democracy and development was done. Nothing done is ever enough. And development, let’s not forget, is not about benefiting ordinary people, quite in contrast to the rhetoric. It’s not about this community or that. Nirmala has acknowledged this.
The one telling ‘deficit’ is a comprehensive irrigation programme for the Northern province that matches development in this sphere elsewhere. The issue of a ‘River to Jaffna’ has been debated for a long time. There are disputes over technical feasibility. One must take into account that not all areas have the same complement of resources. However, if devolution is about each devolved entity making do with what it has, then the ‘Jaffna River’ is out.
There’s nothing in Nirmala’s first seven points that make a case for her eighth point, ‘devolution’. Devolution is not a root cause or a grievance. An aspiration, yes, but not a grievance. The grievances, the genuine ones that is, call for action and resolution but nothing that can be pinned on devolution of power. The 13th Amendment is an aberration. It presumes historicity and scientific validity of arbitrarily drawn lines and markers that neither the Tamils nor the Sinhalese had anything to do with. The President himself has correctly pointed this out and the most ardent devolutionists have maintained a deafening silence on the matter.
Nirmala asks if devolution is good for everyone, not just Tamils, never mind that devolution to the current ‘lines’ will concretise the myth-models of Tamil chauvinism. She quotes Mahinda Rajapaksa on this, ‘people in their own localities should be able to guide their own destinies’. This of course presupposed a neat and equal distribution of resources, but even if that were true, then the devolution logic demands that we move to village councils and not stop at provinces. Nirmala says decentralization can do it but does not say that decentralization cannot redress the key ‘issues’ she has flagged (Points 1 and 2).
Many have misquoted or selectively quoted the LLRC report on the issue of devolution. Nirmala is not an exception. I strongly recommend a re-reading of the LLRC report with close examination of Section 9.231 which interjects four caveats to the principle of ‘devolution.
Back to basics. Root causes. Trotting out issues produced by an armed conflict where the blame for the dismemberment, death, displacement and destruction cannot be placed at a single door is not an enumeration of ‘root causes’ but a description of what any conflict inevitably produces.
The only legitimate grievance Nirmala has expressed is about the language issue and here again it is more about sloth than anything else.
Genuine grievances are about true dimensions. And resolution is about a solution that engages with grievance. Devolution doesn’t arise from any of the genuine grievances Nirmala has outlined and certainly not the devolution to the Eelamist lines that are taken erroneously as a ‘goes without saying’ which, we all know, comes from a ‘comes without saying’ that has nothing to do with grievance.
Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com. Twitter: malindasene. Blog: www.malindawords.blogspot.com
