Reply To:
Name - Reply Comment
DANGEROUS DOGMA: TAMIL SELF-DETERMINATION
_DM-8recast.jpg)
By Dr DAYAN JAYATILLEKA
If the notion of Tamil self-determination should be entertained anywhere it is by the Indian state and Constitution because of the existence of Tamil Nadu with 70-80 million Tamils who constitute a collective and a far older presence there than on this island. However, the concept is not entertained by India and correctly so. Rejected in India or any part of India, it certainly has no place in Sri Lanka, which has infinitely less geostrategic space.
The two interlinked postulates of Tamil nationalism are those of ‘Tamil nation’ and ‘self-determination’. The ideology of self-determination remains very much part of contemporary Tamil nationalist politics, even among its sophisticated urban moderates. Take for instance the interview given to Sulochana Ramaiah Mohan of the Sunday Lakbima, by lawyer-politician MA Sumanthiran, in which he says as follows:
.jpg)
“Self-determination means self-determination, nothing more or nothing less than that. I used the word to mean exactly what it means. The fact that others may have abused that word does not mean that I can’t use it to convey its correct meaning...Self-determination is a term of art (sic) in international law. The UN and the Human Rights charters are based on this foundational principle. All peoples are entitled to it, and the Tamils in Sri Lanka cannot be denied it merely because the LTTE also used that claim. Oppressed People are everywhere, and it will not be possible to compare and pronounce that a particular situation is better than the other...As I have indicated earlier, self-determination is the fundamental right of all people. You cannot have harmony among different peoples by denying their fundamental rights.”
(‘Sumanthiran Spinmeister of Past Times?’ interview by Sulochana Ramaiah Mohan, Sunday Lakbima, July 15, 2012)
These remarks must be read together with Mr. Sumanthiran’s earlier, un-contradicted statements on the subject such as the one a made less than six months ago. I note that he has not contradicted, for these several months, his February interview in which he said the following to Namini Wijedasa:
“…You have to ask the Tamil people whether they want to stay in the country or be separate. Everywhere it’s like that…A distinct people in international law have certain rights called self-determination. The right to self-determination international law now says must be exercised internally in the first instance. But if that is consistently denied, then according to the Canadian Supreme Court judgment on Quebec, they might even become entitled to a unilateral secession. So, if Sri Lanka should remain as one country, and we think it should remain as one country, then to preserve it as one country you must grant that right to self-determination and have it exercised in an arrangement within one country. That must be given, that must be recognized. It’s not at the wish of the majority that it’s given. That is as a matter of right in international law…” (Sunday Lakbimanews, Feb 5th 2012)
An excerpt from a transcript of video of Mr. Sumanthiran’s fairly recent speech in Matara quotes him as saying:
“…there is a great and ancient people called Sinhalese in this island, they have a very ancient history, they have their own language. They have adopted an ancient and glorious religion. They have their own traditions. I respect all of that very much. But unfortunately I don’t belong to that great people. I belong to another people called Tamils. We also have a great tradition. We also have a great language. Our history is also at least as ancient as that of the Sinhalese. But we are a different people…So I want you to know that when the Tamil National Alliance says that we are for the right to self-determination of the Tamil people of this country, that in no way negates the right to self-determination of the other peoples of this country…The fact that a people are entitled to the right to self-determination does not necessarily mean that they must exist as a separate country. In many countries there are many different peoples, they live together as one country, but recognizing each other’s status as a distinct people.”
If as Mr. Sumanthiran says, the right of self-determination does not necessarily mean that they must exist as a separate country, what does it mean? If it means the right to autonomy or some measure of self-governance within a united state, why not call it that? If as he rightly says, the right of self-determination does not necessarily mean a separate country, does it also mean, i.e. does it extend to and include, the right to form a separate country? His phraseology does not unconditionally exclude secession and unequivocally commit to a single united and indivisible Sri Lanka. If he is speaking of a (so-called) right of internal self-determination, what is the firewall between that and external self-determination?Sri Lanka’s Tamils, as a national minority, or at most, a minority nationality – not a nation-- must not be subject to any discrimination or injustice. Self-determination, however, is a right enjoyed and exercised by the multiethnic Sri Lankan people/nation while sovereignty is the right of the Sri Lankan nation, state and multiethnic citizenry, not a particularistic fraction or parochial segment of any of these.
Comments - 11
Recommended
You May Also Like
Trending
