Sathyam Commentary
On Violence & Integrity
[17 February 2001, revised 8 November 2007]
A visitor from Singapore wrote:"...I was going through (your website)
and am impressed with its layout and all. What disappointed me was your call to arms along racial lines
which is contrary to what most mainland Tamils favour. I am a Tamil in Singapore and a descendant of mainland
Tamils...I only ask the Ceylonese to keep their internal squabbles to themselves..."
 "...tamilnation.org together with many Tamils, will continue to grapple with (and agonise over) the question of moral laws
and ethical ideals in the context of an
armed struggle for
freedom. The question troubled
Arujna in the battlefield of
Kurushetra. In Pondicherry, Aurobindo grappled with the broader moral issues
in 'The Evolution of
Man'. Kannagi in Cilapathikaram,
took the law into her own hands and burnt down Madurai in her search for
justice. The response to the armed struggle, from those who are not
members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, must spring from a coincidence
of what they themselves say, with what they do, and in this way reflect
their own integrity.... We ourselves believe that means and ends are
inseparable - and that the relationship between the two is intrinsic and
dynamic. That is the first article of our creed. We are mindful that the
resort to violence to secure political ends brings in its train consequences
which offend the conscience of humanity. But those who would resist recourse
to war, are also duty bound to address some of the questions that arise - would they deny the
moral legitimacy of
the struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam for freedom
from alien Sinhala rule - and what is it that they, themselves, are doing to
end the war and secure a just peace where no one people may rule another?
Or would they prefer to disdainfully dismiss
the struggle for freedom by the
people of Tamil Eelam as some 'internal squabble' or 'terrorism'
- and continue to remain silent and distant spectators of Sri Lanka's
continuing discrimination,
arbitrary arrests and detentions,
torture,
extra judicial killings and massacres,
indiscriminate
aerial bombardment, artillery shelling,
wanton rape,
genocide
and state terrorism. These are not
some remote 'philosophical' questions, but have something to do with the way
in which each one of us choose to live our lives and also our self image 'of
standing for principles'..."
tamilnation.org
has made no call for arms and makes no call for arms - whether on 'racial' lines or
any other line. We do take the view that the
armed
resistance of the people of Tamil Eelam to alien Sinhala rule is not unlawful
- and the double negative is deliberate.
At the same time, we are mindful of the
views expressed by respected legal
scholars such as James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law,
University of Cambridge (in relation to Quebec's secession from Canada):
" (a) In international practice there is no recognition of a
unilateral right to secede based on a majority vote of the population of a
sub-division or territory, whether or not that population constitutes one or
more "peoples" in the ordinary sense of the word. In international
law, self-determination for peoples or groups within an independent state is
achieved by participation in the political system of the state, on the basis
of respect for its territorial integrity.
(b) Even where there is a strong and sustained call for
independence (measured, for example, by referenda results showing substantial
support for independence), it is a matter for the government of the state
concerned to consider how to respond. It is not required to concede
independence in such a case, but may take into account the national interest
and the interests of all those concerned. (and)
(c) Even in the context of separate colonial territories,
unilateral secession was the exception.
Self-determination was in the first
instance a matter for the colonial government to implement; only if it was
blocked by that government did the United Nations support unilateral
secession. Outside the colonial context, the United Nations is extremely
reluctant to admit a seceding entity to membership against the wishes of the
government of the state from which it has purported to secede. There is no
case since 1945 where it has done so..."
That such views are expressed by legal scholars, is not altogether surprising
given that international law itself is largely dependent on state
practice - and states have always had a shared interest in securing the status quo and
protecting existing state
boundaries.
Mahatma Gandhi did not found India's struggle for freedom
on the 'international law principle' of the right to self determination. If he had, he may
have been met with the objection (in the early part of the 20th century) that no such general principle
existed in international law. It was, perhaps, this that led
Aurobindo to remark
in 1907:
"...It is the common habit of established governments and especially
those which are themselves oppressors, to brand all violent methods in subject
peoples and communities as criminal and wicked. When you have disarmed your
slaves and legalised the infliction of bonds, stripes, and death on any one of
them who may dare to speak or act against you, it is natural and convenient to
try and lay a moral as well as a legal ban on any attempt to answer violence
by violence...
But no nation yet has listened to the cant of the oppressor when itself put
to the test, and the general conscience of humanity approves the
refusal...Liberty is the life breath of a nation; and when life is attacked,
when it is sought to suppress all chance of breathing by violent pressure,
then any and every means of self preservation becomes right and
justifiable...It is the nature of the pressure which determines the nature of
the resistance..."
tamilnation.org together with many Tamils, will continue to grapple with (and agonise over) the question of moral laws
and ethical ideals in the context of an
armed struggle for
freedom. The question troubled
Arujna in the battlefield of
Kurushetra. In Pondicherry, Aurobindo grappled with the broader moral issues
in 'The Evolution of
Man':
"Man's highest aspiration - his seeking for perfection, his longing
for freedom and mastery, his search after pure truth and unmixed delight - is
in flagrant contradiction with his present existence and normal experience.
Such contradiction is part of Nature's general method; it is a sign
that she is working towards a greater harmony. The reconciliation is achieved
by an evolutionary progress...
...Since perfection is progressive, good and evil are shifting quantities and change
from time to time their meaning and value. Four main principles successively, govern human
conduct. The first two are personal need and the good of the collectivity. A conflict is
born of the opposition of the two instinctive tendencies which govern human action: the
individualist and the gregarious.
In order to settle this conflict, a new principle comes in, other and higher than the
two conflicting instincts, and aiming both to override and to reconcile them. This third
principle is the ethical ideal. But conflicts do not subside; they seem rather to
multiply. Moral laws are arbitrary and rigid; when applied to life, they are obliged to
come to terms with it and end in compromises which deprive them of all power.
Behind the ethical law, which is a false image, a greater truth of a vast consciousness
without fetters unveils itself, the supreme law of our divine
nature. It determines
perfectly our relations with each being and with the totality of the universe, and it also
reveals the exact rhythm of the direct expression of the Divine in us. It is the fourth
and supreme principle of action, which is at the same time the imperative law and absolute
freedom...."
Kannagi in Cilapathikaram, took the law
into her own hands and burnt down Madurai in her search for justice. Today Kannagi is deified in many parts of Tamil Nadu. It is a story rooted in the
ordinary lives of the early Tamils of the Pandyan Kingdom in the first century A.D. and is
regarded by many as the national epic of the Tamil people. Professor A.L. Basham writing
in 'The Wonder that was India' commented:
''(Cilapathikaram has) a grim force and splendour unparalled elsewhere in Indian literature - it is imbued
with both the ferocity of the early Tamils and their stern respect for justice, and
incidentally, it throws light on early Tamil political ideas.''
The dividing line between violence and non violence is not always the line of zero
thickness of Euclidean geometry. Thileepan and
Annai Poopathy gave their lives in the struggle for
Tamil Eelam and who can say that in doing so, they were violent. Again, the
Black Tigers willingly give
their lives, though at the same time, it is true that they take other lives. Theirs
are acts of violence but it is their willingness to give of themselves, which
has found an answering response
in the hearts and minds of thousands of Tamils living today in many lands and across
distant seas. The same is true of the cyanide capsule in the hands of the
Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam - and to say that is not to romanticise the armed
struggle for Tamil Eelam.
What then should be our response to armed resistance? There is no mechanical rule which will provide
us with an universal answer. Velupillai Pirabaharan
has committed his life to the armed struggle for the freedom of his people. So, did
Sathasivam
Krishnakumar and Thamilselvan. And so, too, have many
other members of the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam. It is in the coincidence of what they said with what they did, that
they found harmony, secured their integrity and enhanced their capacity to
influence. In the same way, it was
a measure of Gandhi's integrity and his capacity to
influence that he walked his talk.
His life was an experiment with truth - and truth is a
pathless land.
It is, perhaps, some of all this that led
the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to confine its membership to those who
actually participate in the armed resistance - and that even its political wing
should be led by those who have been ready to put their
lives on line.
"..the political and the military are not separate, but form
one organic whole, consisting of the people's army, whose nucleus is the guerrilla army...
the guerrilla force is the party in embryo...."
Revolution in
the Revolution? - Regis Debray, 1967
By the same token, the response
to
the Tamil Eelam armed struggle, from those who are not members of the LTTE, must spring from a coincidence of what
they themselves say, with what they do, and
reflect their own integrity. Each of us have our dharma - our way of harmony. It was Annie Besant who remarked once (translating the
Gita), that it is better to
act in accordance with one's own dharma rather than try 'to act out some one
else's dharma
better'.
tamilnation.org
itself continues to
seek a coincidence of its own words and deeds.
"...There are in every part of the world
men who search.
I am not a prisoner of history. I should not seek
there for the meaning of my destiny. I should constantly
remind myself that the real leap consists in
introduction of invention into existence. In the world
through which I travel,
I am endlessly creating myself..." -
Frantz Fanon in
Black Skin, White Masks 1952
We believe that means and ends are inseparable - and that
the relationship between the two is intrinsic and dynamic. That is the first article of our
creed. We are mindful that the resort to violence to secure political ends brings in
its train consequences which offend the conscience of humanity. The words of
the fictional Prince Andrew Bolkhonsky in *
Tolstoy's War
& Peace , Book 10, Chapter 25, pp 486-7 are apposite -
"... we play at magnanimity and all that
stuff. Such magnanimity and sensibility are like the magnanimity and sensibilities of a
lady who faints when she sees a calf being killed; she is so kind-hearted that she can't
look at blood, but enjoys eating the calf served up with sauce. They talk to us of the
rules of war, of chivalry, of flags of truce, of mercy to the unfortunate and so on. It's
all rubbish. I saw chivalry and flags of truce in 1805. They humbugged us and we
humbugged them. They plunder other peoples' houses, issue false paper money, and worst of
all they kill my children and my father, and then talk of rules of war and magnanimity to
foes ! Take no prisoners but kill and be killed ! . . . If there was none of this
magnanimity in war, we should go to war only when it was worth while going to certain
death, as now.... war is not courtesy but the most horrible thing in
life; and we ought to understand that, and not play at war....
The air of war is murder; the
methods of war are spying, treachery, and their encouragement, the ruin of a country's
inhabitants, robbing them or stealing to provision the army, and fraud and falsehood
termed military craft.... "
We recognise the
harsh significance of
the
British Admiralty Note of 1906:
"...It must not be forgotten
that
the object of war is to obtain peace as speedily as possible on one's own terms, and
not
the least efficacious means of producing this result is the infliction of loss and injury
upon 'enemy' non-combatants...... The object of the bombardment of
[commercial] towns might be the destruction of life and property, the enforcing of ransom,
the creation of panic, and the hope of embarrassing the government of the enemy's country
and exciting the population to bring pressure to bear upon their rulers to bring the war
to a close.... Lastly, we have the case of bombardments intended
to cover, or
divert attention from, a landing. It is easy to conceive that a bombardment of
this nature might involve undefended towns and villages, and it presents perhaps the most
difficult case of all from a humanitarian point of view. At the same time, no Power could
be expected to abstain from such an act of war, if it fell within their strategic plan....
It must come under the category of inevitable acts of war necessitated by overwhelming
military considerations. We could not give up the right so to act, and we could not expect
other nations to do so.'. . . "
We are also more than mindful of the words of Harry L. Stimson, US Secretary of State,
quoted,
appropriately enough, by Albert Speer, Hitler's Armaments Minister in his book
'Inside the Third Reich' published in 1970:
"...We must never forget, that under modern conditions of
life, science and technology, all war has become greatly brutalized and that no
one who joins in it, even in self-defense, can escape becoming also in a measure
brutalized. Modern war cannot be limited in its destructive method and the
inevitable debasement of all participants... we, as well as our enemies
have contributed to the proof that the central moral
problem is war and not its methods..." (Harry L. Stimson, US Secretary of State 1929-1933, 'The
Nuremberg Trial: Landmark in Law', Foreign Affairs, 1947 - quoted by
Albert Speer in
Inside the Third
Reich, Macmillan, 1970)
We agree with Albert Speer that the central moral problem is
war, itself, and not simply its methods. But those who would resist recourse
to war, are also duty bound to address some of the questions that arise -
What is it that they, themselves, are
doing to end the war and secure a just peace where no one people may rule
another? Or do they advocate the 'peace'
that comes from surrender to oppressive alien rule?
Would they deny the
moral legitimacy of
the struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam for freedom
from alien Sinhala rule?
Would they agree that if democracy means rule of the people, by
the people and for the people, then it also means that no one people may rule
another?
Would they agree that rule by a permanent ethnic majority within
the confines of a single state is alien rule?
And, if they are willing to resist alien rule, what
will they do to manifest
that will - not only in word but also in concrete deed ?
To what extent
are they prepared to give of themselves to that resistance - even if by doing so
they may put at risk not
so much their lives but their life style?
Or would they prefer to disdainfully dismiss
the struggle for freedom by the
people of Tamil Eelam as some 'internal squabble' or 'terrorism'
- and continue to remain silent and distant spectators of
Sri Lanka's continuing discrimination,
arbitrary arrests and detentions,
torture,
extra judicial killings and massacres,
indiscriminate
aerial bombardment, artillery shelling,
wanton rape,
genocide
and state
terrorism.
These are not some remote 'philosophical' questions, but
have something to do with the way in which each one of us choose to live our lives.
It is
also about securing our self image 'of standing for principles'. The words of
Michael Rivero serve to focus our attention on the existential
dilemma faced by many -
"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just
and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a
citizen acknowledges that the government under which he or she lives is
lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do
about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails
risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to
surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do
not have the courage to face that choice..."
To take action in the face of a
corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved
ones. And, as always,
Leo Tolstoy
was perceptive -
“One man does not assert the truth which he knows,
because he feels himself bound to the people with whom he is engaged;
- another, because the truth might deprive him of the profitable position by which he maintains his family;
- a third, because he desires to attain reputation and authority, and then use them in the service of mankind;
- a fourth, because he does not wish to destroy old sacred traditions;
- a fifth, because he has no desire to offend people;
- a sixth, because the expression of
the truth would arouse persecution, and disturb the excellent social
activity to which he has devoted himself...”
Again, David
Edwards was right to point out in
'The Difficult Art of Telling the Truth
-
".. It is not virtuous, or even amoral, to remain silent while terrible crimes are perpetrated in our name – sometimes to be silent is to lie.
Ultimately... we have to make a choice:
There are victims, there are executioners, and there are bystanders... Unless we wrench free from being what we like to call ‘objective’, we are closer psychologically, whether we like to admit it or not, to the executioner than to the victim.”
tamilnation.org takes the view that the Sri Lankan government and its
agencies have during the past several decades, committed
systematic
violations of the rights of the Tamil people, including grave breaches of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
and the
Genocide Convention. David Selbourne was
right when he declared in 1984:
"Everyone who possesses an elementary sense of
justice has no moral choice but to acquaint himself fully with the plight of the Tamil
people. It is an international issue of growing importance. Their cause represents the
very essence of the cause of human rights and justice; and to deny it, debases and reduces
us all."
We agree with
Mahatma
Gandhi that -
"...It is open to a war
resister to judge between the combatants and wish success to the one who has justice on his side. By so judging he is more likely to bring peace between the two rather than remaining a mere
spectator..."
We
judge that the struggle
of the people of Tamil Eelam for freedom from alien Sinhala
rule has
justice on
its side and we take the view that by so judging, and
placing
in the public domain the facts on which that judgment is founded, we are more likely to
bring
a just peace in the island of Sri Lanka than by remaining a passive spectator. And here, we
find the words of Martin Luther King persuasive:
"..The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."
The charge is genocide
and the struggle is for freedom. |
