|
Thimpu Declaration: The Path of Reason
"Two nations may agree to live together by force of reason.
They cannot be compelled
to live together by force of arms"
15 February 1987
[including
Note on 17 August 2005 - 20 years
after the
collapse of the Thimpu Talks
on 17 August 1985]
[see also
The Thimpu
Talks - July/August 1985 ]
| Summary: "...a 'genuinely federal Constitution', will not come
as a by-product of a political horse deal. It will come only when an honest and open answer is found to the preliminary
question: who will federate with whom? Who are the two peoples who will federate to form a
'genuine' federal union? It was to this basic question that the
Thimpu
declaration addressed itself. Because it is this which goes to the
root of the conflict in the island of Sri Lanka. All else is secondary....Two nations may agree to live together by force of reason. They cannot be compelled
to live together by force of arms. It is the rejection of reason by successive Sinhala
governments which also constitutes the rationale for the continued armed struggle of the
Tamil people for an independent Tamil Eelam...The Thimpu declaration which represented the unanimous will of all six Tamil Liberation
Organisations was not an exercise in rhetoric. Too many lives had been lost and too many
lives were at stake to have permitted that particular luxury. The Thimpu declaration
was founded on reason and time will testify to the validity of that reasoning. Because
reason, even if it be denied, will continue to influence and direct and to give coherence
and legitimacy to the aspirations of the Tamil people." |
At Thimpu, in July 1985, all six Tamil Liberation Organisations, consisting of the
Eelam Peoples Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF), the Eelam Revolutionary Organisation
(EROS), the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Peoples Liberation Organisation
of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE), the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation (TELO), and the
Parliamentary Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF),
jointly and unanimously declared:
"It is our considered view that any meaningful solution to the Tamil national
question must be based on the following four cardinal principles -
1. recognition of the Tamils of Ceylon as a nation
2. recognition of the existence of an identified homeland for the Tamils
in the island of Sri Lanka
3. recognition of the right of self determination of the Tamil nation
4. recognition of the right to citizenship and the fundamental rights of all Tamils
who look upon the island as their country.
"Different countries have fashioned different systems of governments to ensure
these principles. We have demanded and struggled for an independent Tamil state as the
answer to this problem arising out of the denial of these basic rights of our people...
However, in view of our earnest desire for peace, we are prepared to give consideration to
any set of proposals, in keeping with the above-mentioned principles, that the Sri Lankan
government may place before us."
The Thimpu declaration continues to represent a watershed in the
Tamil national
liberation struggle because apart from anything else, it was the expression of the joint
and unanimous will of all six Tamil Liberation Organisations engaged in the struggle and
it therefore served to crystallize the political issues of that struggle.
Sinhala chauvinism's denial of Tamil nationalism
But, the negotiating process initiated at Thimpu floundered and continues to flounder
because of the continued refusal of the Sri Lankan government to recognise the existence
of the Tamil nation in the island of Sri Lanka. The stand of the Sri Lankan government was enunciated by
Dr. H.W. Jayawardene, the leader of the Sri Lankan government delegation to the talks:
"...it is clear that a political settlement of the Tamil question cannot be
made either on the basis of the claim to be a separate nation or nationality distinct from
other racial groups that are citizens of Sri Lanka or on the basis of a claim to be heirs
to a territorially demarcated area styled the 'traditional homelands of the Tamils'
transcending the provincial boundaries of the Northern and Eastern Provinces, since both
such claims are inconsistent with and contradictory to a united nation"
And, ten months later, in presenting the so called 'peace proposals' of the Sri Lankan
government to the Political Parties Conference on the 25th June 1986, President
Jayawardene reiterated that 'the proposals of the Sri Lankan government have to be
examined within the framework of the principles to which the Sri Lankan government
subscribes' and these included, not only 'the maintenance of the unity, integrity and
sovereignty of Sri Lanka', but also 'the maintenance of the unitary character of the Sri
Lankan constitution'.
and, pragmatic approach?
Recently, Lord Avebury, a member of the International Emergency Committee on Sri Lanka
has been moved to comment:
"...I may be wrong in my interpretation, but it is not helpful for either side
to lay down, in advance of negotiations, conditions which are absolute...If there is a
genuine willingness to negotiate, the fairest solution would seem to be one that demands
equal concessions, however that can be measured. On the other hand, there has been so much
bombastic rhetoric about 'legitimate expectations' on the Tamil side, and so much
bloodshed in the struggle for 'liberation', that some elements would find it emotionally
impossible to accept anything less than unconditional surrender from the
government..." (Lord Avebury: Keynote Speech of the International Alert USA
Seminar on Sri Lanka, Los Angeles, 25th October 1986)
The view that it is not 'helpful for either side to lay down, in advance of
negotiations, conditions which are absolute' and the further view that 'given the
willingness to negotiate, the fairest solution would seem to be one that demands equal
concessions' are views that do have a certain pragmatic appeal. It is a pragmatic approach
which may also be described as the 'shopkeeper's approach' to the resolution of conflict -
that which is fair is the bargain that is struck. But it may not always be easy to
determine where pragmatism ends and the slippery path of expediency begins. The
negotiating process may then descend into a political horse deal, which at best may serve
the immediate self interest of some of the negotiators, but will be unrelated to the
central issues of the conflict. Again, political horse deals quickly become unstuck.
A political negotiating process is concerned with securing the interests of large
numbers of people and that which is fair and therefore acceptable to large numbers of
people, cannot be determined without crystallizing, beforehand and with some care, the
central matters that are in issue. Strange as it may seem to some, the Tamil Liberation
Organisations took the view that an open discussion about the framework for the
negotiating process would help, rather than thwart, the negotiating process.
Thimpu Declaration: rhetoric or path of reason?
Be that as it may, comments such as those made at the International Alert Seminar and
the continued refusal of the Sri Lankan government to accept the framework suggested at
Thimpu focuses attention on the need to examine the rationalities of the Thimpu
declaration.
Did the Thimpu declaration represent bombastic rhetoric or did it seek to concretise
the political reality which had moved both the Tamil guerrilla movement and the Sri Lankan
government to 'peace talks'?
Did the Thimpu declaration prescribe 'absolutist' pre conditions to the negotiating
process or did it set out a principled framework intended to advance the negotiating
process?
Was the Thimpu declaration a reflection of an 'emotional' attitude which would not
'accept anything less than unconditional surrender from the Sri Lankan government' or,
on the contrary, did the declaration recognise that 'different countries have fashioned
different systems of governments' to secure the principles set out in the declaration and
did the declaration therefore seek to construct a rational basis for discussions about an
acceptable political solution?
what does reason show?
Reason shows that a political resolution of the conflict between the Sinhala people and
the Tamil people should, after all begin by recognising the existence of the Sinhala
people as a people, and the Tamil people as a people. Otherwise we shall all be engaged in
an exercise in cuckooland. And central to the
Thimpu declaration was the claim for the
recognition of the Tamils as a nation. And it was this which led the representatives of
the Tamil Liberation Organisations to declare at the Thimpu Talks on the 17th of August
1985:
"...we say, very respectfully, please understand that we too are a people and
please deal with us on that basis, or not at all. Please do not give us the niceties of
legal interpretations. Please tell us straight: do you regard us as a people or not? We
are here because we seek to engage you in the serious business of talking about the
problems that have arisen between the Sinhala people and the Tamil people. And that is
why, as a reasonable people, we say at the beginning, please tell us with whom do you say
you are talking with?... And for our part, we declare here at Thimpu, without rancour and
with patience, that we shall speak at Thimpu, or for that matter any where else, on behalf
of the Tamil nation or not at all..." (Statement made by Nadesan Satyendra at Thimpu
on behalf of the Tamil Liberation Organisations on the 17th of August 1985)
a nation is not a state
What, then is a nation? It is useful to begin by recognising with Professor
Seton-Watson that the belief that every state is a nation or that all sovereign states are
'national' states has done much to obfuscate understanding of political realities:
"The belief that every state is a nation, or that all sovereign states are
national states, has done much to obfuscate human understanding of political realities. A
state is a legal and political organisation, with the power to require obedience and
loyalty from its citizens. A nation is a community of people, whose members are bound
together by a sense of solidarity, a common culture, a national consciousness..."(Professor
Hugh Seton-Watson: Nations & States - Methuen, London 1977)
The continued assertion of the Sri Lankan government that the demand for the
recognition of a 'Tamil nation was inconsistent with and contradictory to a united nation'
is an attempt to obfuscate an understanding of political realities. It is an assertion
which confuses by using the term 'nation' in two different senses at the same time. It is
an assertion which prefers to cloud the reality that not 'every state is a nation' and
that not 'all sovereign states are national states'. And it is an assertion which refused
to face up to the question whether Sri Lanka today is a multi national state consisting of
both the Sinhala nation and the Tamil nation.
the political force of Tamil nationalism
But, perhaps, more than matters of constitutional or international law (though, these
are not without relevance and do have their place) that which must be confronted in a
search for a political solution, is the political reality. What is the political force of
Tamil nationalism today? Again, what does reason show?
Reason shows that the Tamil nation is a deep and horizontal comradeship which exists
amongst the Tamil people - deep because it is rooted not only in their cultural identity
but also in their suffering: horizontal because it prevails despite the inequalities
amongst them. It is a stubborn togetherness born out of a process of differentiation and
opposition. Distress has bound the Tamils of Ceylon together. Suffering is a great
teacher. That, after all, was the lesson that was taught by Gautama, the Buddha.
And the suffering of the Tamil people, appropriately enough in Buddhist Sri Lanka has
served to educate them about their identity - that it did not matter whether they were
Jaffna Tamils, or Colombo Tamils, or Batticaloa Tamils or Trincomalee Tamils or Badulla
Tamils or Indian Tamils - that it did not matter whether they were Hindu Tamils or
Christian Tamils or Muslim Tamils - that it did not matter whether they were so called
'high caste' Tamils or so called 'low caste' Tamils - that it did not matter whether they
were public servants, professionals, teachers, students or farmers, employees or
employers, well educated or ill educated, qualified or not - that which did matter to the
environment in which they lived was that they were Tamils.
And, it was the political force constituted by this togetherness which took the
representatives of the Tamil people to Thimpu in July 1985. A nation is an idea - but it
is more.
And they err who conceive the nation as a mere intellectual platform. On the other
hand, they also err who see the force of nationalism as simply the thrust of a people to
better their material conditions of existence. These latter fail to recognise that ideas
too have a material force. And 'work without ideal is a false gospel'.
A nation is an amalgam of the 'ideal' with the 'material' and it is this interplay,
evidenced in the cultural identity of a people, which gives nationalism its strength in
the political arena - its power to influence and direct the conduct of millions. To fail
to understand this is to fail to understand the well springs of human action. It is also
to fail to understand that which has made possible the colossal sacrifices so willingly
suffered by so many thousands of young Tamils during the past several years.
linked to the Tamil homeland
And, nations do not come into being in the stratosphere. It is land which constitutes
the physical base of the life of a people and it is around land that the togetherness of
the Tamils of Ceylon has grown. The homeland of the Tamils in the North and East
of Ceylon
did not come into existence overnight. The togetherness of the Tamils of Ceylon has grown,
hand in hand, with the growth of their homelands in the North and East of Ceylon where
they lived together, worked together, communicated with each other, founded their
families, educated their children, and also sought refuge, from time to time, when
subjected to physical attacks elsewhere in the island of Sri Lanka.
Without an identified homeland, the Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka would not have become a people
with a separate culture and a separate language and without an identified homeland, the
Tamils of Ceylon will cease to exist as a people in the future. And, these were the
rational concerns which found expression in the second claim at Thimpu - the claim for the
constitutional recognition of an identified homeland for the Tamils in the North and East
of Ceylon - a claim which, after all, the
1978 Sri Lankan Constitution had itself, by
implication, partially recognised when it made
provision for the use of the Tamil language
in the Northern and Eastern provinces.
the right of self determination
And, the third claim at Thimpu - the claim for the recognition of the right to self
determination of the Tamil nation was intended to secure an open recognition of the
equality of the parties to the negotiating process. The Tamil people do not deny the
existence of the Sinhala nation in the island of Sri Lanka. The question is whether the Sinhala people are
ready and willing to recognise the Tamils of Ceylon as a nation and to deal with them on
that basis.
On the answer to that basic question, depends not only the political status of the
negotiating parties, but also the nature and content of any political solution, and the
political will of both the Tamil people and the Sinhala people to work for the
implementation of that which may be agreed.
The concerns of the Tamil people for their 'physical security, employment and
education' cannot be resolved by a negotiating process unless the Sinhala people
recognised the Tamils as a people and the two people, together fashion a constitutional
structure on the basis of such recognition. It will be idle to pretend that equity will be
achieved through a negotiating process which does not itself commence on an equitable
footing.
exaggerated Sinhala nationalism
Sufficient, perhaps, has been said to establish the rationalities of the Thimpu
declaration. But, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. And, the Sinhala
political leadership refuses to see the existence of the Tamil nation. They refuse to see
the existence of the homeland of the Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka. They refuse to acknowledge the
right of the Tamil people to sit as equals with the Sinhala people and negotiate a
political solution to the conflict between them. They continue to compete with each other
to nurture an exaggerated Sinhala nationalism, which claims that it is the Sinhala
majority who should rule.
which has sought refuge in the 'Constitution'
And, if patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, then, the Sri Lankan
Constitution has today, become the first refuge of Sinhala chauvinism.
"...Under our Constitution...the powers of government inhere in all the People of
Sri Lanka and this sovereignty is itself declared to be inalienable. A federal system
which implies a divided sovereignty is therefore inconceivable in Sri Lanka..."
It is true that in a democracy, sovereignty is vested in the people and is inalienable.
The people are sovereign and they rule. But people do not rule anyhow. They rule through
the instrumentalities of a constitution. They exercise legislative power through an
elected Parliament. They may exercise executive power through a directly elected President
or through an indirectly elected Prime Minister and a Cabinet. They exercise judicial
power through judges appointed under laws enacted by Parliament.
The circumstance that a people exercise power through a number of different
instrumentalities does not have the result that their sovereignty is 'divided' or that
their sovereignty is eroded. On the contrary, it is the checks and balances between the
different instrumentalities which secures for a people their true sovereignty. And so too,
the checks and balances in a federal system of government, secures for a people their true
sovereignty.
A federal constitution does not somehow 'divide' the sovereignty of a people - on the
contrary, it enhances their sovereignty, by helping them to exercise their power and their
influence more effectively, and by helping them to cooperate and work with each other on
an equitable basis. And in the end, a federal constitution, when enacted by a people, will
itself be the expression of their sovereign will.
But, the Sri Lankan government would have the Tamil people and the world believe that
the federal constitutions of the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R., India, Australia, Canada and
Switzerland are all instances of a 'divided sovereignty' and, for that reason,
'inconceivable' in 'democratic' Sri Lanka.
and 'democracy' to Sri Lanka means rule by a permanent ethnic majority
To the Sri Lankan government, democracy means rule by a permanent ethnic majority
within the confines of an unitary state.
"The Tamil United Liberation Front cannot be unaware of the long standing
opposition of the two major political parties of the Sinhala people, who represent nearly
74% of the population, to a federal form of government.."(Statement of
Observations dated the 30th January 1986 by the government of Sri Lanka on the Proposals
of the Parliamentary Tamil United Liberation Front)
Whilst democracy may mean acceding to the rule of the majority, democracy also means
government by discussion and persuasion.
It is the belief that the minority of today may
become the majority of tomorrow that ensures the stability of a functioning democracy.
But
in the island of Sri Lanka, where a unitary state, has sought to govern a territory inhabited by two
peoples, the arithmetic of democracy has resulted in the continued and
permanent dominance
of one people by another.
The reality of democracy in Sri Lanka is that no Tamil has ever
been be elected to a predominantly Sinhala electorate and no Sinhalese has ever been
elected to a predominantly Tamil electorate. And so the practise of democracy within the
confines of a unitary state has inevitably resulted in
rule by a permanent ethnic
majority.
It was a permanent ethnic majority which through a series of legislative and
administrative acts, ranging from disenfranchisement, and
standardisation of University
admissions, to discriminatory language and employment policies, and
state sponsored
colonisation of the homelands of the Tamil people, sought to establish its hegemony over
the Tamils of Ceylon. These legislative and administrative acts were reinforced from time
to time with physical attacks on the Tamils of Ceylon with intent to terrorise and
intimidate them into submission. It was a course of conduct which led eventually to the
rise of Tamil militancy in the mid 1970s with, initially, sporadic acts of violence.
The militancy was met with
wide ranging retaliatory attacks on increasingly large
sections of the Tamil people with intent, once again to subjugate them. In the late 1970s
large numbers of Tamil youths were detained without trial and tortured under emergency
regulations and later under the Prevention of Terrorism Act which has been described by
the International Commission of Jurists as a 'blot on the statute book of any civilised
country'.
In 1980 and thereafter, there were
random killings of Tamils by the state security
forces and Tamil hostages were taken by the state when 'suspects' were not found.
Eventually, in the eyes of the Sri Lankan state all Tamils were prima facie 'terrorist'
suspects. And in 1983, the Tamils were deprived of the effective use of their vote by an
amendment to the Constitution which the
International Commission of Jurists has declared
to be a violation of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and which
has rendered vacant the Parliamentary seats of the elected representatives of the Tamil
people.
It is to this democracy that the Sri Lankan government refers, when it invites the
attention of the Tamil United Liberation Front to the views of 'the two major political
parties of the Sinhala people, who represent nearly 74% of the population' and who have
expressed a 'long-standing opposition' 'to a federal form government'. And it this
'democracy' which the Sri Lankan government seeks to preserve - by armed force, if
necessary.
a Sinhala chauvinism which denies the existence of the Sinhala nation!
The Thimpu declaration sought to question openly and directly the claims of an
exaggerated Sinhala nationalism - a Sinhala chauvinism which has sought to feed on the
latent fear of the Sinhala people of the Tamils of neighbouring Tamil Nadu and which has
sought to encourage the belief that a 'Sinhala identity' can be secured only at the
expense of erasing the identity of the Tamils as a 'people' in the island of Sri
Lanka if not now, at least
at some future date - a Sinhala chauvinism which has sought to subjugate the Tamils of
Ceylon by attempting to 'assimilate' and 'integrate' the Tamil people into a so called
'Sri Lankan nationality' within the confines of an unitary state whose official language
is Sinhala, whose official religion is Buddhism and whose official name was itself changed
to the Sinhala 'Sri Lanka' without the consent of the Tamil people.
It is a Sinhala chauvinism which in pursuance of its objectives, has logically,
sought to deny the existence of the Tamil nation in the island of Sri Lanka and which, in addition, seeks
to masquerade as a 'Sri Lankan nationalism' by denying the existence of the Sinhala nation
as well. And, nothing, exemplifies the intellectual dishonesty of the Sinhala political
leadership more, than its continued denial of the existence of its own constituency
namely, the Sinhala nation in Sri Lanka.
the basic question
In this context the comments of Lord Avebury in his key note speech at the
International Alert seminar may not be irrelevant:
"...Would the Sri Lankan government be prepared to go as far as a genuinely
federal Constitution, and would the majority of the Tamil community settle for something
less than total independence? The outsider might be attracted to the idea, on the grounds
that it would lie somewhere in between the positions taken up by the parties." (Lord
Avebury: Keynote Speech of the International Alert USA Seminar on Sri Lanka, Los Angeles,
25th October 1986)
But, though it may be true that an 'outsider' might be attracted to the idea of a
genuinely federal Constitution because it would hopefully lie 'somewhere in between the
positions taken up by the parties', a 'genuinely federal Constitution', will not come as a
by-product of a political horse deal.
It will come only when an honest and open answer is found to the preliminary
question: who will federate with whom?
Who are the two peoples who will federate to form a
'genuine' federal union?
It was to this basic question that the Thimpu declaration addressed itself. Because it
is this which goes to the root of the conflict in the island of Sri Lanka. All else is secondary. It is to
this question that agencies such as the International Emergency Committee on Sri Lanka may
also usefully address their minds. Hopefully, they will also attend to the comments of
Professor Leo Kruper in 1984 - comments which have today, assumed an urgency and an
immediacy:
"...genocide continues to be an odious scourge on mankind... there are also at
the present time many immediate issues related to genocide which call for the most urgent
action... (such as) the communal massacres in Sri Lanka...some of these genocidal
massacres arise out of struggles for greater autonomy, and might be regulated by
recognition of the right of self determination..
...there is a great need for delegations of member states with a strong commitment
to human rights, and for non governmental organisations with consultative status, to
continue their efforts to recall the UN to its responsibilities for international
protection against genocide and consistent violations of human rights. These efforts would
include. attempts to develop norms for humanitarian intervention, for the exercise of the
right of self determination..."(Minority Rights Group Report: International
Action Against Genocide)
It is not enough to continue
to report, ad nauseam, on the 'gross and consistent
violations' of human rights in Sri Lanka without at the same time openly recognising that
a threatened genocidal situation has arisen out of a struggle for greater autonomy.
Informed liberal opinion which is not content with 'bombastic rhetoric' should,
perhaps, also see the need to act on the reports of Amnesty International, the
International Commission of Jurists, the Lawasia Human Rights Standing Committee, the
International Human Rights Law Group, and the United Kingdom Parliamentary Human Rights
Group, on the 'gross and consistent violations of human rights' in Sri Lanka and to
recognise the underlying reasons for these violations. A reluctance to be seen as
espousing the division of a sovereign state should not lead to a refusal to recognise that
Sri Lanka today is a multinational state.
Two nations may agree to live together by force of reason. They cannot be compelled
to live together by force of arms. It is the rejection of reason by successive Sinhala
governments which also constitutes the rationale for the continued armed struggle of the
Tamil people for an independent Tamil Eelam.
The Thimpu declaration which represented the unanimous will of all six Tamil Liberation
Organisations was not an exercise in rhetoric. Too many lives had been lost and too many
lives were at stake to have permitted that particular luxury.
The Thimpu declaration
was founded on reason and time will testify to the validity of that reasoning.
Because
reason, even if it be denied, will continue to influence and direct and to give coherence
and legitimacy to the aspirations of the Tamil people.
Time will show that Tamil nationalism will not be easily snuffed out. It will not
quietly and obediently go away and disappear from the political scene. Faced with the
continued intransigence of the Sinhala political leadership, it will inevitably seek
broader channels for expressing itself.
In the end, it will be around reason that peace will come - not only for the Tamils and
Sinhalese of Ceylon, not only for the peoples of the Indian region but also for people,
everywhere - and, in an increasingly small world it will be increasingly difficult to
separate the so called 'insiders' from the so called 'outsiders'. The words of Lila Watson
come to mind: "If you have come to help me, you are wasting your time... But, if
you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work
together."
|
