India's National Magazine
From the publishers of THE HINDU
Vol. 15 :: No. 26 :: Dec. 19, 1998 - Jan. 01, 1999
COVER STORY
A false dawn
Some observers see signs of flexibility in Prabakaran's address, but the contradictory elements in the speech have negated any hopes of peace.
D.B.S. JEYARAJ
THE Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) has observed November 27 as Heroes' Day (Maaveerar Thinam) each year since 1989. The date was chosen because the first Tiger cadre to lose his life for the Tamil Eelam cause, Sathiyanathan alias Shankar of Kambarmalai, died in Madurai on that day in 1982. Shankar was injured during an attack on the Chavakachcheri police station and was brought to Tamil Nadu clandestinely for treatment. The idea of commemorating slain Tiger cadres annually as heroes and martyrs caught on. The day has assumed great significance among LTTE members, and supporters and the relatives of the dead. Members of other Tamil groups, who also laid down their lives for the Eelam cause, are not considered heroes by the LTTE.
In recent times, Heroes' Day has become important for another reason too. LTTE leader Velupillai Prabakaran has added the ritual of delivering a public address on that day. Since the elusive Prabakaran is seldom seen or heard in public, this annual speech is eagerly awaited by his friends and foes alike. It has become the medium through which the LTTE position or standpoint on important matters is gauged. The speech receives wide media publicity although on several occasions the address has no worthwhile content.
The speech this year, however, seemingly struck a sensational note on account of news agency projections that the LTTE leader had called for peace. Initially this raised hopes of a peaceful settlement being just round the corner. Prabakaran had said that the LTTE was keeping the doors to peace open and that it would not stipulate preconditions for talks. It however wanted talks to commence through the facilitation of an acceptable third party as it could not trust the Colombo Government in the light of experience. Superficially, it seemed as if the LTTE leader had changed his position and was offering hopes of a peace deal. The media focussed on this offer of peace and as a result created the contours of a false dawn.
The French philosopher Alphonse Karr has observed: "The more things change the more they remain the same." It was certainly true with a twist in this scenario. Although parts of Prabakaran's speech seemed to indicate that the situation had changed, a scrutiny of the address in its totality suggested that things remained unchanged as ever. In fact, some of the points emphasised by him evoked only a sense of deja vu. A closer look at the address revealed that the LTTE leader was indulging in a subtle form of doublespeak, which retained contradictory elements that negated any realistic hope for peace.
While calling for talks without preconditions, the Tiger chieftain actually imposed severe preconditions. Under the pretext of creating a congenial atmosphere for peace talks, Prabakaran said: "We hold the view that political negotiations cannot be free, fair and just if the Government utilises the military aggression on our soil and the restrictions imposed on the economic life of our people as political pressures. We are prepared to engage in initial talks to discuss the removal of such pressures and to work out a basic framework for political negotiations."
Although these points seem innocuous, the discerning observer can detect what Prabakaran is aiming at. By referring to "military aggression on our soil" and "removal of pressures", the LTTE leader is actually asking for the removal of the armed forces from the positions they hold right now. Prabakaran stressed that the suffering people could not wait for a political settlement to materialise for their problems to cease. The day-to-day problems had to be addressed first. The overtones of this "request" made it clear that it was a demand that had to be met before talks are held. Making such a demand of the Government is as unrealistic as the LTTE's earlier insistence that the Government should lay down arms as a prerequisite for negotiations.
The call to create congenial conditions for talks was in a sense a replay of the January-April 1995 scenario when talks between the Chandrika Kumaratunga Government and the LTTE were held in Jaffna. The Tigers insisted then that "andraadaprachanaigal" (day-to-day problems) had to be addressed before "adippadaiprachanaigal" (fundamental problems). Kumaratunga obliged and the 100-day "dialogue" saw no constructive discussion on alternative systems of governance. When the talks collapsed, LTTE propagandists had a field day blaming Kumaratunga for focussing on trivial issues and not addressing basic issues. A once-bitten Government will certainly be twice shy about responding to the LTTE's overtures.
In addition to these implied demands, the LTTE leader also reiterated, in different phraseology, the demands made by six Tamil groups, including the LTTE, at Thimphu, Bhutan, in 1985. These demands were for the recognition by the Colombo Government of the Tamils' right of self-determination and the concepts of nationhood and homeland. The Tamil groups, pressured by New Delhi, were compelled to talk to Colombo then. The reluctant Tamil representatives formulated the Thimphu principles as a means of provoking an outright refusal from Sri Lanka to these demands. The idea was to present demands that would have been impossible for the Sri Lankan Government to accept, let alone concede. Also, none of the Tamil groups at that time had disavowed separation.
The situation changed after the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement of 1987. All Tamil organisations other than the LTTE gave up separatism and began functioning within a united Sri Lanka again. To raise again the essence of the Thimphu principles in a direct or indirect manner within the current political context amounts to a covert attempt by the LTTE to hinder the possibility of a negotiated settlement. Thus, it became apparent that despite the initial euphoria, the LTTE had in reality not changed its stance. The difference was that Prabakaran had adopted seemingly flexible and moderate terminology to camouflage his intransigent position.
Interestingly, Prabakaran's speech elicited a positive response from most Sri Lankan political parties. Opposition leader and head of the United National Party (UNP), Ranil Wickremasinghe, welcomed it as a positive development and said that it warranted a response from the Government. In recent times, Wickremasinghe has called for talks between the People's Alliance (P.A.) Government and the LTTE. The Tamil and Muslim parties too hailed the offer made by Prabakaran. Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) parliamentary group leader Joseph Pararajasingham said that the long-awaited move by Prabakaran had come and that the Government must respond. The Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) was cautiously optimistic. The only sections critical and sceptical of Prabakaran's offer were the hardline Sinhala organisations.
The reasons for Sri Lankan political parties being seemingly receptive of Prabakaran's offer are not hard to seek. The UNP thinks it can bring back the Tamil vote-bank to its fold by advocating an end to the war and calling for a resumption of talks with the LTTE. The UNP's assessment is that the Tamil people who have suffered the hardships of war will welcome a respite through the means of another round of talks with the LTTE. There is also the familiar Opposition tactic of trying to embarrass the incumbent government whenever the opportunity arises.
The Tamil and Muslim parties have different motives. No Tamil party can openly say "no" to the prospect of peace even if that party is pessimistic about the LTTE's bona fides. Moreover, LTTE control of the eastern hinterland means that it will exert domination over substantial sections of voters in any future election. So it would be practical for them to appease the LTTE even though the Tigers hunt them down ruthlessly. The SLMC, with its objective of carving out a separate council in the southeast, also needs to play it cool with the Tigers.
Even as these parties were trying to force the Government into responding positively to Prabakaran's call, the Kumaratunga regime went ahead with its plan. Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, who is of Tamil ethnicity, rejected the so-called LTTE offer at this point of time. He said that the Government would certainly engage in talks at the appropriate time. Kadirgamar also criticised the UNP for acting as propagandists for the LTTE.
GEMUNU AMARSINGHE /AP
Deputy
Defence Minister Col. Anuruddha Ratwatte climbs out of an armoured vehicle
near Odduchuddan on December 6. Ratwatte escaped unhurt when LTTE mortar
shells landed near him, killing four soldiers.
The Government also changed its war strategy. It terminated the ongoing Operation Jaya Sikurui aimed at capturing the stretch between Vavuniya and Killinochchi on the Jaffna-Kandy highway. A change of direction was effected and the Army proceeded eastwards on the Mankulam-Mullaithivu road and seized Oddusuddan, a key town. The new military manoeuvre was codenamed "Operation Rivibalaya" or "Sunpower", reminiscent of "Operation Riviresa" or "Sunray" that resulted in the capture of the Jaffna peninsula. Incidentally, a new development in Colombo is that of Chandrika Kumaratunga taking direct charge of running the war instead of relying on Deputy Minister Col. Anuruddha Ratwatte as in the past. The Government is also examining the possibility of submitting the new devolution proposals in Parliament shortly, regardless of whether the UNP supports it.
The Government's response to the "offer" made by Prabakaran was predictable. The Government is not in a position to suspend the war and resume talks with the LTTE right now. The Government's dual strategy of seeking a political consensus on one front and trying to weaken the LTTE militarily on the other is yet to show obvious signs of success. Its opponents say that it has failed completely but the P.A. does not concur with that viewpoint. So the P.A. cannot call off the war and start talking without achieving a position of strength in politico-military terms.
The only chance for talks right now is for the P.A. to trust Prabakaran and go in for talks with the hope that the LTTE will keep good faith and be amenable to a settlement. But that hope is illusory. President Kumaratunga cannot take such a gamble because her political credibility will be shattered if the LTTE sabotages talks again. Also, no government can agree to pulling back the Army from areas over which it has re-established its writ before resuming talks. The Government is also wary about third-party intervention, whether through mediators or facilitators, in the light of experience.
Prabakaran knows this pretty well. That is perhaps why he expressed his offer of peace in such terms. It was an astute move in the sense that it created the appearance of the LTTE being amenable to peace whereas the LTTE was in reality being intransigent. The offer was made in such a way that the response would inevitably be negative. The LTTE leader had to go through this charade in order to create an international opinion that he was for a peaceful solution within a united Sri Lanka.
Some observers are of the view that the LTTE is on the decline and that Prabakaran's offer was a sign of weakness. That assumption is incorrect. The Tigers, who inaugurated their air wing formally on Heroes' Day, are optimistic about their objectives. There is no sign of demoralisation. In fact, Prabakaran's speech sounded quite confident. One reason for international opinion to feel that Prabakaran had mellowed is that the LTTE excised certain passages at the beginning and the end of Prabakaran's speech in the English translation. Anyone reading or listening to the original speech in Tamil would have realised that Prabakaran is as determined as ever.
Three pronouncements by Praba-karan before he concluded his speech indicate that the war would grind on without a solution in sight. First, he said: "Let us continue with our idealistic war in the firm belief that only the establishment of a separate Tamil state would provide a permanent solution to the problems of the Tamil people." Secondly: "Let us continue our struggle with the unshakable faith that only a nation prepared to bear any burden of hardship will finally achieve liberation." Thirdly, he said: "Let us continue to wage our armed struggle with determined resolve while paying tribute to the memory of our martyred great heroes who sacrificed their precious lives for our freedom and remain as the spiritual strength of our nation."
The words cited above indicate that the hopes of peace raised as a result of Prabakaran's speech are, unfortunately, unjustified.
Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar