Ill-informed Sushma

Senior leader of the BJP and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj addressed the fifth state conference of her party in Madurai on May 10, when she had criticized the demand for a separate Tamil Eelam by some political parties in Tamil Nadu, “even though the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) – the main political force of Tamils in the island nation – favoured a genuine political solution within a united Sri Lanka.

She was the leader of the Indian delegation of Parliament members, which visited Sri Lanka recently. She said the TNA leader R. Sampanthan, whom she met as leader of a parliamentary delegation that went to Sri Lanka recently to study the Tamils' issue, emphasised that he wanted the Tamils to remain within a united Sri Lanka. He insisted only on a genuine political settlement.

Sampanthan was for a political settlement that would ensure equal rights and a dignified life for the Tamils, devolution of power and implementation of recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. “When such a respected leader of the Tamils was for a political solution within a united Sri Lanka, why are some parties here raising the separatist issue?” she asked. She insisted that the unity and integrity of Sri Lanka be respected the way India's unity and integrity were respected.

Similar opinion was expressed by CPM Rajya Sabha member Com T.K.Rangarajan, who was also a part of the delegation to Sri Lanka. Defending his stand that Eelam Tamils did not ask for independence, CPM State Secretary Com. G.Ramakrishnan argued against the stand of DMK President Kalaignar and his remarks on the view expressed by T.K.Rangarajan.

“On any issue, the opinion of the people involved takes precedence,” said the CPI-M press statement, in support of its stand negating independence as solution for Eelam Tamils.

According to the CPI-M, the Tamil politicians in the island who met Rangarajan, and politicians like Sampanthan and Suresh Premachandran of the mainstream political party TNA that is engaged in talks with the Sri Lanka government, didn’t ask for independence. They were all talking about solutions within a united Sri Lanka. The CPI-M consistently stood for meaningful devolution of powers and maximum autonomy for combined north and east, within united Sri Lanka, the statement said, adding that the current needs of Eelam Tamils are reparations, rehabilitation and devolution of powers.

The CPI-M was trying to project an image that its stand on the issue is the true reflection of the aspirations of the Eelam Tamils supported by their politicians, and Kalaignar’s current stand calling for referendum leading to independence is not the wish of Eelam Tamils. That is also the stand of Sushma Swaraj and the BJP.

When the Eelam Tamils and their politicians in the island had the last chance of freely expressing their opinion, they came out with the Vaddukkoddai Resolution of 1976, calling for the independence of Tamil Eelam and endorsed it in the General Elections of 1977.

Thereafter, Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979, and later the 6th Amendment to the constitution enacted in August 1983, a month after a pogrom, prevented the Eelam Tamils from even talking about their independence.

The following are the relevant provisions of the 6th Amendment:

“Article 157 A (1) No person shall, directly or indirectly, in or outside Sri Lanka, support, espouse, promote, finance, encourage or advocate the establishment of a separate state within the territory of Sri Lanka.

(2) No political party or other association or organisation shall have as one of its aims or objects the establishment of a separate state within the territory of Sri Lanka.”

Under this law - 157 A (4) – “any person may make an application to the Supreme Court for a declaration against an organisation espousing the cause of establishing a separate state in the island. Upon such declaration by the SC that the organisation has violated Article 157 A (2), then that organisation “shall be deemed, for all purposes to be proscribed”. Any member of such an organisation shall cease to be a Member of Parliament. Any person who is a member of such an organisation after the date of the SC declaration “shall be guilty of an offence and shall, upon conviction by the Court of Appeal” would be stripped of his or her civic rights for a period not exceeding seven years; and his or her movable and immovable property would be seized.”

When such are the provisions of the constitution, and under a heavily militarised rule in which people ‘disappear’, how do Sushma Swaraj and the CPI-M expect the Eelam Tamils and their politicians to come out with the truth of their political aspirations?

They should note that the 6th Amendment provides against individuals and parties talking about secession not only inside the island, but also outside of the island.

Strictly speaking, when Sushma Swaraj and Rangarajan themselves do not have the freedom to talk about the independence of Eelam Tamils and then visit Sri Lanka, how do they cite Sampanthan in Colombo and Premachandran speaking in Chennai as the authentic expression of Eelam Tamil aspirations?

The CPI-M in its statement says withdrawal of the SL military was one of the issues discussed by Tamil representatives who met the Indian delegation. The representatives, especially the civil group led by Prof SK Sitrampalam was specifically talking on Sinhala colonisation, Sinhalicisation and Buddhicisation, as the burning issues apart from militarization. The CPI-M statement of G. Ramakrishnan has no reference to the issues and demilitarisation is also not included in its priorities that speak only about reparations, rehabilitation and devolution.

Do they approve of the Sinhala militarisation, colonisation, Sinhalicisation and Buddhicisation is the crucial question asked by Eelam Tamils!