What is India up to? - II

In the interview given to the “Daily Mirror” of 22^nd July 2013, Vignesvaran, the Chief Ministerial candidate of the TNA, at the Northern Province Provincial Council elections further states “If not for the support of the international community, particularly India, Sri Lanka could not have got rid of the LTTE so swiftly. So India, on its part although it was not done in the 80s, it was done in 2009 and therefore, I don’t believe it is a ground to set aside 13A, which takes root from the international agreement between India and Sri Lanka. You cannot play the fool with such agreements and without the permission of India; it is not possible for Sri Lanka to act unilaterally.” This is queer logic to say the least and by this answer Vignesvaran attempts to claim that the Indo Sri Lanka Accord is still valid. It would be interesting to find out what the Accord said in this regard. It is given in clause 2.9.

“2.9 The emergency will be lifted in the Eastern and Nothern Provinces by Aug. 15, 1987. A cessation of hostilities will come into effect all over the island within 48 hours of signing of this agreement. All arms presently held by militant groups will be surrendered in accordance with an agreed procedure to authorities to be designated by the Government of Sri Lanka.

Consequent to the cessation of hostilities and the surrender of arms by militant groups, the army and other security personnel will be confined to barracks in camps as on 25 May 1987. The process of surrendering arms and the confining of security personnel moving back to barracks shall be completed within 72 hours of the cessation of hostilities coming into effect.”  

Though the security personnel were moved backed to the barracks, as well known, the process of surrendering arms were not completed within 72 hours of the cessation of hostilities that should have come into effect  within 48 hours of the signing of the agreement. As subsequent events showed the hostilities were not ceased within 48 hours of signing the accord and the Accord became defunct within 48 hours. That meant that there was no Indo Lanka Accord after the 31^st of July 1987. It was India that did not fulfill the requirements expected from her and thus unilaterally abrogated the Accord. Even if it is assumed that hostilities were ceased within 48 hours of signing the Accord the LTTE did not surrender the arms within 72 hours of the cessation of hostilities coming into effect. It implies that by 4^th of August 1987 latest the Indo Lanka accord became null and void as a result of India unilaterally abrogating it.

Now Vignesvaran defending India that forced the TNA to nominate him as the Chief Ministerial candidate as Sampanthan himself has admitted to Thinakural and Virakesari of 22^nd of July, claims that though India did not do what it was required to do in the eighties it did so in 2009. It is good of Vignesvaran to admit that India did not comply with the Indo Lanka Accord in the eighties. However India was not given indefinite time to accomplish its tasks and in terms of the Accord India should have been in possession of the arms of the LTTE by 3^rd of August 1987 the latest. The accord did not envisage of defeating the LTTE in 2009 with India supporting the Sri Lankan armed forces in the humanitarian operations. In any event there was no Indo Lanka Accord to be honoured or violated after the 3^rd of August 2009, and even if Vignesvaran’s claim that if not for the support given by India, Sri Lanka would not have defeated the LTTE so swiftly is correct, it does not imply that India honoured the Indo Lanka Accord in 2009, as there was no agreement valid by then. In any event the Indo Lanka Accord does not mention anything on defeating the LTTE by 2009.

Now what about the claim that if not for the support of India and so called international community the LTTE would not have been defeated so swiftly? It is said that India has the fourth largest army in the world, but we all know that it could not make the LTTE surrender its arms let alone defeating it militarily. What is the support that the so called international community meaning the western countries including Japan, and India gave the Sri Lankan armed forces to defeat the LTTE? The western countries were interested in seeing the Sri Lankan forces being defeated by the LTTE  but there was no way that they could directly interfering with the “war”. They supplied everything from arms to funds not only through the NGOs but directly through their embassies and even Catholic clergy. At the last moment they wanted to take the LTTE leadership including Prabhakaran, and Nambiar  the special envoy of the UN Secretary General who is only a puppet of the USA, was in Sri Lanka with the intention of bringing a ship to take the LTTE leadership to the west. However it failed and it is this fiasco that led the Channel Four and other western agencies to come out with propaganda against the President, the Defense Secretary and the Armed Forces, falsely accusing them of violation of human rights etc.

India did not want the LTTE to establish an Eelam (Eylom of Suntharalingam) as it could not handle Prabhakaran the way it wanted. Prabhakaran was prepared to obey the west but not India as he did not want his Eelam to be dictated by the big brother. He did not approve of the Indo Lanka Accord and did not surrender arms to the IPKF. Finally he made sure that Rajiv Gandhi was killed and he wanted an Eelam established directly without going through so called devolution of power, federation (confederation), Eelam, with the assistance of India. He probably knew that an Eelam established with the help of India would become a state of India together with the other parts of Sri Lanka realizing the dream of Nehru and his dynasty. In the third stage of Tamil racism in Sri Lanka, India did not want a non Vellala Prabhakaran to lead the armed struggle to establish an Eelam.

We have now entered the fourth stage of Tamil racism in Sri Lanka. At the end of the third stage in the Nandikadal Lagoon the Government of Sri Lanka gave a political solution to the so called Tamil problem as “warfare” is nothing but an extension of politics by other means. All the agreements signed during the second and third stages of Tamil racism became null and void with the defeat of the LTTE in May 2009. However the government was not able to convert the political victory into law due to the non availability of a two third majority at that time and also due to the hegemonic western knowledge that is imparted to us through schools and the universities. It is time to abolish the thirteenth amendment, on which there is no agreement between India and Sri Lanka though it may be a result of the now defunct Indo Lanka Accord. Sri Lanka does not have to consult India or any other country to amend its constitution.

In the meantime India has not given up Nehru’s dream of making Sri Lanka another state of india, and is working towards that goal slowly and gradually. India would attempt to have leaders of the so called Tamil speaking community in Sri Lanka according to its whims and fancies and in this regard they would not tolerate any leader with the slightest connections with the LTTE or Prabhakaran. India is working on the formula devolution of power, Federal state or confederation, Eelam, wars between Eelam and the rest of Sri Lanka, and finally a new state of India in the Indian Ocean. It could also lead to wiping out of Buddhism in South Asia finally. The “choice” of Vignesvaran as the Chief Ministerial candidate for the Northern Province provincial council is the first step in this direction. Having become the chief minister Vignesvaran will agitate for police and land powers with the help of India with the intention of establishing a federal state. It is the “little now more later” policy of Chelvanayakam that India advocates and it is in the interest of a Unitary Sri Lanka that the government amends the relevant provisions of the thirteenth amendment if not abolish it without delay.            

Nalin De Silva

31-07-2013

What is India up to?

When Wimal Weerawansa said that C. V. Vignesvaran was chosen as the TNA candidate for the post of Chief Minister  in the Northern Province provincial council by two embassies nobody expected the latter to confirm it. Vignesvaran is not new to politics as he has made political speeches at least from the day he became a judge in the Supreme Court. People including Judges of the Higher Courts have a Chinthanaya and their speeches, writings and all other activities are based on the particular Chinthanaya possessed by them. This applies to artists as well and directors of cinema are not free from their Chinthanaya as could be asserted from what is stated about the film “Flying Fish”. Vignesvaran has never been a so called unbiased person in politics and it is hilarious to listen to him dismissing Wimal Weerawansa’s statement as a statement made by a politician. Vignesvaran by that dismissal pretends to be above politics and that he is not a politician. He is now involved in party politics, and it is clear that by dismissing outright Wimal Weerawansa’s statement as that of a politician, Vignesvaran has shown that he has matured as a politician. In politics as well as in giving evidence before a court of justice hiding the truth is a cardinal principle practiced by those who are involved.

It was not only Wimal Weerawansa who knew this story as some other politicians including cabinet ministers were aware of what was happening behind the screen. I myself came to be aware of the story from another source but it was Weerawansa who went public with the information he had. It appears that there has been influence by other countries to nominate Wignesvaran as the Chief Ministerial candidate of the TNA at the Northern Province provincial council elections if we are to believe the following report that appeared in the Daily News of 23^rd of July 2013. “The two Tamil newspapers Thinakural and Virakesari in their lead stories yesterday (July 22) attributed this statement to TNA Leader R. Sampanthan, who had said that they were compelled to make the decision regarding Vigneshwaran on the request of some foreign countries and organizations, ‘as the nominee has international support.’ The two newspapers quoted Sampanthan as saying that he decided to clear the air about the selection of the candidate as there were ‘false rumours being floated to tarnish the party’s image.’ In a bid to persuade the TNA members over the rationality of appointing Vigneswaran as TNA chief ministerial candidate, R Sampanthan said some foreign countries and organizations compelled the TNA to take this decision. When the decision was taken, MPs Senadhirajah, Sumanthiran, Sridharan, Sarabavanan, and Selvaraja were also present”.

One does not have to be a so called political analyst to discover that India is one of the foreign countries. It is not a master stroke of Sampanthan to nominate Vignesvaran and it only indicates how much TNA politics is influenced by India with the blessings of the western countries led by USA at present with England behind every movement on the chess board. India has no love for the Sinhala Buddhists who preserved and protected Bududahama over a period of two thousand and six hundred years while it was discarded in India. The Brahmins never liked the Anathmavadi Bududahama and it was not only the Muslims who are responsible for the final overthrow of Bududahama and Budusasuna from India. The Vedic Brahmins who are Athmavadins   have no love for the Sinhala Buddhists and the Brahmins are responsible for the insertion of Athmavadi concepts into what may be called the Bududahama of the third council or sangayana.  India which has no ability or desire to protect Budusasuna in that country is only paying lip service as far as the protection of Buddhists, Bhikkus and places of worship in India important for the Buddhists is concerned. India is not a so called non aligned country and with the support of the west it is maneuvering to become the hegemonic force in South Asia. India is using Tamil Nadu to achieve what it wants, though the message sent is that it is Tamil Nadu that influences India to adopt a certain policy towards Sri Lanka.

It should be clear that India over the years has been attempting to do in Sri Lanka what it has done to Sikkim, Assam and other parts of the subcontinent, failing of which it will make Sri Lanka another Bhutan. India has no love for the Tamils as such but it uses the so called Tamil problem in Sri Lanka to achieve its ambitions. India wants politicians in Sri Lanka to do as they want but it is clear that though there are some Sinhala politicians and many Tamil politicians who would meekly obey the Indian Kautilyans, the Mahinda Rajapakse government is not prepared to do so. The Indian government does not like Mawai Senadhiraja as the Chief Ministerial candidate as he is believed to have had connections with the LTTE. It is not a secret that Prabhakaran did not bow down to Delhi and India did not approve his attitude. India wants politicians of the “caliber” of Vignesvaran who would defend India using queer logic. The following expert from an interview of Vignesvaran published in the Daily Mirror on the 22^nd of July 2013 reveals the character of the politician. 

“Q: Other reasons championed by those who call to repeal the powers of 13A is that it is not constitutionally valid and neither is it legally binding due to a referendum not being held and India failing to uphold their part of the Indo-Lanka accord. What are your comments on such claims?

A: A referendum was not necessary because it was with regard to the North and East and since the Supreme Court ordered the demerging of the two provinces, that argument is not viable. Moreover, the justification of India failing to uphold their side of the agreement is also void because that is what they did in 2009. If not for the support of the international community, particularly India, Sri Lanka could not have got rid of the LTTE so swiftly. So India, on its part although it was not done in the 80s, it was done in 2009 and therefore, I don’t believe it is a ground to set aside 13A, which takes root from the international agreement between India and Sri Lanka. You cannot play the fool with such agreements and without the permission of India; it is not possible for Sri Lanka to act unilaterally.”

This is what the Indo Lanka Accord has to say on the referendum. “2.3 There will be a Referendum on or before 31st December 1988 to enable the people of the Eastern Province to decide whether:

a) The Eastern Province should remain linked with the Northern Province as one administrative unit, and continue to be governed together with the Northern Province as specified in para 2.2 or:

b) The eastern province should constitute a separate administrative unit having its own distinct provincial council with a separate Governer, Chief Minister and Board of Ministers.

The president may, at his discretion, decide to postpone such a referendum. ”  I would not say that the Indo Lanka Accord is null and void because a referendum was not held as claimed by some others, though I have other reasons to believe that the Accord is now defunct. The Accord says the President of Sri Lanka could decide to postpone the referendum at his discretion. However it is clear that Vignesvaran is using something else in order to defend India.  The decision of the Supreme Court came long after, and the argument of the former judge is not valid with respect to the validity of the Accord to say the least. Vignesvaran is undoubtedly a seasoned politician.  (To be continued)

Nalin De Silva

24-07-2013

Indo Lanka Accord and the Provincial Councils – III

We will continue with our discussion on the infamous Indo Lanka Accord that was imposed on us almost twenty six years to date, which according to some was signed by J R Jayawardhene under duress. However we are not prepared to excuse JRJ for that as he should have stood up to  any pressure from India without betraying the sovereignty of the people. As we said in the first installment of the present series Indo Lanka Accord is not only defunct due to India failing to fulfill its obligations under the Accord but also due to it being inconsistent with the constitution of Sri Lanka, for the undefined terms in the Accord that made it meaningless and to wrong assumptions in what may be called factual statements.

We shall begin with the last of the above. The Accord states: “ 1.4 Also recognising that the Northern and the Eastern Provinces have been areas of historical habitation of Sri Lankan Tamil speaking peoples, who have at all times hitherto lived together in this territory with other ethnic groups:”. It is wrong to state that the Northern and Eastern provinces have been areas of historical habitation of Sri Lankan Tamil speaking peoples who have at ALL TIMES hitherto lived in this territory with the OTHER ethnic groups.  It is clear the document refers to the Tamil and Muslim communities, in whatever sense the word peoples is used in the two provinces. The provinces were established only as late as 1889 by the English colonial powers and before that there were no two provinces as demarcated as Northern and Eastern Provinces as at present. Even on that count it is wrong to say that the Tamil and Muslim communities had lived at all times  in the two provinces concerned unless all times mean since the demarcation was carried out in 1889. It is well known that the Muslims were settled in the present Eastern Province of the country by the Sinhala King Senerath and that the Tamils were settled by the English in between Muslim settlements having brought them for work involved with construction of the roads. The “pittu bamboo” demography of Muslims and the Tamils in the eastern Province is due to this fact and it should not be forgotten that until S J V Chelvanayakam ralised the importance of the Tamils in the Eastern Province in establishing the Eelam, the so called Batticaloa Tamils were looked down by the Jaffna Vellalas. If as the Accord also admits the Tamils and Muslims lived in these parts of the country with the other ethnic groups then it would imply the Sinhalas being the other ethnic group also had being habitants and it would be correct to say that the areas under consideration are areas of historical habitation of the Sinhalas as well. It has to be emphasized that the present eastern province has been part of Ruhunu Rata and nobody can deny that the Sinhalas were living in these areas at least from the time of the Magama Kings, through forced “international agreements” and JRJ had no right to betray the Sinhalas in 1987 simply because he was the President and the people would not recognize the Indo Lanka Accord as could be found out through a referendum under the Article 86 of the constitution. The President could submit to the people by referendum whether they approve the Indo Lanka Accord or not and act according to the results of such referendum.    

As we have already said in the previous installments the Provincial Councils had not been established on the 29^th of July 1987 and the Accord referred to then non existing Provincial Councils without even defining them. Even the provinces had not been defined in the constitution at that time and they came into existence only with the eighth schedule of the constitution together with the thirteenth amendment. Even then they were not defined as administrative units, unlike in the case of districts, though the Accord referred to them as administrative units as in 2.1 and 2.2. “2.1 Since the Government of Sri Lanka proposes to permit adjoining provinces to join to form one administrative unit and also by a Referendum to separate as may be permitted to the Northern and Eastern Provinces as outlined below:

2.2 During the period, which shall be considered an interim period (i.e. from the date of the elections to the Provincial Council,as specified in para 2.8 to the date of the referendum as specified in para 2.3), the Northern and Eastern Provinces as now constituted, will form one administrative unit, having one elected provincial council. Such a unit will have one Governor, one Chief Minister and one Board of Ministers.” The interesting fact is that nothing is said about Chief Ministers and Board of Ministers in general or with respect to other provinces.

The clause 2.9 of the Accord was not honoured by India though Sri Lanka had to confine the security personnel to the barracks. We reproduce below the relevant clause. “ 2.9 The emergency will be lifted in the Eastern and Nothern Provinces by Aug. 15, 1987. A cessation of hostilities will come into effect all over the island within 48 hours of signing of this agreement. All arms presently held by militant groups will be surrendered in accordance with an agreed procedure to authorities to be designated by the Government of Sri Lanka. Consequent to the cessation of hostilities and the surrender of arms by militant groups, the army and other security personnel will be confined to barracks in camps as on 25 May 1987. The process of surrendering arms and the confining of security personnel moving back to barracks shall be completed within 72 hours of the cessation of hostilities coming into effect.”

The clause 2.15 is very vague and it could be interpreted according to the whims and fancies of the reader. The Brahmins in the Indian Foreign Office, I suppose, were not given enough time by Rajiv Gandhi who was in a terrific hurry to get control of Sri Lanka as India did in the case of Sikkim. Unfortunately for him perhaps he did not know that before him many in the areas now known as India had failed in their attempts to rule Sri Lanka and that he would be killed by Prabhakaran in due course. Clause 2.15 is as follows. “2.15 These proposals are conditional to an acceptance of the proposals negotiated from 4.5.1986 to 19.12.1986. Residual matters not finalised during the above negotiations shall be resolved between India and Sri Lanka within a period of six weeks of signing this agreement. These proposals are also conditional to the Government of India co-operating directly with the Government of Sri Lanka in their implementation.” It is clear from the above that the Indo Lanka Accord is defunct now and that the thirteenth amendment as such is in any event not referred to in the Accord.

Another interesting clause of the Accord is the following. “2.10 The Government of Sri Lanka will utilise for the purpose of law enforcement and maintenance of security in the Northern and Eastern Provinces the same organisations and mechanisms of Government as are used in the rest of the country.”  Even if we assume that the Accord is valid for the sake of argument, Clause 2.10 implies that the  Sri Lankan government would be utilizing for the purpose of law enforcement the same organizations and mechanisms that are used in the other parts of the country. This clause is also vague due to the use of the words will and are therein and Sri Lankan government could use it to its advantage.  

There is no agreement between India and Sri Lanka on the thirteenth amendment, and the Sri Lankan government in any event does not have to consult the Indian government on the amendment of the thirteenth amendment. Even if the Indo Lanka Accord is still valid all that the Indian government could do is to see whether the Accord is violated as a result of amending the thirteenth amendment.  As far as the police powers are concerned all that the government of Sri Lanka has to do, in order to “honour” the Accord, assuming that it is valid, is to have the same mechanisms for the enforcement of law in all the provinces of the country. Most of the Articles in the thirteenth amendment including the Lists and the appendices especially on police powers and land distribution powers could be repealed without violating the Indo Lanka Accord by Sri Lanka. For example, it is not necessary to set up provincial divisions of the Sri Lankan police force provided that the Northern and Eastern provincial councils have the same mechanism of law enforcement as the rest of the country.

Nalin De Silva

17-07-2013

Indo Lanka Accord and the Provincial Councils – II

The Indo Lanka Accord that was signed in July 1987 is now defunct, and we would argue further that it was not valid even soon after the signing of the accord due to inconsistencies, inclusion of undefined terms. It is also an infringement of sovereignty of the people of the country and J R Jayawardhane could not betray the sovereignty even as the President of the country. The President only exercises the executive powers of the sovereignty of the people, which is inalienable.  Before we continue along those lines we have to concentrate on the need of another Indo Lanka Accord (rather Lanka India Accord) to protect Budusasuna (there is no translation in English) in India. It has to be noted that the need for a second Indo Lanka Agreement arises only if some of the premises on which the first Indo Lanka Agreement are valid.

There was no reason whatever for India to get involved in internal matters of Sri Lanka, and Rajiv Gandhi forced J R Jayawardhane to sign the first accord using terror tactics through “Parippu” Diplomacy. Dixith played the role of the Viceroy and almost all the Sinhala people were against it, and the act of the sailor at the parade, whether correct or not symbolized the sentiments of the Sinhala people. Even today, twenty six years after the event, the sailor is respected by the Sinhala people in general, except for the so called rational minded people among them. India intervened with the pretext of  safeguarding the rights of the Tamils in Sri Lanka who are mainly descendants of Tamils who were brought to Sri Lanka after 1750 first by the Dutch and then by the English. It was only a pretext and India used the sentiments of some Tamil Nadu politicians to interfere with the sovereignty of Sri Lanka. If the thirteenth amendment is implemented in full with the provincial councils enjoying all the provisions as laid down in the thirteenth amendment and the provincial councils act, not only that the country will be divided but the envisaged Eelam would become a satellite of India. With the present set of TNA leaders in power in an Eelam, all the decisions regarding Eelam would be taken in Delhi. Even today they run to Delhi at the drop of a hat, and it is clear that an Eelam with Prabhakaran would have resisted Delhi, not that the Sinhalas would in general would have welcomed it.

Indian strategy appears to be the establishment of an Eelam without Prabhakaran after the latter was successful in killing Rajiv Gandhi in Tamil Nadu. We do not believe that India is under pressure of Tamil Nadu to intervene in Sri Lanka on behalf of the descendants of Tamils brought from that part of India to Sri Lanka. If that is the case what is the reason for India to overlook the descendants of Tamils of more recent origin to the present central province of Sri Lanka. From the very beginning the Vellalas who were brought to Jaffna were interested in the welfare of those in the peninsula. They even neglected the people in the present Kilinochchi as Ananda Sangaree would testify. The Tamils living in that part of the Northern Province saw some kind of development only after Kilinochchi became a separate district.  The Vellala Tamil leaders in the Jaffna peninsula took an interest in the Tamils in the other parts of the country only after they realized with Chelvanayakam that the Tamils in the peninsula alone could not establish an Eelam even with the assistance of the west and India. Indian leaders have been interested in not only an Eelam subservient to them, but making whole of Sri Lanka another state of India. Sikkim the country of Berth of Ven. S. Mahinda Thero is now a state of India, with the latter influencing Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives. India saw to it that Pakistan was divided and wanted a Bangladesh that was ruled from Delhi. If possible India would rule not only all the countries in the SAARC region but Tibet as well.

India overlooked the Tamils of recent origin and while the Vellala leaders concentrated on the Northern and Eastern Provinces with the blessings of England to establish an Eelam in those two provinces stating that they are the “traditional habitats” of the Tamils. The Tamils in Sri Lanka are of more recent origin than the Muslims who were settled in the Eastern Province by the Sinhala kings. India is only using Tamil Nadu, and not the other way about, to establish an Eelam in the Northern and Eastern Provinces claiming that they have to look after the interests of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. However, this is a false claim as they only pay lip service to the Tamils of more recent origin.

We are interested in another Indo Lanka agreement or accord or whatever it is as it is becoming clear that India is increasingly failing to protect the Buddhists and Budusasuna in India. The Sri Lankan forces being the only armed forces to have eradicated terrorism in a country could help India to protect the places of Buddhist worship in Sri Lanka. It may be that Prince Siddhartha was born in Nepal or Kalinga (Orissa) and attained Buddhathava in Bodh Gaya in India. However it is Sri Lanka and the Sinhalas that have protected Budusasuna and if India can interfere with internal matters in Sri Lanka claiming that they are interested in the welfare of the Tamils, Sri Lanka should be able to get involved in at least protecting the places of Buddhist worship in the interest of Budusasuna. It is not my intention to complicate matters still further by claiming that Prince Siddhartha was born in Sri Lanka as some Sinhala Buddhists do, and all that I am interested is in the welfare of the Buddhists and the protection of Budusasuna in India.

The timing of the bomb blast in Bodh  Gaya is intriguing. We are in the midst of amending the thirteenth amendment and holding the first elections to the Northern Province provincial council. We welcome both these which are done very democratically (in the western style, of course), unlike the signing of the Indo Lanka Accord and passing of the thirteenth amendment and the provincial council bill. Who is interested in sabotaging both these? Who would like to create troubles in Sri Lanka at this juncture? Indian Brahmins, western intellectuals will come out with various stories or theories, but who would believe that the bombs were blasted by Muslim terrorists or Maoist terrorists or any other group?  There are problems between Muslims and Theravada Buddhists in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Thailand and also in Bangladesh but it is very unlikely that a Muslim terrorist group is responsible for the bomb attack. It is a story created by the west and India to set up the Buddhists in those countries against the Muslims and at this juncture, Sri Lanka is the most vulnerable country.  

Fortunately the Buddhists in Sri Lanka kept their cool, and the attempt to create problems in this country has failed. The Indian high officials will continue to exert pressure on Sri Lanka, but the Sinhala people in general and also some others as well are now of the opinion that the thirteenth amendment has to be amended if not abolished. The elections to the Northern Province provincial council also would be held democratically and we should be able to defeat the strategies of the Kautilyas. The Kautilyas may take a few Muslims and/or Maoists into custody over the bomb blast in Bodh Gaya but we should expect more of these activities in the next few months and should take all measures not to be trapped by the provocateurs. Our prime motive is to amend the thirteenth amendment, if not abolish it, which in any event has been defeated politically. We should not give into any pressure from the west or India, and work for a referendum to obtain the opinion of the people whom the sovereignty is in. (To be continued)   

Nalin De Silva

10-07-2013

Indo Lanka Accord and the Provincial Councils - I

During the last few weeks in these columns we argued that the Indo Lanka Accord is now defunct due to the failure of India to fulfill its obligations under the accord. Also we have argued that the thirteenth amendment is not law of the country and that there is no barrier to abolish the provincial councils. If a referendum was held without submitting bills to the Parliament to determine the wish of the people there is no doubt whatsoever that the people would approve the termination of the provincial councils by a two third majority. What the government and the so called nationalist parties in the government should have done was to submit a bill to the cabinet of ministers under the Article 85 (1) of the constitution to abolish the thirteenth amendment. If the cabinet certified that the bill should be submitted to the people by a referendum then a referendum could have been held before the bill was presented to the Parliament. However, my view was rejected by the “nationalist organizations” who clearly have a different agenda.

The Article 85 (1) states: “The President shall submit to the People by Referendum every Bill or any provision in any Bill which the Cabinet of Ministers has certified as being intended to be submitted to the People by Referendum, or which the Supreme Court has determined as requiring the approval of the People at a Referendum if the number of votes cast in favour of such Bill amounts to not less than two-thirds of the whole number of Members (including those not present).”  The cabinet, even if some members are opposed to the abolition of the thirteenth amendment, could not have objected to this proposal to refer the bill to the people as it would have amounted to rejection of the legislative power of the sovereignty of the people which the latter exercised through the Parliament. The cabinet which after all is only a subset of the Parliament derives power from the people and cannot object to going to the source from which power generates. However, the government decided to curtail some of the Articles of the thirteenth amendment through the Parliament making use of  not only Article 82 on the amendment of the constitution but Articles 154 G (2) (b) and 154 G (3) (b) which are in any event not law of the country. The government should not invoke the “articles” 154 G (2) (b) and 154 G (3) (b) to amend any provisions of the thirteenth amendment not only because the so called articles are not law of the country but it goes against the article 82 (6) : “No provision in any law shall, or shall be deemed to, amend, repeal or replace the Constitution or any provision thereof, or be so interpreted or construed, unless enacted in accordance with the requirements of the preceding provi­sions of this Article.” Any amendment to the constitution, including the thirteenth amendment, has to be made invoking Article 82.  

The thirteenth amendment has to go sooner or later as it is not only a “solution” imposed on us by India to a non existing problem of the Tamils but forced on us through the back door by threats and “parippu” or “dhal” diplomacy. What we have is a problem of the English educated Vellalas who projected to the world with the approval of the English that their loss of privileges they enjoyed under the colonial rulers over not only the other Tamils but also the Sinhala people as a whole was a discrimination against the Tamils in general. It is unfortunate that even today many Sinhalas have not been able to grasp this phenomenon. We should not succumb to middle class morality of honouring so called international agreements. The only agreement in this regard is the Ando Lanka Accord which to say the least betrayed our sovereignty. We have argued along these lines since 1987 in “Divaina” and “Kalaya” that is not in publication now, but what is interesting is that the Accord does not define the provincial councils but refers to them as if they had been already established.  It is true that the President, the Ministers and some Public Servants are empowered to enter in agreements with other countries on behalf of the country. However the question is whether they could betray the sovereignty of the people in the process. In the case of the President the Constitution specifically states under the Article 33 (f) that he has the power “ to do all such acts and things, not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or written law as by international law, custom or usage he is required or authorized to do.” The Indo Lanka Accord is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution as it specifies what the Government of Sri Lanka has to do in connection with legislative powers.

However, in their desire to hide this aspect the Indian Brahmins have done a shoddy job and deliberately not defined a provincial council.  Sri Lanka had no provincial councils before the thirteenth amendment and the Accord should have defined what these monsters were. At least they could have said as they had done in paragraph 2.1 reproduced below that the Sri Lankan government “proposes” to establish provincial councils and described their powers and functions briefly. They did not do that but in paragraph 2.2 referred to hitherto non existing provincial councils.  

“2.2 During the period, which shall be considered an interim period (i.e. from the date of the elections to the Provincial Council, as specified in para 2.8 to the date of the referendum as specified in para 2.3), the Northern and Eastern Provinces as now constituted, will form one administrative unit, having one elected provincial council. Such a unit will have one Governor, one Chief Minister and one Board of Ministers.” I wonder what happened to the Nyaya Sastra of the Brahmins. Surely the Brahmins knew that Sri Lanka did not have any provincial councils and 2.2 and other paragraphs that refer to provincial councils are meaningless. In case one wonders what paragraph 2.8 is, it is reproduced below. 

“2.8 Elections to Provincial Councils will be held within the next three months, in any event before 31st December 1987. Indian observers will be invited for elections to the Provincial Council of the north and east.” Incidentally this is not something that the government of Sri Lanka “proposes” as in the paragraph 2.1 and it is a case where India has meddled with our sovereignty specifying dates for elections for non existing provincial councils. Further the Kautalyas had said that Indian observers would be invited which simply means that the elections would be held under the Brahminic eyes.

The all important paragraph 2.1 states: “2.1 Since the Government of Sri Lanka proposes to permit adjoining provinces to join to form one administrative unit and also by a Referendum to separate as may be permitted to the Northern and Eastern Provinces as outlined below:” The government of Sri Lanka had proposed it while the innocent Brahmin babies had listened to the representatives of the Sri Lankan government! Now where in the constitution of Republic of Sri Lanka it says that provinces are administrative units? The Provinces are not defined at all in the constitution whether as administrative units or not and the poor Kautalya must have turned in his grave if he was not cremated. The administrative units or districts are given in the first schedule of the constitution and the Indian Brahmins had clearly violated our constitution while J R Jayawardhene and his ministers had betrayed the country and the people. It is unfortunate that there was no Mahaushadha among the advisors to the President Jayawardhene to to do what the former did to the Kevattaya.    

The above is not the only betrayal by Jayawardhene and infringement of our sovereignty by the Brahmins. The paragraph 1.4 of the Indo Lanka Accord states: “ Also recognising that the Northern and the Eastern Provinces have been areas of historical habitation of Sri Lankan Tamil speaking peoples, who have at all times hitherto lived together in this territory with other ethnic groups:” This is a lie to say the least referring to part of the Ruhunu Rata as well. Here again what right has India got to demarcate a region of the country as a so called historical habitation of Sri Lankan Tamil speaking peoples?   (To be continued) 

Nalin De Silva

03-07-2013

Why the northern province elections are different

As we have argued previously the Indo Lanka Accord is defunct due to the failure of India to fulfill any of the undertakings on her part as stated in the Accord. Thus there is no case for the thirteenth amendment or the provincial councils whether in the northern province or anywhere else in the country. Further the thirteenth amendment is not the law of the country as it was “passed” by the parliament going against the decision of the Supreme Court that wanted the President to hold a referendum to approve the Clauses 154 G (2) (b) and 154 G (3) (b). The Parliament “passed” the relevant bill as a whole and not clause by clause and hence the thirteenth amendment has to be declared null and void as a whole and not “Article” by “Article”. 

The question is being raised by some politicians as to why object to the elections for the provincial council in the northern province when the other provinces are “enjoying” the opportunities provided by the provincial councils. There is a reason for that though many people have forgotten the history of the establishment of the provincial councils through the now defunct Indo Lanka Accord. The so called Tamil problem goes back to the second decade of the nineteenth century when the Legislative Assembly was formed. The English did not give the Sinhala people or their culture the due place and only one member was appointed to represent the Sinhala people who had a history of more than two thousand years and who essentially created and developed the unique culture of the country. The number of Tamil representatives in the legislative assembly was equal to the number of Sinhala representatives which was a glaring discrimination against the Sinhala people. Further the Sinhala people were discriminated against in the professions and the English were very generous when it came to giving privileges to the English speaking Vellalas who had been brought to Sri Lanka by the Dutch as agricultural labourers.   With the limited franchise introduced in 1912 and universal franchise initiated in 1931 the English speaking Tamil Vellala leaders began to lose their privileges in the legislature, professions and the society in general  and the colonial rulers and the Tamil leaders interpreted it as discrimination against the Tamils in general. The “problem” of a few Vellalas was generalized to a problem of the entire Tamil community and the concept of a Tamil homeland was introduced. Tamil leaders decided to use the ordinary Tamils to achieve their ambitions.

Vadukkoddai Resolution of 1976 was the culmination of a process begun by the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) or the so called Federal Party that had the objective of establishing a separate Tamil State.  We reproduce below relevant sections of the resolution as many people have forgotten   the resolution by now. 

“The first National Convention of the Tamil United Liberation Front meeting at Pannakam (Vadukkoddai Constituency) on the 14th day of May, 1976, hereby declares that the Tamils of Ceylon by virtue of their great language, their religions, their separate culture and heritage, their history of independent existence as a separate state over a distinct territory for several centuries till they were conquered by the armed might of the European invaders and above all by their will to exist as a separate entity ruling themselves in their own territory, are a nation distinct and apart from Sinhalese and this Convention announces to the world that the Republican Constitution of 1972 has made the Tamils a slave nation ruled by the new colonial masters, the Sinhalese ,who are using the power they have wrongly usurped to deprive the Tamil Nation of its territory, language citizenship, economic life, opportunities of employment and education, thereby destroying all the attributes of nationhood of the Tamil people.

And, while taking note of the reservations in relation to its commitment to the setting up of a separated state of TAMIL EELAM expressed by the Ceylon Workers Congress as a Trade Union of the Plantation Workers, the majority of whom live and work outside the Northern and Eastern areas,

This convention resolves that restoration and reconstitution of the Free, Sovereign, Secular, Socialist State of TAMIL EELAM, based on the right of self determination inherent to every nation, has become inevitable in order to safeguard the very existence of the Tamil Nation in this Country.

This Convention further declares -

that the State of TAMIL EELAM shall consist of the people of the Northern and Eastern provinces and shall also ensure full and equal rights of citizenship of the State of TAMIL EELAM to all Tamil speaking people living in any part of Ceylon and to Tamils of EELAM origin living in any part of the world who may opt for citizenship of TAMIL EELAM.

that the constitution of TAMIL EELAM shall be based on the principle of democratic decentralization so as to ensure the non-domination of any religious or territorial community of TAMIL EELAM by any other section.

that in the state of Tamil Eelam caste shall be abolished and the observance of the pernicious practice of untouchability or inequality of any type based on birth shall be totally eradicated and its observance in any form punished by law.

that TAMIL EELAM shall be a secular state giving equal protection and assistance to all religions to which the people of the state may belong.

that Tamil shall be the language of the State, but the rights of Sinhalese speaking minorities in Tamil Eelam to education and transaction of business in their language shall be protected on a reciprocal basis with the Tamil speaking minorities in the Sinhala State.

that Tamil Eelam shall be a Socialist State wherein the exploitation of man by man shall be forbidden, the dignity of labor shall be recognized, the means of production and distribution shall be subject to public ownership and control while permitting private enterprise in these branches within limit prescribed by law, economic development shall be on the basis of socialist planning and there shall be a ceiling on the total wealth that any individual of family may acquire.

This Convention directs the Action Committee of the TAMIL UNITED LIBERATION FRONT to formulate a plan of action and launch without undue delay the struggle for winning the sovereignty and freedom of the Tamil Nation;

And this Convention calls upon the Tamil Nation in general and the Tamil youth in particular to come forward to throw themselves fully into the sacred fight for freedom and to flinch not till the goal of a sovereign state of TAMIL EELAM is reached.”

Unlike in the other provinces there will be many candidates at the elections for the provincial council of the northern province who support the Vadukkoddai Resolution with many constituent  parties of the TNA and their members being either represented or being present individually at the “convention”. The Vadukkoddai Resolution advocates and approves the establishment of an Eelam and it is against the sixth amendment to the constitution which states among others the following:

157A. (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 organization shall have as one of its aims or objects the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka.

It was not only the LTTE that fought for an Eelam, and those who abide by the Vadukkoddai Resolution will be campaigning in the northern province provincial council election. Would the TNA as a whole or as constituent parties adopt a resolution before the provincial council elections to the effect that Vadukkoddai Resolution is null and void. Politically all these resolutions, Accords, Pacts have been sunk in the Nandikadal Lagoon  with the defeat of the LTTE as the latter was the heir to all of them and was the culmination of the evolution of a problem that has a history going back to the Dutch who brought the Vellalas to Sri Lanka. Nandikadal was the political solution to a “problem” that has not been translated into law by abolishing the thirteenth amendment and the provincial councils. Law is always behind politics, technology and other systems of knowledge in general and it takes some time for Law to catch up in a western style democracy that actually does not represent the view of the people at any given time. The old left and Janavega and other sorts of socialists and liberals who have been elected to the Parliament do not represent the public view which will be asserted if a referendum is held. However, before a Parliament that represents the view of the public is elected and a cabinet is appointed accordingly  or a referendum is held, the government should at least amend the so called thirteenth amendment to have a clause similar to the Article 63 of the constitution that makes it compulsory for the MPs to take an oath to the effect or affirm that they would uphold and defend the Constitution of the Republic, as far as Provincial Council Members are also concerned before holding the elections to the northern province provincial council elections. Otherwise if a majority of members are elected to the northern province provincial council that does not uphold and defend the constitution but abide by the Vadukkoddai Resolution it would spell disaster for the country.  

Nalin De Silva

26-06-2013