SANGAM.ORG
Ilankai Tamil Sangam, USA, Inc.
Association of Tamils of Sri Lanka in the USA
by Prof. P. Ramasamy, Malaysia, February 11, 2006
|
Third, I respect Coomaraswamy ’s firm belief in non-violence. But in the context of the ethnic conflict, she seems to argue as though the Tamil leadership had a choice, but eventually opted to select the violent path. Here again she tries to argue from abstraction without considering the larger and more complex dynamics of the conflict and the involvement of multiple parties. Historically, Tamils, being the aggrieved party, sought to follow the path of non-violence, but such a faith was shattered by successive governments in Sri Lanka. In the end, the survival of the Tamil community required not passive acceptance of destruction, but defensive action. |
After having read Radhika Coomaraswamy's speech at McGill last year and her recent reply to the criticisms in the Ilankai Tamil Sangam, I am surprised by some of her remarks against the Tamil community. I would like to raise a few issues.
First, I think Coomaraswamy tends to be a bit biased in her analysis of the cause of the conflict in Sri Lanka. She has tried to shift the blame onto the LTTE as the main perpetrator of the conflict. While I am no expert on matters of conflict in the country, it is common knowledge, even to an outsider like me, that the ethnic conflict would not have come to the present stage without the full participation of the Sri Lankan state. It was the total disregard for Tamils in the country, combined with blatant discrimination and attacks that provided the context for the birth of the LTTE. The LTTE did not suddenly appear from the blue, but arose as a defensive shield to protect and advance the rights of Tamils. Surely, Coomaraswamy cannot miss this cardinal point in the whole context of the struggle.
While Coomaraswamy might have documented the state’s violation against the Tamil community, she avoided analyzing the primacy of the state’s role in the present conflict. Due to this, it appears from her speech/reply that the LTTE should be blamed for the present mess in the country.
Second, due to her in-built bias against the LTTE, for whatever reasons, Coomaraswamy writes that more Tamils had been killed by Tamils without providing the data. In other words, she is saying that the LTTE is responsible more killings than the other forces. But again, she shrewdly desists from blaming the Sri Lankan armed forces, the Sinhala thugs and the paramilitaries for the killings. Surely, Coomaraswamy should check her facts before making such a ludicrous assertion. Why she is vehemently opposed to the LTTE remains a mystery. There is no need for her to love the organization, but she should stick to her facts and not engage in some imaginative assertions and half-truths.
Third, I respect Coomaraswamy ’s firm belief in non-violence. But in the context of the ethnic conflict, she seems to argue as though the Tamil leadership had a choice, but eventually opted to select the violent path. Here again she tries to argue from abstraction without considering the larger and more complex dynamics of the conflict and the involvement of multiple parties. Historically, Tamils, being the aggrieved party, sought to follow the path of non-violence, but such a faith was shattered by successive governments in Sri Lanka. In the end, the survival of the Tamil community required not passive acceptance of destruction, but defensive action. No other Tamil groups provided this other than the LTTE. I don’t think that the LTTE wants violence; a non-violent path to solution would also require the consent of the Sri Lankan state. Violence is not the sole monopoly or preserve of the LTTE.
Fourth, while Coomaraswamy tends to be bit hard on the Tamil community, she is quite sympathetic to the Sinhalese community. She laments the fact that Tamils did not take the initiative to build alliances and partnerships with Sinhalese friends. Rather Tamils “played to their ideological nightmares thus accentuating the situation.” This is, in my mind, the most preposterous remark in her speech and reply. While she puts the blame on the Tamil community for not building relationships with Sinhalese, she is not ready or prepared to blame the Sinhalese or past governments.
I am not sure why Coomaraswamy decided to embark on this one-sided affair. The history of the country and - more so - the history of the Sinhalese-Tamil relationship is testimony to the many efforts taken by moderate Tamil parties to resolve the ethnic issue. But the emergence of a moderate framework has had its limits. Moderation and the adherence to Gandhian principles by Tamil political parties could not proceed anywhere because of the entrenched Sinhala-Buddhist opposition to Tamils. In the end, Tamils were subjected to the worst forms of violence in the country.
It would have been more appropriate for Coomaraswamy to ask the Sinhalese why they have failed to establish and maintain relationship with the Tamil moderate organizations.
Coomaraswamy’s speech and her reply are highly objectionable to the concerns, sentiments and well-being of Tamils in the country. Despite occupying a highly responsible international position, her remarks can be interpreted as an insult to the Tamil community, the most deprived segment of the population on the island. She does not have to support the national liberation movement, but Tamils, especially those who suffered the racist policies of the Sri Lankan state, expect some sympathy from her.
I hope Coomaraswamy will stop insulting Tamils and use her high office to do something useful for the community in the future.
© 1996-2024 Ilankai Tamil Sangam, USA, Inc.