Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 19:02:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: Imran Markar <im204-AT-hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Lanka



As I expected the email I posted recently was misunderstood (or
misconstrued) by Peggy. I am grateful to Salil for having intervened in
this discussion and examined the issues I raised in the spirit in which
they were originally written. It is heartening to note that I was able to
communicate my point(s) at least to some of the list members.

As I mentioned earlier I do not intend to begin a debate on a
multi-faceted subject like Sri Lankan politics which will only go to
unearth memories of pain and suffering of those who were victimized by the
conflict. If such a recovery will lead to something redemptive, it will no
doubt be worth pursuing it (though not in this forum). But as I see it,
this line of argument will not lead to anything constructive. So it is
best to wind off this discussion and proceed to the topics relevant to
this forum. In fact, it was in the interest of the list members that
in the first instance I did not go into the ramifications of Sri Lankan
politics. This is why right at the outset of the first post I emphasized
that the political problems in Sri Lanka are excessively complex, to say
the least. If my brief comments on this aspect read as "understatements",
they were not meant to be so. 

I will not go to clarify the points which Salil has already examined. I
feel that what we have said will be clear enough to the perceptive
reader. However I do wish to make a couple of comments.

First, I never gave the impression that I was unbiased. In fact I stressed
this point it my post. I do not think it is humanly possible for us to be
unbiased (positively or negatively) as we are all conditioned by numerous
factors, among which are our environment, personal/political beliefs,
religious ethics etc.(this is clearly apparent even in Peggy's
own arguments). We can only in the course of life strive to reduce
(or accumulate, depending on circumstances) such prejudices, especially in
situations where they can be harmful to society at large. What I tried to
communicate was that being a Sri Lankan Muslim who is outside the country,
I was less involved in the conflict than others.

Second, just for those who may be interested, the Swedish Save the Child
Fund (in collaboration with the United Nations), is bringing out a report
which will be presented to the UN General Assembly later this month.
This information was published a few days ago in an article
entitled "Army of Children Fight Adult Wars". It reveals how children are
(ab)used as executioners, assassins and informers in wars all over the
world. Referring specifically to Sri Lanka, the report states that
children as young as 10 years were used as assassins in such war
activities. (The Guardian, 1 November, 1996). Taking off from here, if one
requires more graphic details of the war strategies of the LTTE, refer to
Tim McGirk's "Boys and Girls Come Out to Die" (The Independent, 26
February 1995). To quote a line from this article:   

"what has kept the Sri Lankan government at bay in recent years or so has
been a steady stream of devastating suicide attacks, either in battle
or in strikes against government installations or political leaders.
Hundreds of Tamils have died in this way. Many have been female; nearly
all have been in their teens or early twenties." (p.10)

Elsewhere he states that most of the fighting in the past four to five
years has been carried out by "an army composed largely of young women
and school-children".

(By the way, this is a "first hand" report from McGirk, and although I
have not quoted here, the article highlights several instances where young
Tamil children (between the ages of 12-13) were coerced into starting
military training, often without their parents' knowledge. Furthermore,
this article provides interviews with young Tamils who are now part of the
LTTE military force and who confirm the issues that McGirk brings to
light.)   

Finally, as regards the statement made by the current President of Sri
Lanka, what she states is very specific to her goverment's agenda. This
statement cannot be used generally to make a comment about all the leaders
who have been in power since the conflict began. No, I do not condone what
the President said; however, I do not think that that gives me a right to
make essentialist statements about the policies adopted by different
political groups at different stages of the crisis. 

If I did give another version of the picture, it was only to show that we
cannot map out a one-sided political scenario of Sri Lanka. It was not
done with any intention of taking sides or placing the blame on the LTTE.
This is not even historically possible since some of the decisions made by
the leaders, who took over power at the time of independence, have
undoubtedly contributed to the present crisis.

I didn't proceed to give a Tamil point of view (which again is
multi-faceted) only because Peggy was doing this for me with ardent
commitment. I was responding on behalf of some absent groups, who are not
here to give us their side of the story (or stories). Also, to add
briefly, just as much someone like Peggy could use an argument, such as, I
have a bias because many Muslims were killed by the LTTE, I could go on
to emphasize that because my community shares a common language and
some cultural practices with Tamils, I also have very strong ties with
Tamils in Sri Lanka. However it is absolutely incorrect to give the
impression that because we share a common language, Muslims in Sri
Lanka can be classified as "Tamils".

As I said earlier and as I will reiterate now, all these political groups
(governmental and other armed oppposition groups) have to take
resposibility for the problems Sri Lanka faces today. For example the
early regimes of post independence Sri Lanka did definitely marginalize
Tamils, the largest minority group in Sri Lanka, and overlooked their
grievances (Peggy narrates some events of more recent times); on the other
hand, the LTTE also has to take a major share of the blame for the 
continuation of the crisis today. Their sincerity to achieve a
negotiated solution can be questioned in some of their actions. To quote a
couple of examples: the LTTE unilaterally broke off negotiations with three
different governments and resumed violence (late 1987, June 1990 and
April 1995). On the second of these occasions the government of the time
requested 600 police officers to surrender to the LTTE, to pre-empt any
provocation and to underline the government's wish for peaceful
negotiations. To date no one knows the fate of these officers and are 
presumed to be killed by the LTTE. Another example are the sporadic
bombings that were deliberately carried out by the LTTE in public places,
to maim and kill large crowds of civillians. Such incidents go to
highlight that  there is more than one side that needs to accept
responsibility for the atrocities that have been committed in the name of
peace and causes. 

I quite agree with Salil that negotiation is the most positive way of
resolving the crisis. However, under the present circumstances, such a
move is going to be very difficult until all sides sincerely, and I mean
sincerely, commit themselves first to build a broken trust.       

With best regards
Nazreena