groundviews » Concerned Tamils, but what about the rest?

Concerned Tamils, but what about the rest?

July 8, 2009 at 7:00 am · Categories: Colombo, Human Rights, Human Security, IDPs and Refugees, Peace and Conflict, Politics and Governance, Post-War | by Selvy Thiruchandran

I read with interest the concerns of a group of Tamils on the situation of IDPs and their suggestions for a speedy recovery of a human tragedy. However, I am a little concerned and in fact unhappy why only a group of Tamils should be concerned? Aren’t the Sinhalese, Muslims, Malays and Burghers not concerned about the plight of the IDPs. Why this separatism on an issue of humanitarian recovery? Why shouldn’t there be a common platform – a common platform has many significations. Ideologically it speaks of National unity, a spirit to togetherness, solidarity and collective and cooperative efforts of a common citizenship. Practically it means greater numerical involvement and greater political strength. The greater the number, the greater the impact and it leads to seriousness of purpose which the many actors in the field – the state, the judiciary, the civil society, religious and theological groups, the church, the temples and the Viharas – will pay attention. A meaningful weightage may be added to the act.

There are many among us who take humanitarian, sympathetic, empathetic and progressive views on the unfortunate present tragedy. Newspaper columnists such as Sharni, Tissaranee Gunasekera, Lyn Ockerz, Emile Vander Poorten, retired civil servants who were trained in ideas of liberalism such as Somapala Gunadheera, the old leftists trained in Internationalism such as Upali Cooray, CRM members, who know the civil rights of the citizens, educationalists and university dons such as Prof. Ganantha Obeysekera, the entire women’s movement who believe in sisterhood is global and many others who will take common cause with this group.

It is true that some old stalwarts of the old left and the CRM are lost to us and some of the new left of the EPRLF, EROS, JVP have become nationalists and ultra nationalists. However, there are many who are not leftist and who do not subscribe to any isms, but have emerged as concerned human beings. It has been reported, I report gleefully, that the Sinhalese in the border villages who ere brutalised by the LTTE are also contributing relief materials to the affected IDPs. They have commonsense or perhaps folk wisdom to isolate suffering human beings of the present from the past or present violent people of the LTTE. We have lost Regi Siriwardhena and Bishop Lakshman Wickremasinghe, but we have others.

Let us go back to the old traditions of the Youth Congress of Jaffna, the old left – LSSP and CP, the CRM, Citizens Committee and such organisations and groups where ethnic, religious, Caste and Class belongings of the constituent members didn’t matter for unified affirmative actions.

Let us build a common platform of concerned citizens and not merely “concerned Tamils.”

1,025 have read this this article so far. You may also find these articles interesting:

The Internment – A Collective Punishment? The widespread indifference to the continuing misery of 280,000 interned IDPs, most of them already unlawfully detained for about four months without any charges, is a sad reflection on the moral values of our society. The reported release of a few thousand is most welcome, but what of the remaining 270,000? Attempts made to justify... Devanesan Nesiah, September 17, 2009
The Lessons We Never Learn The Lessons We Never Learn The second commemoration of the tsunami disaster is around the corner. In the past month or so, I have come to know of many organizations and collectives scrambling to put together all nature of commemorative activities, be they reports, workshops, evaluations etc. While some of these activities will be better, more... Groundviews, December 8, 2006

Permalink | Share this article on Facebook

jan said,

July 9, 2009 @ 10:21 am

Why are all these humanists ignoring over100000of Muslim and sinhala IDPs in the North and the East. These IDPs who are victims of ethnic cleansing by the LTTE have been in camps for over 10 years. Are the sinhala and muslim IDPs less human than the Tamils. This proves that most of the humanists are in fact political vultures.

Prof. Wilfred Anthony said,

July 9, 2009 @ 12:04 pm

Where are the protetsters now? where have they gone? They seem to have forgoten IDP’s after the LTTE was annihilated. Only a small group of the Tamil diaspora are interested in tamil IDP’s now. As for Britain, they are not interested in this anymore because they lost the battle to stop the ending of fighting. In a recession like this, they could not lose more jobs in the steel or arms industry, so they wanted the fighting to go on. Now they are quite since they can do nothing to kick start a fight there. They are not merely interested in IDP’s or other war victims but there own industries and jobs. As for other international players, the NGOs’ , they also lose their validity when a war ends, so wanted the war to go on. Shame on all of them. If they really care about people, there are thousands of homeless in Sri Lanka to care for, let alone IDP’s who will eventually be provided with housing and other basic essentials by the government anyway.

Dayan John said,

July 9, 2009 @ 1:21 pm

I think we all should be concerned about the 1 million IDPs in Sri Lanka. But what makes the 260.000 in vauniya specialis that they do not have freedom of movemnt, freedom of speech, communication. In fact they do not have BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. While the other IDPs enjoy these freedoms.

R.S.Ganeshan said,

July 9, 2009 @ 1:21 pm

Ms.Thiruchandran has done well to focus concern on all the IDPS generally whether they be Tamil,Muslims or Sinhala wherever from they be, or however long they have been in whatever camps.

She asks why it should only be Tamil humanist who should concern themselves about IDPS and not Sinhalese,Muslims,Burghers and Malay humanists as well.

But it is divisive bigots and jackals like JAN who hide behind a pseudonym due to their inhumanity and come out with absurd inanities due to their myopic delusions……

saman said,

July 9, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

yes this is true.. who will look after the sinhales? recent advertisement in sunday paper was for a poitical and PR position at the UK embassy in SL.. it states candidate should be aware of the tamil and other minority needs as well as press and human rights? well if they are eaqual opportunity as they say they are, should all sri lankans have same respect and coverge. for years all UK and other european embassies were staffed by minorities as visa officers which was detrimental to the majority asking for visa.

kichchi said,

July 20, 2009 @ 1:10 pm

it is really regrettable to note that the writer as well as most of the commentators have forgotten the difference between the Muslim and Sinhalese IDP’s and the Tamil IDP;s in the country known as Sri Lanka.
UNLIKE the TAMIL IDP’ the Muslim and Sinhalese IDP’s are not behind barbed wire fences and armed military guards. The Muslim and Sinhalese IDP;s are free to go anywhere inSri Lanka or to any part of the world. Anyone can visit the Muslim and Sinhalese IDP’s who are resident in places of their choice and are free to change their residencies.

If the Government and others (notably the commentators above) concerned do not want to practice discrimination, the least minimum they can do is to treat these Tamil IDP’s as the other IDP’s by aloowing them to go where they want to go including Wanni.

As TULF President Anandasangaree said the IDP camps might find itself EMPTY and the UN and the Sri Lankan Government can SAVE millions of dollars/rupees in cash and would also EARN the hearts and minds of the PEOPLE be they Tamils, Muslims, Sinhalese or anyone else.

What is needed now and first is not the resettlement of the Tamil IDP’s but freedom of movement of the Tamil IDP’s.

Devanesan Nesiah said,

July 23, 2009 @ 10:17 am

Regarding the entry of Selvy Thiruchandran, I reproduced below extracts from the opening paragraphs of the Fourth Statement of Concerned Tamils.

Why do we sign as ‘Concerned Tamils of Sri Lanka?’ It is not for lack of endorsement, by very many non-Tamil Sri Lankans, of every clause of each of our statements. Elsewhere, Tamil voices are heard loud and clear on our problems, but within our island, independent Tamil voices have been progressively stilled. In this crisis situation, we have a right and a duty to express our concerns collectively as Tamils of Sri Lanka. It will not do for the Tamil Diaspora or for Tamil politicians to be the sole spokespersons for the Tamils of Sri Lanka. Independent Tamil voices need to be heard… Our fears were set out in (the) First Statement: ‘The manner in which the final phase is worked out and the terms on which it is brought to a close are critical to the future of ethnic relations in Sri Lanka.’

We have already, as Concerned Tamils of Sri Lanka, called for a reversal of all ethnic cleansing over the decades, of Tamils and non-Tamils alike. We now go on to assert that the future of the overwhelming majority of the 280,000 IDPs as well as over 3 million Tamil citizens of Sri Lanka lies within the borders of this island. While we very much welcome the concerns shown and assistance forthcoming from overseas, we need to negotiate our future and to preserve our ethnic identity within Sri Lanka. We have been sharing this island from time immemorial and are committed to continuing to do so as citizens with individual and collective rights, not second to those of any other ethnicity.

Even a cursory glance of recent issues of our English-language newspapers will reveal that, regular columnists apart, Tamil voices have indeed been stilled. When I suggested to some of my Tamil friends that they should voice their concerns in public, many confessed that they were afraid to do so. Some said that they would be willing to express their concerns only collectively, in a large group, preferably multi-ethnic. Is it only the Tamil Diaspora that is able and willing to voice Tamil concerns? Are they to be the new sole representatives of the Tamils of Sri Lanka? Is that acceptable to Selvy? It is in response to this very unhealthy trend that we initiated the series of Statements of Concerned Tamils of Sri Lanka.

The Concerned Tamils have consistently taken a constructive, cooperative approach, avoiding criticizing government policy, but rather pointing out discrepancies between government policy as expressed by the President and some of what is practiced on the ground. The leaders of all political parties and all sections of the population need to work together to advance our common concerns, particularly the urgent concerns of the 280,000 new IDPs (virtually all Tamil) as well as earlier batches of IDPs of all ethnic groups, notably the entire Muslim population of the North evicted by the LTTE. In this context, does Selvy dispute the value of Tamil voices urging that there should be neither ethnic discrimination nor undue delay in resettling all IDPs?

Several of the individuals with ‘humanitarian, sympathetic, empathetic, and progressive views’ referred to by Selvy (e.g. Somapala Gunadheera in The Island of July 14, 2009) have been very supportive of the initiative of Concerned Tamils of Sri Lanka and none, to my knowledge, have questioned its usefulness. She refers to Bishop Lakshman, surely one of the great leaders of Sri Lanka of the 20th century. He was under treatment for a serious heart condition in the U.K. when the 1983 pogrom occcured. Against his doctor’s advice, he returned to Sri Lanka and visited IDP camps in the North and East. He was shattered by what he learnt from the IDPs, went on to formulate his celebrated Pastoral Address (parts of it were expressly from his perspective as a Sinhalese), and died soon afterwards- an indirect victim of the 1983 pogrom. I refer Selvy to that Pastoral Address in which he analyzes, one by one, from a Sinhalese perspective, the familiar reasons widely put forward to explain the 1983 pogrom. Did the many acts of violence by armed Tamil militants warrant violent retaliation against other Tamils? The Bishop’s response was that we need to rise above ‘tribal vengeance’ and ‘tribal morality.’ The full text of the Bishop’s Pastoral Address of November 1983 merits careful reading and re-reading.

Vaseeharan Nesiah said,

July 29, 2009 @ 2:44 am

I agree with Ms Thiruchandran that the “concerned Tamils” approach is flawed.

There is no doubt that the 280,000+ IDPs deserve urgent attention. The fact that they are Tamils, or Tamil speaking, should be of no consequence. This is a humanitarian problem and those people are victims of circumstances.

The fault lines of ethnic representation have proved to be disastrous, in over sixty years of this nation’s existence. I have no doubt that the group of “Concerned Tamils” are well intentioned but I see no reason to go to ‘battle’ along lines drawn by those whose directions were neither well-intentioned or well-thought.

Nor will Ms Thiruchendran’s nostalgic appeal to go back to the ways of the “old left” lead anybody to a new dawn. They never did and never will.

The near ground zero conditions in Sri Lanka have created conditions for fresh thinking and new leadership. I’d like to think that the remaining elements of the nation’s sordid past have triumphantly robbed themselves of the very oxygen they need for their own survival. Under the circumstances, I’d rather watch them gasp for their political breath, weighed down by the 280000+ IDPs and devoid of life giving distractions from the past.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI