The lost prize for victory over terrorism is yet another example of how Sri Lankans turn, ever so often, success into near nonevent.  Challenge to the State through terrorist activity has become the virus that erodes the foundation of many societies in modern political history.  Much of the time, energy and money of the political leadership and their civil society are expended in the efforts to eliminate terrorism.  Sri Lanka has managed to outdo all others in wiping out the terrorist confrontation that had traumatized this country for over three decades. 

The elimination of the LTTE and the end to the ethnic war was celebrated for a while by all types of people, all with their own agendas.  But we failed to take the world with us in our hour of triumph over the destabilizing force of the LTTE.  The international community should have hailed us as torchbearers as many of the countries have supported and proscribed the LTTE as a terrorist organization.  Instead they allowed it to end as a nominal pyrrhic victory raising many issues some of them factually correct while some cannot be verified without corroborative evidence admissible in a Court of Law.

The fault line rests with us as we have delayed to take the necessary steps to deliver a post conflict package to resolve much of the demands of the Tamils that have been given expression over the last four or five decades.  The constitution unequivocally   gives clarification to the entitlement of all Sri Lankans to freedom, equality, justice, and human rights….amongst others.  Some of these rights violations, human rights observers claim, occurred. It would seem that we allowed many players to devise and implement strategies which diffused the success story that resulted in misgivings and agitations over the intent of the government. There also remains a degree of ambivalence in the ownership to policy measures, adopted particularly in the closing stages of the war. 

The first question to be addressed is the ownership for the victory.  It is obviously a difficult issue to elicit a simple answer.  While no  one answer is possible, it can be said with reasonable assurance that the brave men and women who spearheaded into LTTE territory on foot, in jeeps, in tanks, and secured victory while many lost life and limb, are the owners of this victory; the army  commanders who planned the strategy and the routes for the attack are the victors; the naval commanders and their men and women who successfully prevented the movement of arms into LTTE territory are the owners of this victory; the Air Force commanders and their fighter pilots and the many men and women who flew and manned the planes and helicopters to give cover to the ground forces during the fight, are the owners of this victory;  the defense ministry together with the joint operations unit that helped to strategize the plans for the operations and for the procurement of arms and ammunitions punctiliously, are the owners of this victory;  the Commander–in-Chief of the Forces, H.E. the President of this nation, who gave the political leadership, the financial support for the defense budget, even as it grew exponentially year by year, maintained a hot line to the countries such as India, Pakistan, America, China and kept these major players appraised of events and sustained their support for the war, is  the victor; above all the people who gave their sons and daughters, husbands and wives to fight the war in so many different capacities, never protesting when the body bags were brought in of their loved ones or when someone  came back on stretchers maimed, dark years ahead of them for life; they are the victors.   We have thus many claimants to victory and none so significant that any one of the whole can stand up and declare ‘I am the sole owner of this legacy, The Victor’.

During the long years of the separatist war the political culture of this country continued to transform, whereby, human security was subordinated to national security.  The country was placed under emergency rule and the Prevention of Terrorism Act.  In fact it, is on record that for most of the post-independence period, emergency rule was in operation under all governments.  In such circumstances, freedoms remain mere words in the constitution bereft of meaning or significance.  Right to information was denied as an undeniable claim of the citizen and criticism was viewed as acts of treason and regarded as complicity with agent provocateurs both national and international.  “Whatever the country freedom of thought and expression are universal human rights.  These freedoms, which modern people long for as bread and water, should never be limited by using nationalist sentiment, moral sensitivities, or –worst of all- business or military interests.” Orhan Pamuk in the essay: “Freedom to Write” in “Burn the Book” ed. by Toni Morrison.

The people remained calm as their priority was to end the war.  Cost of living rose to indefensible heights but people remained silent.  It is admirable that they did not rebel even when conditions, political, economical and personal became intolerable. Arguments can be raised that fear of the white van or kidnappings or disappearances conditioned them to stay quiet.  It is also true that in the face of surging mass protest, had it been staged, no might on earth could have withstood the onslaught, given that the uprising is a genuine people’s movement and not one engineered by partisan interest groups.  Many are the examples in history of mass power that have been instrumental in successfully overcoming resistance from the establishment.

In the Philippines, when Corazon Aquino led the resistance against Marcos, and children offered flowers to the soldiers, none took the gun to shoot them.  The movement gained momentum and the soldiers ultimately downed their guns.  The Sri Lankans must be given credit for having withstood hardships, fears and restrictions in order to support the war efforts.

Now that the war is over each of the stake holders need to be given their just rewards.  The welfare of the service personnel and their families must be an overriding concern, as the people who stayed calm disregarding their ‘crippled’ status as citizens.  This is not the moment for politics or for political manipulations from whichever quarter it comes.  This is the time to put this fractured society together and not create schisms and create fresh fissures in civil society, within the political establishment, within the bureaucracy, within the trade unions or within the service personnel.  Hitherto the armed services have maintained exemplary standards in making the distinction between civilian life and the military establishment.  Countries that have let loose the boundaries within which each of these forces operate have seen the nation down sliding into chaos with various vested interests stalking to weaken the power base to achieve their personal and political agendas.

In the rush to claim ownership to victory, let us not forget the reasons for the conflict and the war.   Egos have to be deflated and the sprint to take advantage of the victory must be kept down to address the fundamental issue –are we addressing the reasons for the conflict to find solutions. The major demands by the Tamils have been for demonstrable equality to all, language rights, devolution for a share in the governance of their affairs, equity in development programs, fairness in the judicial process and the maintenance of objective standards by the law enforcement authorities to secure against rights violations.  The Tamils, the rest of the country and the international friends of Sri Lanka have been looking for signs of progressive movement in these areas.  There have been assertions of Buddhist Sinhalese ‘suzerainty’ over the country and the minorities be tolerated if ‘rules’ are followed.  The government has however adopted many programs for the development of the North and the East by ‘redeploying resources’ used for military spending toward ‘de-mining, basic infrastructure, and other activities essential for the reintegration of the Tamil people’.  The government’s intention to bring about peace and integrate the communities is clear even if some may not like the pace at which the major concerns are being addressed.  That the state is negligent of the needs of the Tamil population may therefore not be the realistic situation. 

The estranged Tamils and other minorities, the large majority of the Sinhalese, the international friends who had given sustained and invaluable assistance throughout the heightened period of this war need to be convinced that eliminating Prabhakaran is to give them the freedom they have been demanding.  To engage these interested parties the political leadership must address the issues more directly by adopting constructive policy measures to assuage perceptions of the Tamils and convince them of the need to look forward lest the past continue to live with an intensity that might colour negatively even the positive changes taking place. The concerns over the collective memory of some of the damaging events in the past particularly the 1983 pogrom must live on as we even today revive the memory of the holocaust merely to prevent recurrence of such incidents.

But this must not deter the movement forward towards accommodation and to what should be the compulsive need to live together as equal members of a plural society.

Disturbing signals might be sent if some within the establishment and outside continue to dwell on “the circumstances at the time the 13th amendment was introduced and those prevailing now are different.   We can most certainly learn from the steps taken in the past; but that no community should demand for undue powers….”  At a time like the present when many amongst the Tamil political parties are willing to give up demands for self-determination and want to be united as one nation, this might become a disconcerting approach.

The confinement of the IDPs in enclosed barbed wire secured  ‘camps’, restricting movement and imposing a militarized environment have caused much disquiet and agitation within the inmates in the camps and the humanitarian watch internationally.  It has never been clear as to who was responsible for the arrangements that made the camps closed enclaves without access to relatives and friends, the media, political representatives and Social Service organizations.  Information as to the mastermind behind these policy measures adopted following the immediacy of the closing stages of the war is not forthcoming.  Ownership to the strategies will reveal the mindset of the people concerned who are our leaders and who hope to gain leadership in the future.

During the difficult days that followed many issues have been raised; of human rights violations and unethical elimination of helpless individuals; those injured and those caught up in the stampede.  While these are being hinted around none has made a statistical or a near approximate presentation of facts with figures.  That such atrocities happened is not being questioned.    Many of these acts violating the rights of men and women who if they have survived would have the entitlement  to take the perpetrators  to courts for violation of their fundamental right to life not only as a constitutional provision but also as the inalienable right  to the human security of the individual. Mistakes have been committed, grave mistakes have been committed, for whatever reason and by whom is worth the investigation. Was it driven by the military establishment or by the political leadership?  Pertinent questions demand responsibility particularly in the present context of heightened election tempo.  However, with greater wisdom prevailing the ground situation has changed. 

The government has made positive moves to consult with the Tamil political leaders, resettle the IDP’s and create a wholesome approach to the refugee re-settlement.  The country must move on correcting mistakes if and as they occur. 

 If history is reviewed every war will demonstrate how they begin and end with the bestiality of man raising its ugly head and making otherwise moral men and women act in haste, snuffing out lives on questionable grounds, passing it as necessary action in war.  Which of these countries can in all candour point a finger at us clothed in lily white correctness in their conduct during war time operation.

Take stock of the horrendous tales of violations by the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, the French in Algeria, Jalianvalah Bagh in India, and even today some countries who seem to act influenced by the vote bank of the Diaspora in their respective countries.  Though the pursuit of justice to the disadvantaged is the primary concern, it must be said that countries play the role most advantageous to them.

It is not too late to investigate as to where Sri Lanka has gone so wrong that we are left without cheer leaders.  The basic tenor of diplomacy has not been learnt and those who know better must not speak in the undiplomatic language of the novice, estranging international opinion against us.  Asia has had its counterpart to Machiavelli in Chankya and his treatise, the Arthsastra, to ground foreign policy advocates on how best to conduct international relations and win permanent or near permanent friends and allies.  Modern treatises on how to successfully conduct international relations are found in plenty.  Sir Harold Nicolson in his classic treatise, Diplomacy gives the characteristics of a modern diplomat: he has to be truthful and by this he means “not merely abstention from conscious misstatements but a scrupulous care to avoid the suggestion of the failure or the suppression of the true”; he has to have qualities of intellectual integrity, knowledge, discernment, prudence, hospitality, ….courage and tact. Above all the diplomat “must have a special loyalty to his country, a loyalty that will prompt him to tell his government what it ought to know rather than what it wants to hear”. To successfully steer the country’s affairs in the international arena the qualities mentioned above are vital to the participators both as individuals and in the collective.

Somehow Sri Lanka has chased away all friends and allies by pursuing  intemperate strategies that viewed foreign powers as trouble makers and conspirators who have set themselves to plot and plan the ‘demise’ of the country.  They have been viewed as enemies and traitors for expressing different viewpoints not seen to be favourable to the political establishment.  Such displeasure was not expressed in the privy of the official precincts or in the privacy of their political backrooms, but was expressed widely in the public domain, through the media and at public meetings and interviews not always by persons entitled to speak for the country.  Big powers are not by definition given to bouncing off such ‘denigration’ as irritants that arise from political immaturity or bravado of emergent nations.  They on the contrary take the Shylock’s share of their pound of ‘flesh’, a share that hurts the Sri Lankans as in GSP +, or in reducing aid and investments.  The IMF has been the exception that has provided the much needed aid to “prevent a full-blown economic crisis, contribute to reconstruction efforts, and sustain social spending aimed at protecting the poor.  In addition, this program also provides the necessary framework without which international donors would be unable to provide assistance in the areas of infrastructure, roads, hospitals and schools.” Quote from a reply to Human Rights Watch by the IMF Managing Director.

Yet, as we face a Presidential election, the question of ownership to strategies just prior to the end of the war and in the immediate aftermath of the war, becomes relevant to us as citizens of this country, for on these answers, will depend our assessment of the candidates.  How will we discern truth from fabrications?   Who indeed is privy to the truth?