India must stay out

The combined meeting of the Tamil Nationalist Parties of Tamil Nadu in late January, advocated that the Indian government ban on the LTTE be lifted. It was also argued that India should not be averse to offering a venue for negotiations between the LTTE and the new Sri Lankan government. This has generated controversy, given the fact that the LTTE was responsible for the assassination of a former Indian prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, and that it still continues its violence in Sri Lanka.

Political developments in Sri Lanka have not attracted much attention here because of India’s preoccupation with the international anti-terrorism campaign. Nevertheless, changes in Sri Lankan politics since December, when the Parliamentary elections were completed, are of profound significance. The United National Party (UNP) has returned to parliament with a majority after a gap of nearly eight years, weakening President Chandrika Kumaratunga’s hold over domestic politics. For the first time in 25 years, there is an institutional dichotomy in the government under the provisions of 1978 Constitution. For the first time the president and the prime minister belong to different political parties, and for the first time the president’s political party does not enjoy a majority in the Sri Lankan parliament.

The UNP, led by Ranil Wickramsinghe, along with its allies, has 125 seats in Parliament which has a total membership of 225. So the legislative clout of the Sri Lankan government rests entirely with the UNP-led coalition of political parties. President Chandrika Kumaratunga will now have to deal with Wickramsinghe, who in turn will have to share the executive powers of the government in a practical manner, if effective governance has to take place.

Kumaratunga and the People’s Alliance, however, are in no mood to respond, at least at this stage. Wickramsinghe had made a public appeal for a National Government in Sri Lanka. He invited the members of all the other political parties to join his cabinet, before he was sworn in as prime minister on December 9. Kumaratunga’s People’s Alliance signalled that it would prefer to function as a constructive opposition. This portends contentious times ahead.

The polity here is facing three challenges. First, to overcome the institutional dichotomy of the president and the prime minister belonging to different parties. Second, to cope with a severe economic crisis. Sri Lanka registered a zero per cent growth in its economy during the year 1999-2000. The latest estimates for 2000-2001 is that there has been a further decline. The figure stands at minus 0.6 per cent. Nearly a quarter of Sri Lanka’s budget is devoted to defence expenditure. There has been a decline in tourism and projects in the eastern and northern parts of Sri Lanka have remained at a standstill because of ethnic violence. The third, and the most important challenge, is resolving the ethnic problem by reviving the dialogue with the LTTE — an exercise in which the Norwegian government is involved.

As far as the first challenge goes, a durable solution would be of re-amending the constitution, moving back to the position which President Kumaratunga had promised. However, she is unlikely to support such an amendment moved by the Wickramsinghe government as long as she remains the president. Although Wickramsinghe has a majority in Parliament, he does not have enough strength to push through a constitutional amendment. There will, therefore, be a deadlock. The alternative is to forge a political compromise in the interim period before such an amendment can be carried through.

As far as economic challenges go, success in dealing with them is dependent to a great extent on the Sri Lanka government achieving some success in ending the ethnic conflict. Wickramsinghe had fought the elections on a peace platform, exactly as Kumaratunga had done when she came to power in the mid-90s. He has expressed his willingness to revive the dialogue with the LTTE. The LTTE, while declaring a unilateral ceasefire, stated that it would agree to a dialogue only if the ban on it is lifted. Kumaratunga has refused to declare a ceasefire and has also refused to lift the ban unless the LTTE abjures violence and comes to the dialogue table without pre-conditions. While Kumaratunga has taken this stance, the Wickramsinghe’s government has re-affirmed its pledge for peace talks and has promised that if they carry on along positive lines, the government would be willing to establish a Council for Northern and Eastern Provinces. LTTE leader Prabhakaran, in his annual Martyrs’ Day message in September, had indicated his willingness to resume discussions and had urged voters to vote for the Sinhalese Party advocating peace. The LTTE’s seriousness about moving forward towards a peaceful solution and dropping its demand for a separate Tamil state in Sri Lanka, however, remains doubtful, given its past record and Wickramsinghe has already stated that his government will not be willing to accept demands for a ‘Tamil Homeland’. This is the most important among Tamil demands over the last 25 years. One also has to note that the Buddhist clergy, the JVP and the Armed Forces, have become incrementally opposed to giving a separate Tamil territorial identity to the Northern and Eastern Provinces. They are also opposed to the devolution of powers for financial management and maintenance of law and order to any Tamil-dominated provincial government.

Though the Norwegian intermediaries are hopeful about establishing a ceasefire and facilitating a government-LTTE dialogue, the reality is that the prospects are tenuous and uncertain. Though the LTTE has been listed as a terrorist organisation by the US, reports indicate that its financial and military sources have not diminished. The assessment of LTTE leaders seems to be that a resumption of dialogue will result in the organisation being removed from the international terrorist list. This will enable it to retain its capacity to continue its operations and negotiate with the Sri Lankan government from a position of strength.

The revival of support to the LTTE in Tamil Nadu and the advocacy of India again playing at least an indirect role in bringing about a dialogue, strengthens the LTTE’s position, which now is more or less acknowledged as the sole representative of Sri Lanka Tamils. India would be wise not to get operationally involved in any aspect of the proposed dialogue, given the manner the Sinhalese and the Sri Lankan Tamils view this country. At the same time, it would be politic for India to continue supporting the legitimate aspirations of Sri Lankan Tamils and to encourage the Sri Lankan government to enter into a meaningful dialogue with the LTTE. The venue of the dialogue should be either in Sri Lanka itself or in some neutral location in Europe.

Earlier Columns