Breaking News

[Mathan]

Tamil nationalism at its crossroads
By Sathya

Colonel Karuna, the Batticalo/Amparai leader of the LTTE, in his letter to LTTE leader Veluppilai Pirabhakaran made public on March 5 declared that he wished to serve the people of South Tamil Eelam' and that it was his wish to die at their feet.

He further appealed to Prabhakaran that if he believed in the people and the fighters of Batticaloa/Amparai, he should allow them to work independently under his (i.e. Pirabhakaran's) leadership.

The response of the LTTE leader and the Vanni-based "National Leadership" was predictable. In a statement issued the following day at a Press Conference in Killnochchi, the LTTE announced that Karuna had been "discharged from the Liberation Tigers and relieved of his responsibilities" for having "planned to secede himself from the liberation organization". The charge was that Karuna, "instigated by some malicious elements opposed to the Tamil Eelam Liberation struggle, acting traitorously to the Tamil people and the Tamil Eelam National Leadership, has planned to secede himself from the liberation organization".

The stage was thus set for an internecine conflict that could prove to be bloody with wires and cyber space getting clogged with reports of clashes, assassinations and conspiracies involving an "external hand", including the Indian intelligence RAW and Sri Lanka's military-intelligence apparatus. The involvement of western actors in either trying to patch up the differences between Pirabhakaran and Karuna or in tilting towards the Vanni-based leadership has also drawn the attention of conspiracy theorists. This is not to suggest that these conspiracy theories are necessarily wrong. Time is the best judge.

What is of particular concern to Sathya are not the reports centred on personality clashes, power struggle and conspiracy theories relating to the Karuna episode. The theme of this week's column, however, is a reflection on the particular conjuncture in which Tamil Nationalism finds itself today. A reflection prompted by the Karuna episode and the wider ramifications it has on Tamil nationalism and its future trajectory. Sathya, being a Tamil whose ancestral roots are in Vadamarachchy in Jaffna district on his father's side and in Vanni on his mother's side, does so in a somber mood which could well reflect the collective Tamil psyche and all the apprehension and anxieties that go along with it.

Tamil Nationalism has always prided itself in its self-perceived homogeneity and manifest destiny. Tamils were a distinct nationality. Tamils had a clearly identifiable homeland comprising the Northern and Eastern provinces. And, as such the Tamils had the inalienable right to self-determination that includes the right to secede. The above was the basis on which Tamil nationalism advanced its case, initially through peaceful means, and later through the force of arms in the face of State repression.

These are concepts and assertions that were taken for granted by Tamil nationalism, embodied in the Thimpu Principles'. Its antecedent could also be found in the Federal Party convention in the 50s and the Vaddukkodai resolution of May 14, 1976. Identities based on class, caste, gender, religious and regional diversities were all subsumed under this homogeneous category. Everything had to be placed on hold till the Tamils got their "Tamil Eelam".

Gradually, the socialist and Marxist-Leninist influences began to challenge this notion of homogeneity and stressed on the importance of differentiating the Tamil Nationality into the equally important sub-categories and sub-strata cited above. This was the focus of youth radicalism during the mid-70s and the early 80s . However, the intensification of State repression against the legitimate peaceful and democratic struggles of the Tamil national movement and frequent state-sponsored pogroms, pushed the broad Tamil National Movement as well as its progressive and left-oriented components into giving primacy to armed resistance.

In this, the ultra-Tamil nationalist tendencies gained ascendance till today we have the claim of the LTTE as the "sole representative" that would give leadership to the entire Tamil struggle under a single national leader and leadership. This came out in sharp relief when LTTE's Political Wing leader S. P. Thamilselvan told the media following his meeting with the TNA in Kilinochchi on 17th February, "We unanimously decided today that the Tamil people should vote only for the policies of the TNA.

This is the wish of our leader and leadership. The Tamils should unite under one leadership and one policy for this election". Incidentally the "one policy" included the demand for the acceptance and implementation of the LTTE's proposal for an Interim Self Governing Authority (ISGA) for the North-East. That the proposal is in itself unitarist and majoritarian in form and content within the North-East is conveniently ignored by Tamil nationalism. The Tamil nationalist demand for autonomy and federalism it appears is only vis a vis the State.

At the outset it must be emphasised that the Karuna episode is not something that relates to a single, deranged individual as the LTTE leadership has put out. In fact, it must be noted that almost all Tamil militant organizations had to contend with a Eastern local leadership that constantly demanded autonomy. As such the assertion by Karuna should not come as a surprise.

But it did come as a rude shock to the Tamil ultra-nationalist who believed that it is only an organization like the LTTE which is centralized, authoritarian and which stood by the dictum, "might is right" that could deliver their "Tamil Eelam". The assertiveness of Karuna and the challenge thrown by him to the centralized leadership has shattered this image.

The only way that the LTTE could restore that image is to carry out a swift military putsch against Karuna or a cloak and dagger assassination bid. It is beyond the LTTE innate character to accommodate pluralism and diversity within its organization, akin to Tamil Nationalisms innate tendency to negate diversity and pluralism within Tamil society.

This is not in any way to project Karuna as the democrat or as the alternative to God himself as Karuna referred to Pirabhakaran in his open letter to him in a tone that combined defiance with reverence. In fact, Sathya is of the opinion that Karuna had begun seeing himself as the Pirabhakaran of the East and the challenge posed by Karuna to the LTTE leader is both an assertion of regionalism as well as his military power centre.

Here again it must be clearly understood that regionalism in the East is not a new phenomenon. In fact it is the result of years of perceived grievance that the East is being dominated by the North. But, it is a perception that is shared largely by the intelligentsia and the ruling elites of the East against the intelligentsia and the ruling elites of the North. Karuna and Pirabhakaran are only the agents of these ruling elites who have manipulated them to serve their own interests. Therein lies the ingredients of the unfolding Greek Tragedy.

The time has come for Tamil Nationalism to look inwards. It has reached its crossroads. It is not Sathya's contention that Tamil nationalism will whither away. Neither would the notion of a Tamil traditional homeland that encompasses the North and East as one single politico-administrative entity simply fade away simply because of the Karuna factor.

It will not as long as Sinhala Nationalism holds sway over the body politic in Sri Lanka and denies the Tamil People their due identity, democratic and political rights.

At the same time the North and the Jaffna-centric Tamil nationalist leadership cannot afford to take the East for granted or deny political diversity and pluralism within the totality of the Tamil nationality.

The time has come for Tamil Nationalism to be People-centred rather than Land-centred. Sathya will have more to say on this theme at an appropriate time and conjuncture.

நன்றி -டெய்லி மிரர்