Fundamentals non-negotiable for non-descript formulas
[TamilNet, Thursday, 18 June 2015, 23:46 GMT]
In the current discourse over the US-agenda put through South Africa –Switzerland proxies that bargain the closure of files at the international level for ‘non-descript’ hoodwink of solutions to the genocide-afflicted national question of Eezham Tamils, two arguments are noteworthy of answering, commented Tamil activists for alternative politics in the island. The first one repeatedly comes from the lawyer and spokesperson of the agenda, Mr. M.A. Sumanthiran that those who had earlier found fault with the US move at the UNHRC now realise its importance and demand continuation. The other one comes from Mr. Erik Solheim, who never lost his appetite for con, saying that the situation has now successfully gone back to 1972 and it is in the best hands of Sinhala leadership.
The present move itself, trying to nail even the traces of international diplomatic balance of Eezham Tamils into coffin, is the best proof for the fundamental deception in the earlier US move at UNHRC, justifying the vigilance of the opposing Tamil voices that have seen the deviation and engineering in advance, said Tamil activists for alternative politics in the island.
Sumanthiran’s point was debated in Jaffna but sharp responses were missing. Whether the spirited opposition to 13A has found virtues in the non-descript route sacrificing international claims is the question.
It is professional for lawyer Sumanthiran to defend the current agenda, but struggle of a nation should think through avenues of its own past experience and experience of humanity in other parts of the world.
The demand for international investigation on genocide and on-going genocide, and the nation’s right to exercise self-determination are non-negotiable for any non-descript formulas.
* * *
Talking of returning to 1972, and implying it positively, Mr. Solheim may sound like Metternich, the evil genius of Europe, who failed in trying to put the hands of the clock backwards on European nations after the Napoleonic wars.
But what Tamil activists have to see is the claim coming from Colombo that the participation of various Tamil outfits in the agenda means accepting ‘Sri Lanka’.
Mr. Erik Solheim himself never had appetite to go beyond the probability of ‘Sri Lanka’.
Those who wage wars always seek ‘treaties’ to confirm victory.
What the Tamil articulators have to consciously, unconsciously and subconsciously keep in mind in words and deeds of their deliberations is that in 1972 itself the very question was accepting ‘Sri Lanka’ conceived by its constitution.
* * *
At the outset itself the US move at the UNHRC was cleverly designed: bare minimum chances for the affected; space for withdrawal at any time; full of scope for the escape of the ultimate culprits and agent culprits; and with every possibility of effecting a regime change only for entry into the island through gratifying genocidal requisites of the dominant nation.
With the entry of South Africa, another pivotal point in the maritime realm into the scene of the US-agenda, there are now signs of larger geopolitical designs that may have bearings on BRICS.
There was always the speculation on the role played by Britain's domestic and external intelligences.
Given the track record, there are no reasons for Tamils to have any special sympathy towards BRICS. But New Delhi may come to regret, seeing articulating sections of Eezham Tamils and even up-country Tamils in the lure of becoming ‘natural allies’ of the West, unless New Delhi proves concrete justice compared to ‘non-descript’ solutions.
* * *
There could be no more excuses for talking of solutions under the sleeves or for blaming imagined spoilers. The world of humanity has to decide whether justice has been met with or not, after seeing in black and white what has been delivered on the ground.
When there are no signs for the end of structural and demographic genocide, and end of militarisation by an occupying genocidal military, there is every reason to suspect that this is the model meant by the non-descript solution.
The ‘reconciliation’ agenda is to save the genocidal State with semblance of changes.
Unequal reconciliation is subordination. Lasting peace will not come by reconciliation for other’s needs. The real reconciliation may come only when it dawns on the Sinhala nation that the last defenders of land in the island were the fallen Tamil fighters (including militants of all shades for the cause), and not the Colombo regimes or military in the lascarin service of outside agenda. But all care will be taken for not seeing history in that way.
* * *
Ever since nationalism as way of the then modern polity was introduced into our region through colonialism, the British were steadily deceiving the nation of Eezham Tamils, starting especially from the Manning reforms of 1920s, and specifically targeting through the Donoughmore Constitution of 1930s and the Soulbury Constitution of 1940s.
For the deceits of the Sinhala regimes in Colombo there is a long catalogue, first under the British since 1931 and later in the name of the so-called independence after 1948.
Thereafter, alternately or together, competing New Delhi and Washington have taken over the legacy of deceit on behalf of the genocidal State in Colombo. Washington is in the forefront now, just as New Delhi was adamant over the Indo-Lanka pact of the late 1980s.
The argument that the world today has no ‘appetite’ for national liberation (selectively for Eezham Tamils), as smokescreen to encourage, institutionalise and to ride on the genocidal nationalism of the Sinhala State for imperialistic agendas, has to be confronted outright at the face of those who come out with it.
Eezham Tamils could never be averse to global orders transcending nationalism for the benefit of entire humanity. They would willingly participate in them, provided their nation, identity, land, security and self-respect are internationally guaranteed.
If there is any lesson for Eezham Tamils to learn, the Vanni War should have taught the lesson that from where exactly the deceits have come and to where actually their struggle in the current context has to be addressed directly. Why the lacuna in orientating the polity in that direction, has to be seriously perused by genuine activists and the younger generation.
Chronology:
In the current discourse over the US-agenda put through South Africa –Switzerland proxies that bargain the closure of files at the international level for ‘non-descript’ hoodwink of solutions to the genocide-afflicted national question of Eezham Tamils, two arguments are noteworthy of answering, commented Tamil activists for alternative politics in the island. The first one repeatedly comes from the lawyer and spokesperson of the agenda, Mr. M.A. Sumanthiran that those who had earlier found fault with the US move at the UNHRC now realise its importance and demand continuation. The other one comes from Mr. Erik Solheim, who never lost his appetite for con, saying that the situation has now successfully gone back to 1972 and it is in the best hands of Sinhala leadership.
The present move itself, trying to nail even the traces of international diplomatic balance of Eezham Tamils into coffin, is the best proof for the fundamental deception in the earlier US move at UNHRC, justifying the vigilance of the opposing Tamil voices that have seen the deviation and engineering in advance, said Tamil activists for alternative politics in the island.
Sumanthiran’s point was debated in Jaffna but sharp responses were missing. Whether the spirited opposition to 13A has found virtues in the non-descript route sacrificing international claims is the question.
It is professional for lawyer Sumanthiran to defend the current agenda, but struggle of a nation should think through avenues of its own past experience and experience of humanity in other parts of the world.
The demand for international investigation on genocide and on-going genocide, and the nation’s right to exercise self-determination are non-negotiable for any non-descript formulas.
* * *
Talking of returning to 1972, and implying it positively, Mr. Solheim may sound like Metternich, the evil genius of Europe, who failed in trying to put the hands of the clock backwards on European nations after the Napoleonic wars.
But what Tamil activists have to see is the claim coming from Colombo that the participation of various Tamil outfits in the agenda means accepting ‘Sri Lanka’.
Mr. Erik Solheim himself never had appetite to go beyond the probability of ‘Sri Lanka’.
Those who wage wars always seek ‘treaties’ to confirm victory.
What the Tamil articulators have to consciously, unconsciously and subconsciously keep in mind in words and deeds of their deliberations is that in 1972 itself the very question was accepting ‘Sri Lanka’ conceived by its constitution.
* * *
At the outset itself the US move at the UNHRC was cleverly designed: bare minimum chances for the affected; space for withdrawal at any time; full of scope for the escape of the ultimate culprits and agent culprits; and with every possibility of effecting a regime change only for entry into the island through gratifying genocidal requisites of the dominant nation.
With the entry of South Africa, another pivotal point in the maritime realm into the scene of the US-agenda, there are now signs of larger geopolitical designs that may have bearings on BRICS.
There was always the speculation on the role played by Britain's domestic and external intelligences.
Given the track record, there are no reasons for Tamils to have any special sympathy towards BRICS. But New Delhi may come to regret, seeing articulating sections of Eezham Tamils and even up-country Tamils in the lure of becoming ‘natural allies’ of the West, unless New Delhi proves concrete justice compared to ‘non-descript’ solutions.
* * *
There could be no more excuses for talking of solutions under the sleeves or for blaming imagined spoilers. The world of humanity has to decide whether justice has been met with or not, after seeing in black and white what has been delivered on the ground.
When there are no signs for the end of structural and demographic genocide, and end of militarisation by an occupying genocidal military, there is every reason to suspect that this is the model meant by the non-descript solution.
The ‘reconciliation’ agenda is to save the genocidal State with semblance of changes.
Unequal reconciliation is subordination. Lasting peace will not come by reconciliation for other’s needs. The real reconciliation may come only when it dawns on the Sinhala nation that the last defenders of land in the island were the fallen Tamil fighters (including militants of all shades for the cause), and not the Colombo regimes or military in the lascarin service of outside agenda. But all care will be taken for not seeing history in that way.
* * *
Ever since nationalism as way of the then modern polity was introduced into our region through colonialism, the British were steadily deceiving the nation of Eezham Tamils, starting especially from the Manning reforms of 1920s, and specifically targeting through the Donoughmore Constitution of 1930s and the Soulbury Constitution of 1940s.
For the deceits of the Sinhala regimes in Colombo there is a long catalogue, first under the British since 1931 and later in the name of the so-called independence after 1948.
Thereafter, alternately or together, competing New Delhi and Washington have taken over the legacy of deceit on behalf of the genocidal State in Colombo. Washington is in the forefront now, just as New Delhi was adamant over the Indo-Lanka pact of the late 1980s.
The argument that the world today has no ‘appetite’ for national liberation (selectively for Eezham Tamils), as smokescreen to encourage, institutionalise and to ride on the genocidal nationalism of the Sinhala State for imperialistic agendas, has to be confronted outright at the face of those who come out with it.
Eezham Tamils could never be averse to global orders transcending nationalism for the benefit of entire humanity. They would willingly participate in them, provided their nation, identity, land, security and self-respect are internationally guaranteed.
If there is any lesson for Eezham Tamils to learn, the Vanni War should have taught the lesson that from where exactly the deceits have come and to where actually their struggle in the current context has to be addressed directly. Why the lacuna in orientating the polity in that direction, has to be seriously perused by genuine activists and the younger generation.
Chronology:
09.06.15 Tamil diplomacy put to test
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக