Image courtesy The Telegraph

The Sri Lankan military is dealing with probably the largest hostage crisis in world history. Sri Lanka and its present leadership will be forever remembered for how it handles this unprecedented predicament.

As a long and protracted battle draws to a miserable end, it is right to be intensely concerned about the civilian population trapped between the advancing Sri Lankan military and the cornered LTTE. It is easy to believe conservative reports that put civilians killed at an average of 35 to 45 a day – more than 4,000 since the beginning of the year – with a great many more severely injured. This is by all accounts an enormous tragedy. Recall that the 9-11 attacks in the US, which has become a focal point of history, killed less than 4,000 people. Sri Lankan lives should not be considered any less important.

Understanding the Crisis
There have been many divergent arguments made over many months about how the Sri Lankan government should view this crisis and act in the midst of it.

For instance, by demanding “Get your humanitarian paws off my country” Dayan Jayatilleka argues for the government’s sovereignty of choice over all else. Several international leaders have asked for a ceasefire as the all important first step. Michael Roberts has argued for a hardnosed utilitarian response, allowing the civilians here and now to be expendable for the sake of the greater and longer term reduction of death and suffering in the country. Human Rights Watch and similar groups have argued for following Geneva conventions and rules applicable to international warfare.

Each of the above arguments has some merit, but they all have the wrong focus. The current situation, as emphasized in a letter I supported in February, should in fact be understood as an internal hostage crisis – the trapped civilians are being forcibly held by the LTTE, as a bargaining chip against the military advance.

Analysts such as Dayan Jayatilleka seem to have grasped this fact significantly, yet manage, unfortunately, to focus concern on an abstract nationalistic ego rather than on individual human lives. Demanding a ceasefire – as done by some international leaders – does not automatically imply an understanding of the crisis either; sometimes hostages are better served by surgical military action. It is important to agree on the diagnosis, before arguing about the cure. The Sri Lankan military is and has been dealing with a hostage crisis.

Recognising the complexity
Each hostage crisis has to be dealt with according to its peculiar circumstances and the mindset of the hostage takers. The way to resolve a hostage crisis is to deploy the understanding you have of the hostage takers, together with your tactical capabilities, keeping firmly in focus the goal of saving every single hostage that you possibly can. Succumbing to the demands of the hostage takers is usually a last resort – but one that should be considered for the sake of the hostages.

This particular hostage crisis is acutely complicated for several reasons.  First, it might be the largest hostage crisis in world history. Second, the hostages may be uncertain and fearful of how they will be received by the “other side”. Third, the hostages may be subject to forced recruitment, compromising their safety even in a “ceasefire”. But there is no denying the fact that these trapped people are being held forcibly against their will and are indeed hostages.

It is extremely unpleasant when a militia is able to negotiate undeserved terms for themselves on the basis of holding hostages that it has no compunction about killing. But that is precisely the reason hostages are taken, because monstrous militants are able to exploit the inherent humanity of elected governments to force concessions – exploiting the collective social concern for those people who have been taken hostage.

If Sri Lanka is to rise above being a racist nation, then the collective concern shown now for these hostages must not depend on their ethnicity. Would the current methods in dealing with this crisis be the same and have the same support if the hostages were Sinhala Villages?

Responding with humanity
The Sri Lankan government is enjoining people to wait with anticipation and baited breath its military victory over the LTTE. But in a hostage crisis, the capturing or death of the hostage takers is less important than the safe rescue of the hostages.

Governments that prioritise capturing the militants over concern for hostages only mirror the monstrous instincts of hostage takers and surrender the natural respect due to them as representative democratic regimes. This happened in global view in the manner that Russian forces dealt with the Beslan school hostage crisis in 2004, and Sri Lanka too has been sadly following that route in the last few months.

The need of the hour is not to pander to the jingoist calls for destroying the LTTE – as reflected in government statements.  It is not to worry about the “image” of Sri Lanka in the international community – as suggested by political strategists and pundits.  It is not to adopt the inadequate requirements of Geneva conventions and the laws of war – as asked for by Human Rights advocates.  And it is certainly not to throw a life-line to the LTTE – as being cynically attempted by large scale protests organised by Diaspora Tamil groups.

It is a hostage crisis, and the need of the hour is to stay focused on rescuing the hostages, with the least harm inflicted on them as possible. Already, too many lives have been lost, and it is all the more important to recover the necessary focus as soon as possible.

This particular hostage taking act of the LTTE is diabolical and repugnant. But each of us becomes smaller and meaner when we allow that to engender in us support for a response which is equally revolting. To avoid becoming what the LTTE has become, it is necessary to remain focused on the goal of saving as many of those hostages as possible. That must be the goal around which our collective imagination and ingenuity is deployed at this pivotal time in Sri Lankan and world history. To do less is to surrender our humanity.

• Open Letter to His Excellency the President of Sri Lanka and the leadership of the LTTE
• What undue humanitarian concerns? - Responding to Michael Roberts
• Whose rules? Amnesty Campaign
• Human displacement
• Unending End Game

Hon.Te Ururoa Flavell

Hon. Hone Harawira

Hon.Te Ururoa Flavell
Māori Party Whip
Hon. Hone Harawira
Foreign affairs spokesman,
Maori Party

This is written in appreciation of The Maori Party’s decision to block the motion expressing concern about the Sri Lankan “humanitarian situation”; that is, the fighting against LTTE terrorists by the Government forces of Sri Lanka. The reason given by the Maori leaders is very valid: “Because it gives equal weight to the Sri Lankan Government and the Tigers”.

The New Zealand Herald on Wednesday 29 April 2009 reported that: “The Maori Party has been attacked as ‘disgusting’ for blocking a parliamentary motion yesterday… in the name of Progressive [Party] leader Jim Anderton.” It is also reported that “Labour associate foreign affairs spokesman Grant Robertson said he was disappointed that the Maori Party blocked the motion.”

The motion read:

That this House, notes its deep concern at the dire humanitarian situation in Northern Sri Lanka and calls upon both the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam (LTTE) to immediately stop hostilities to allow those civilians in the combat zone to move to safety, condemns all acts of violence and intimidation which are preventing civilians from leaving the conflict area, and calls on both sides to respect international humanitarian law and to protect and assist the civilian population in combat zone, as in the internally displaced persons (IDP) camps.

And Mr Anderton says “No one is being asked to take sides…” and asks “What on that list could any reasonable person be opposed to?”

The answer is this motion implies that the democratically elected Sri Lankan government does not care about its citizenry. It is biased — this means Mr Anderton and his friends side with LTTE terrorist supporters. Mr Anderton and his allies seem ignorant of recent developments in the West regarding this situation. For example: the editorial of the Washington Times on 26 April 2009 says, “The Tamil Tigers have purposefully created the conditions for a humanitarian crisis and deserve neither amnesty nor mercy. There are ways to help resolve this standoff that will not allow the Tigers to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, such as providing military and intelligence support for pinpoint strikes against the terrorist leadership. Failing that, the Obama administration [so as other administrations] should mind its own business. The Sri Lankans are winning; we should let them finish the job.”

Also United Nations Ambassador Claude Heller of Mexico speaks to the media following a Security Council meeting said “We demand that the LTTE immediately lay down arms, renounce terrorism, allow a UN-assisted evacuation of the remaining civilians in the conflict area, and join the political process,” The council president, speaking on behalf of the 15 members, said they “strongly condemned the LTTE, a terrorist organization, for the use of civilians as human shields and for not allowing them to leave the area.”

What Mr Anderton and his friends have not realized is that the LTTE is banned in more than 30 countries as the most ruthless terrorist group in the world. Pressure is now at its peak to release the civilians who have been used as human shields by the LTTE to delay their final defeat in this battle: the Ealam war IV. It is a grave mistake to be carried away by the powerful worldwide LTTE propaganda and believe that this terrorist outfit really cares about even their own Tamil people.

Hone Harawira, the foreign affairs spokesman for the Maori Party, asked the New Zealand Government to reinforce the message that the Sri Lankan Government needed to exercise restraint against the Tamil Tigers which is now in its last enclave. The report that “Waiariki MP Te Ururoa Flavell loudly objected to Mr Anderton …” implies that the Maori leaders have done their homework comprehensively and carefully and have taken an unbiased stance bravely.

When our award-winning film-star/producer/director Jackson Anthony visited New Zealand last year, he said that the two treaties the British Government signed with the leaders of Sri Lanka in 1815 and with Maori leaders in Aotearoa /New Zealand in 1840, have a lot of similarities. It is well known here in New Zealand that the Treaty of Waitangi (the place in New Zealand where the Treaty was signed (similar to Kandy in Sri Lanka) had different versions in the English and Maori languages. Prof. Nalin de Silva mentioned in a recent TV programme that certain clauses in the Kandian Treaty were never observed by the British Governors. He said that the Sinhalese were not “conquered” but in fact were deceived by Western colonialists, as were the Maori people. Therefore, it is very interesting to learn that the Maori Party is highly aware of the situation in Sri Lanka, acting independently and impartially, which demonstrates their maturity in politics and formulating foreign policies.

Thank you, Maori Party! The GoSL should convey its gratitude to Maori Party soon.

• Sri Lankan government admitted to the proctology ward of General Hospital
• Government and LTTE differ on value of life
• Human Shields In The Battle Of Sri Lanka
• “Today’s terrorist is today’s and tomorrow’s murderer”: Resolving violent conflict in Sri Lanka
• An Eye for an Eye, a Bomb for a Bomb

It is heartening that the Tamil Tigers have retained a sense of humor under extreme pressure. It is a lesson to us all. The Tigers have declared a unilateral ceasefire and promised not to engage in any offensive military operations. The joke is in two parts. Firstly, they are in no shape to engage in any offensive military operations. In the second place these clowns have pulled this on us and the IPKF on more occasions than I can recall. The first ceasefire in 1985 saw the Tigers under Kittu ringing Sri Lankan army camps in Jaffna with landmines. The IPKF’s stop-go campaign — its rhythm and inconstancy influenced by Tamil Nadu and electoral considerations — enabled Prabhakaran to survive, escape and turn the tables on them, culminating in the suicide bomb murder of Rajiv Gandhi on Tamil Nadu soil in 1991.

Let’s be crystal clear on this. The only deal that must be on the table is “hands up or feet first”. The Tigers, starting with the leadership must surrender themselves and their weapons to the Sri Lankan armed forces, not some Third Force which it can manipulate through the Diaspora. There must be NO amnesty for the leadership, which has committed war crimes.

Anyone anywhere who cares for the Tamil civilians trapped in the no fire zone should recognize that over a hundred thousand civilians came through to safety precisely during a brilliantly surgical military operation, and NOT a humanitarian pause or ceasefire. It was not the product or by product of an international appeal. It was the direct product of the actions of the Sri Lankan army, and in particular, the sacrifices made by the Special Forces and Commandos.

None of those who are urging from afar, a humanitarian pause /ceasefire, amnesty and talks with the Tigers, are going to live in Sri Lanka when the suicide bombers strike again, the parcel bombs go off in shops and at bus stops, promising leaders are assassinated, and dead and disabled soldiers start coming back to our villages when the war resumes as it will if we stop operations now and the Tigers survive.

What awaits us if operations are halted before the Tigers are decisively defeated? Anita Pratap, the journalist who has known Prabhakaran from before July 83 and has had access to him virtually on demand since that time, let us know a few days back, in an article for the upcoming months issue of The Week. In a special Report for the May 3rd 2009 edition, entitled Crouching Tiger, she exudes confidence that “Prabhakaran still has enough grit to continue the fight”. Here is her scenario:

…Prabhakaran has lost wars before. He had created a de facto Tamil Eelam with its own army, police, courts and taxation system not once, but several times in the past-only to have it all smashed and wiped out. And he had to start all over again. At 54, Prabhakaran still has enough grit to start again and continue for another 20 years.

In the meantime, he will be watching the Indian elections closely to see which dispensation takes charge in New Delhi. He will be watching to see if there is a popular upsurge of support in Tamil Nadu for the plight of Tamils across the Palk Strait. He will be watching the disastrous impact of war on Sri Lanka’s economy.  He will be watching Hillary Clinton who said there should be a ‘nuanced’ approach to dealing with terrorism. He will be watching President Barack Obama who rightly analyzed that conflicts stem from our perception of ‘the other’.

Today, Prabhakaran’s situation looks dire. But the wheels of fortune are not static. Things change. America has changed. The world is changing… As new winds blow away many certitudes of the recent past, new opportunities, alignments and paradigms take their place on the world stage. And they will inexorably weave their impact in remote corners of faraway Sri Lanka… (Anita Pratap, The Week, May 3, 2009)

Then there is the far more scholarly and analytical assessment of Shyam Tekwani, no sympathizer of Prabhakaran. A photojournalist earlier, Tekwani has been studying the Sri Lankan conflict since 1983 and has met the LTTE leadership on several occasions on battlefields and elsewhere. Currently he is an Associate Professor in NTU, Singapore, teaching Journalism and International Relations.  In the Hindustan Times, he offers this prognosis:

“…A strategic withdrawal to live to fight another day and ensure he [Prabhakaran] is not relegated to a footnote in the history books has guaranteed his endurance and longevity.

The war, it would seem, is over. Not for the LTTE. ..

…He has once again successfully rallied the international community behind his cause. The global outcry in support of the remaining 50,000 civilians cornered in the last strip of the battle zone and the increasingly insistent calls for an immediate ceasefire play perfectly well into his plans to save what is left of his dream and the group.

The dream of Eelam has evidently become an even more distant fantasy – but his unswerving loyalty to it will ensure the fight will continue. Having lost the support of over 100,000 Tamils who challenged his diktat and abandoned him to flee for the safety of the army camps, his hope will now reside largely with the Tamil Diaspora. The 800,000 Diaspora, who he specifically appealed to in his Hero’s Day address when he launched the ‘Final War’ in 2006, has been the group’s lifeline. Prabhakaran has mobilized the Diaspora like very few other insurgent groups ever have. Providing the mainstay of his support (funds, networks, lobbyists) the Diaspora has unwaveringly stood by him and kept up the sustained pressure for the Eelam ‘cause’ alive across the capitals of the world.

…It has become a truism that the only way out is a political solution, not military. Having thrust a very local issue into the international limelight, Prabhakaran has consistently reneged every opportunity to seek a political solution. Every attempt at one – that did not mention Eelam - during the last two decades was doomed to failure.  A lasting solution is extremely unlikely with him heading the group. As long as he endures, so will his cause. Therefore, any talk of a lost cause and an endgame in Sri Lanka would be premature.

The military victory could well become another pause in the history of the conflict if the same degree of effort is not invested by the Rajapaksa government to set right the wrongs of previous administrations. And the international community would need to ensure it sustains its campaign against groups branded as terrorists.

None of which would amount to much if Prabhakaran continues to be out there, somewhere.”  (Shyam Tekwani, ‘Don’t Write the Tigers Obit Yet’, Hindustan Times, April 25, 2009)

We must take these scenarios with the utmost seriousness. It is always wiser to prepare for the worst case scenario. This also provides the best argument why Prabhakaran must not be given the time and space to escape and the operations must go on uninterrupted until the Tiger leadership is eradicated. Some months ago I quoted and commended the words of General Colin Powell during the Gulf War: “first we cut it off, then we kill it.” We have cut it off. Now we must kill it.

As Ronald Reagan, no favorite of mine, once said “the problem with playing your last card is that once you’ve played it, you no longer have it”. The so-called international community played its last card in 1987 when a coercive external intrusion, catalyzed at least partly by sub-regional electoral compulsions (MG Ramachandran “air dashing”, as it used to be called, to prevent “that boy” Prabhakaran from being killed). It is not that other forces in other, more impressive combinations are incapable of doing a larger version of the same thing. The point however, is that the Sri Lankan state and citizens have been through this before and will not be deterred this time around, from defeating the secessionist-terrorist enemy, reclaiming sovereignty and restoring territorial unity. Sri Lanka’s spirit this time around is one that will resist intervention “by whatever means necessary” as Brother Malcolm X used to say. There is a gross asymmetry of tangible material strengths, against Sri Lanka, but as for the intangibles, Sri Lanka has the advantage. Sri Lankans have demonstrated their willingness to fight and die in pursuit of their cause. How many others are willing to do the same in order to prevent us, and for how long and at what financial cost will they be willing to do so?

No other country, institution or leader will share our fate. Therefore we alone must shape that fate, decide our own destiny. This is our country, our borders, our land, our peoples, our future. No one must be allowed to dictate to us or pressurize us. We must go ahead and do what we have to do to end our 30 years war in a manner that it cannot be easily re-started. This means eliminating the Tigers and following up a decisive victory with a generous and wise humanitarian and political policy.

• MULLAITIVU: CLOSING TIME
• Mahinda - Better than G.W Bush ?
• Diaspora dilemmas: Australia and the Sri Lanka conflict
• Mahaveer 2008 and Mumbai Mayhem
• MAN, OH (VANANGA) MAN!

[Note from author: I had a piece in the web-magazine Lines that attracted an extremely detailed response from someone who called him/herself John the Baptist. The comments were embedded within the text of my article. I am sending the article with the comments embedded just as it was in red because I think it will interest Groundviews readers and trigger of much more discussion.]

The term ‘post-LTTE’ is a misnomer; there will be no post-LTTE period in a political sense. There will certainly be a ‘post-LTTE as a conventional army’ phase, and there will be a ‘post-Prabaharan’ phase if the government succeeds in catching and killing him as it intends to. I can also discern a ‘post-hope’ or disheartened and subdued stage in Tamil nationalism, within the Island, which could last maybe months or over a year. It is not uncommon to see middle class Tamils slink around, cowed down, head bowed. People with deep LTTE paranoia, have pointed out to me: “See, so-and-so, he is really an LTTE sympathizer; remember the way be used to talk? Now not a squeak out of the bugger - slinks away when he sees me”. Indeed, a great majority of Tamils, whether previously sympathetic to the LTTE or not, are downcast; only a particular type of Tamil rejoices in GoSL’s military victory. [The latter are largely silent. You hear nothing from Douglas except for the occasional hand-out to the deaf, the blind and the lame - not his supporters, but the beneficiaries of his ministry! Even Anandasangaree cannot avoid ‘criticizing' the regime if he is to retain any credibility in the eyes of the Tamils.]

Yes, all this is post-something, but it is not post-LTTE in three important ways. First, it is not ‘post Tamil nationalist’; on the contrary we are entering a period when Tamil nationalism is angry and its mood hardening. That ‘so-and-so bugger’ is only biding his time; only fools imagine that he has mended his ways, seen the true unitary light, and come to the blessed faith at the alter of state and regime. What goes on in the diaspora and what goes on in the Island cannot be polar opposites. [Very true. In fact one of the facile errors that most supporters of the regime make, and here I am not talking about the JHU or the monks. No I am talking about the LSSP, the Victor Ivans, etc. Because the Tamils in Sri Lanka (like the Tibetans in Chinese Tibet) say nothing critical of the regime it is assumed that they are loyal subjects and it is only the demented diaspora that opposes Colombo. Every member of the Diaspora was once a SL resident. The free liquor during the flight out of Katunayake didn't unhinge them; they just didn't risk speaking their mind when in-country.]

Indeed, in private, Lankan Tamils voice pleasure when they get a chance to talk freely about the big protest movements overseas. Sinhala chauvinist state power, including the current version, is incapable of solving the national question for reasons to do with its own internal composition and because of Lanka’s historical carryovers of decades. [You have put your finger on the critical issue. If people can get that right then there will be no more bullshit being thrown around!]

At the same time, one thing is certain, the Sinhala State is not about to disappear, hence the national question will remain unresolved and bitterly contested, because, at the core of the matter, lies the question of the nature of the state. [Again you have put your finger right on the problem. With regard to the durability of the state I both agree and disagree with you. Yes I do not have any reason to imagine that the state is going to collapse any time soon. But I do believe that the state is in crisis; and has been in crisis ever since the national question was internationalized circa 1983. And what is more important is that it is neither able to overcome nor mitigate the crisis. So while it has been able to weather and survive the crisis it cannot get out of this crisis. Not unless it is so able to destroy Tamil nationalism such that it ceases to pose any future threat to the survival of the Sri Lanka state. Until then the state will remain in crisis, will retain its present instability and will exist in the shadow of defeat and collapse. Right now the growing international criticism and the possibility of some kind of external intervention in the Wanni is only heightening the level of crisis. Similarly if the Regime accommodates its western/Indian critics and devolves political power to the Tamils it will face a threat from the Sinhala Right (a la 1987) heightening its instability.]

Therefore, continuance of conflict by this, or other, or several means is inevitable. Again the inability to bring closure to the military conflict as widely expected by its southern constituency will only serve to undermine its stability; and prolong and enhance the crisis of the Sri Lanka State. This is not what intelligent people should be inclined to describe as a post-LTTE scenario. Whether post-war Tamil nationalism will be led by the old or a new LTTE, or by a new grouping (in which former LTTErs will, necessarily, play a major role), I cannot now say.

Secondly, there is the question of the Tamil diaspora. Post! Heavens no, the diaspora seems to be all pro-LTTE, more so than before. [No they are not all pro-LTTE. In fact I am aware that people who up until recently were vocally non-LTTE (but not supporters of anti-LTTE groups) are taking part in the Australian protests.] It is my prognostication that the diaspora will move increasingly into a leadership role in the Lankan (internal) Tamil national movement. [There are two other factors that may contribute to this. Firstly the landmark video conference in which the US State Dept included its Tamil Diaspora may open the way for other players: London, Ottawa, Canberra, Paris, Berlin and Prague doing likewise. This will give the Diaspora status and recognition and lead the Sinhalese to bash their heads against the nearest wall. Secondly (and I have made this point before) there is a new second generation Diaspora (my children's contemporaries). They are no longer the boys and girl from the villages of Jaffna who did nothing beside study to be a doctor or engineer or accountant. They have a more comprehensive, liberal education, are cosmopolitan and cultivated, have a better understanding of the world around them and the levers of power in western capitals. Some of them are politically active and hold office in political parties and governments in these countries. In one word they are better equipped and capable of employing new strategies that eluded their predecessors.] In the absence of a credible alternative within the Island, this will be the trend.

It is a good development if it facilitates a change from silly, AK-47 and RPG popping youth militancy, to a more balanced political and global diplomatic approach, and closer alliances with non-opportunist left and democratic organizations in the south. The slogan of the moment has to be: Put politics in command. My concern is whether the diaspora, as yet, understands and grasps this task, whether it can get its act together and evolve a unified leadership to win acceptance among Tamils across the West. [The inability of Tamil Nationalism to deliver in the last 25 years is partly (only partly) due to the failure of the Diaspora. Yes. If new people with new ideas appear they may be more successful. I don't think this necessarily means global unity in terms of organization, in fact this may have been their undoing, their subservience to a single strategy mapped out by the LTTE. Different perspectives, new ideas and plurality is not a bad thing if it does not prevent unity of purpose and does not promote working at cross purposes. However I fully agree with you that the Diaspora will become increasingly important.]

[But the problem with the Regime in Colombo and its supporters is that it will demonise, reject and oppose anyone who comes forward to mediate; this happened to India, it happened to Norway and as I write it is happening to the North Atlantic Community. Colombo has survived for decades on the hatred of the Tamil diaspora - one has only to listen even to the pro government ‘progressives' to get a taste of their paranoia. How will they accept a larger role for the Tamil Diaspora?]

These are early days; it remains to be seen. Obviously the ability of the diaspora’s different strands to rise up to this historic task, to change; that is the issue! A new leadership will not come out of thin air; it will emerge from existing proven forces, so this is a critical question. The real test comes in the months ahead, post prevailing hostilities, when the drama of mammoth demonstrations is past and the time for patient political and organisational reflection resumes.

The overseas ‘13th Amendmentists’ (there are but a handful among Tamils domiciled at home), the overseas Sangareeites and Douglasites (in cahoots with the regime), and the recent Mount Lavinia Hotelites and Basil’s much sought after Tamil investors of the morrow, none of this menagerie constitute a credible alternative leadership for Tamil nationalism. These guys don’t count, so forget about them. [It's nice to be a Marxist and not a Tamil nationalist; one can take a step back, survey the scene like "stout Cortez", and make unpopular pronouncements!]

[Douglas and Sangaree's servility and Karuna joining the SLFP show us very clearly that in the existing climate there is no space in Sri Lanka for an independent Tamil voice (Mano Ganeshan being the exception). So even if the LTTE disappears politically, which you are justifiably dubious about, it is hard for an independent Tamil leader to emerge and survive in Sri Lanka.]

The third reason I think ‘post-LTTE’ is a misnomer is that the outcome of the next phase of LTTE combat, reversion to guerrilla warfare, is uncertain. I concede that this is the weakest of the three points - though all other commentators dwell exclusively on this matter. Conditions for going back to the 1980s and 1990s do not exist; hence ‘back to the bush’ is a low priority. I certainly hope so, because it would be a diversion from what Tamil nationalism needs to do. That is, it needs to (a) put politics in command, and (b) enter into alliances with the left and democratic activities in the rest of Lanka. [While I accept ‘politics to the fore' ‘politics in command'; but if one is dealing with an intransigent Sinhala Buddhist Regime in the south as has been the case since 1956 it will take nobody nowhere to once again revert to a purely political strategy. Without a corresponding military component, Tamil nationalism cannot expect a purely political/diplomatic campaign to produce any results.]

We are not entering a post-LTTE phase, rather a new phase of political struggles, in the north and south, the east and west, against anti-democratic politics and a chauvinist state, not a period of compromises and capitulations as the regimes fellow travellers, the weak hearted who are forever searching for a compromise, and left opportunists within the regime, try to persuade us. How silly! Some people saw the military defeat of the LTTE, without a single step forward on the national and the democratic questions, as the opening up of some phantasmagoric new world - where, on Planet Mars? And I haven’t even touched on the impending economic debacle!

This submission is in response to a question posed by Groundviews posed here that asked readers to opine on a war ‘over in 3 weeks’ and a ‘post-LTTE’ Sri Lanka. Please visit this original post to read a rich spectrum of opinion and commentary on the nature of post-war Sri Lanka.

• Dr. Devanesan Nesiah on post-war / post-LTTE Sri Lanka
• Your opinion on a war ‘over in 3 weeks’ and a ‘post-LTTE’ Sri Lanka?
• The needs of the hour
• The LTTE – A Spent Force?
• Tamil politics tomorrow: Options, challenges and pitfalls

27 April 2009, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The government is considering a proposal to usher in a new ‘barefoot revolution’ in Sri Lanka as part of its philosophy to revive ancient Sinhala traditions.

This will see the systematic phasing out of footwear use in all government offices, and other places where politicians and officials are present. The practice will be first introduced in Parliament, as well as offices of the President and Prime Minister, and later extended to cover all government offices.

“Wearing shoes and slippers is a recent habit introduced to our people by western colonialists,” says Emeritus Professor Amaradasa Gunasekera, originator of the idea. “The ancient Sinhalese knew that we living in a tropical country do not need to cover our feet. In our current quest to revitalise indigenous knowledge and traditional Sinhala Buddhist culture, we want to restore this excellent practice.”

Professor Gunasekera, who is Presidential Advisor (No 223) for reviving ancient traditions, has drafted a policy paper on transforming Sri Lanka’s public sector into a ‘barefoot zone’. When introduced, this will require visitors to all public places in local, provincial and central governments to remove their footwear and leave them in a secure place at the entrance.

“We don’t anticipate a problem in public cooperation,” says Professor Gunasekera. “After all, we all do it willingly when entering temples and kovils. So why not extend this good practice to our ‘temples of public service’?”

He was emphatic that this should not be seen as a ban. “Bans are another decadent concept of the crumbling west. We in the east do everything voluntarily through enlightened public consensus. Barefoot Nation will be introduced on this basis.”

Asked whether public officials themselves will be allowed to move around inside their offices with footwear, he said the matter was still under discussion. “We have to tread carefully on this one,” he said, intending no pun. “We don’t want any retrogressive public official petitioning Supreme Court on his fundamental rights being violated.”

Creating barefoot public offices is to be the first step in transforming Sri Lanka into a fully-fledged barefoot nation under the prevailing chinthana. The Health Ministry is to send a top level delegation of officials to study China’s barefoot doctors programme, with a view to emulating it here.

Meanwhile, a defence ministry source denied that this new national policy had anything to do with fears of disgruntled members of the public throwing shoes, sandals or slippers at politicians or senior officials.

“This is a malicious rumour, possibly started by the opposition or a subversive journalist,” the official said on the condition of anonymity. “Our dear leaders are held in such high esteem by the adoring public and there is no threat of any offensive behaviour.”

India’s politicians contesting in the general election, fearful of shoes hurled at them by disgruntled voters, have asked for more security and are erecting metal nets at rallies. An angry party worker threw a slipper at Lal Krishna Advani, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) prime ministerial candidate, during an election meeting last week. The slipper missed Advani, but was enough for authorities to step up security for all leaders across the country.

The incident was the latest episode of shoe-throwing as a protest against political leaders, including former US President George W. Bush when visiting Iraq, and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during a lecture at Cambridge University, UK. Throwing a shoe at someone is considered an extreme insult in many cultures.

The multi-million rupee ‘Barefoot Lanka’ campaign, to be handled by the 123Ads company, is to use the famous Nanda Malini song, ‘Miriwedi sangalak illa henduwemi’. It refers to the absurdity of craving for footwear when some people have no feet to wear any.

“We are a nation with a very large number of valiant soldiers and innocent civilians who have lost one or both limbs from landmine explosions. Phasing out footwear use will also make us sensitive about their plight,” said Professor Gunasekera. Anyone opposing this campaign would have to be considered a traitor, he added.

It is not clear whether the boutique shop currently known as Barefoot would be asked to change its name. “If you ask me, we can’t have a handful of elites standing in the way of national progress,” Professor Gunasekera said.

• Stanley Rd Closure Affects Traders In Jaffna
• Meditation for a divided nation
• When meritocracy dies and nepotism reigns supreme
• Dallas - Are you listening? Part II
• Why are we wasting our lives in traffic jams for corrupt politicians?