Schools in Kilinochchi closed last week after a Sri Lanka Air Force bombing narrowly missed a primary school, forcing parents, children and teachers to flee to bunkers.

 

790 schoolchildren and 22 teachers at the Kanakapuram Maha Viththiyaalayam school narrowly escaped as four Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) fighter jets dropped bombs barely 100 meters away from their school in the Kilinochchi suburbs Thursday morning.

 

Terror gripped the town as more than 5000 students from the five schools in Kilinochchi (Central College, Kilinochchi Maha Viththiyaalayam, Mother Teresa Girls College, Kilinochchi Hindu College and Kanakapuram Maha Viththiyaalayam) started fleeing to save their lives.

 

On Friday, two schools closed completely, while in the other three, students failed to show up. Many students chose to stay home near bunkers fearing another SLAF bombing raid.

 

A repeat of the gruesome Chenchoalai massacre was avoided as civilians sought shelter inside bunkers and managed to flee the area. One civilian was killed and seven wounded in the air strike.

 

Tiger anti-aircraft gunners rushed to the spot and started firing, which ensured that SLAF bombers stopped with two rounds of bombing.

 

Three more attempts of pinpoint dive bombing had to be aborted by the SLAF because of this immediate intervention.

 

Kankapuram Maha Viththiyaalayam, which has more than 1123 students, remained closed until Tuesday.

 

The principal of Kilinochchi Mahaviththiyalayam, Mr. Sritharan said that his school was closed until Monday. Mr Sritharan added that there is no space near the school to construct bunkers for the more than 2200 students attending his school.

 

Anxious mothers in the settlement were seen running helter-skelter as the bombs started to target their houses.

 

Six homes were reduced to rubble in the aerial attack. Nine more houses sustained heavy damages. More than 15 families were displaced and left without shelter as a result of the bombing.

 

Passer-by vehicles and NGO vans were seen helping residents who were fleeing to escape the SLAF bombardment. Private and public offices and shops were closed in the town.

Tamils around the world have called for a global boycott of SriLankan Airlines, the island nation’s main international carrier, in protest at the Colombo government's decision to unilaterally end the Norwegian facilitated ceasefire agreement between the government and the LTTE.

 

Announcing the boycott, the London-based British Tamils Forum claimed that £12m in foreign currency earned annually by the airline was being used to reinforce the government's war chest.

 

Some 30,000 of the 300,000 persons of Tamil origin living in the UK use Sri Lanka's national carrier to fly to the country each year from the UK, the British Tamils Forum noted.

 

"The Sri Lankan government has abandoned all pretence of observing a ceasefire while resorting to an escalating war on the Tamils corralled into an ever tightening military cordon in their traditional homeland," said Ivan Pedropillai, of the British Tamils Forum.

 

The Sri Lankan government announced that it was annulling the cessation of hostilities with the Liberation Tigers on January 2, and the agreement came to an end on January 16 at the end of the two week notice period.

 

The truce, signed in 2002, had been largely ignored since mid-2006, with fighting becoming widespread in recent months across Sri Lanka.

 

“We appeal to our fellow Tamils ... to understand that travelling with Sri Lankan Airlines is tantamount to paying the government of Sri Lanka to buy the weaponry with which to kill our own people in their homeland in Sri Lanka,” Pedropillai said.

 

"We appreciate that flying with other airlines to Colombo may involve some delay in transit stopovers."

 

Pedropillai also urged Britons to avoid taking holidays in Sri Lanka: "We extend this appeal to our other British compatriots who want to travel on holidays to Sri Lanka to think of the deaths and destruction that their money paid will eventually cause among the Tamils of Sri Lanka and to kindly avoid such travel."

 

There are an estimated 350,000 Tamils of Sri Lankan origin in Canada and around 100,000 each in the United States and South Africa. The British Tamils Forum claimed it was supported by counterpart organisations in Europe, Canada, USA, Australia and India to launch the worldwide campaign against SriLankan Airlines.

 

Sri Lankan Airlines is partially privatised with 43% of the shares owned by the Dubai-base Emirates Airline. The airline declined to comment on the boycott threat.

 

Pedropillai sought to distance his group from the LTTE, saying while it shared the Tigers’ “political goals,” it believed in struggle through legal and peaceful means.

 

Sources at the Sri Lankan High Commission, however, told The Guardian that such campaigns had failed in the past.

 

“They have tried many times to request the Tamil expatriate community living in the UK to boycott even Sri Lanklan products," the source said, "but they failed. The people did not listen. They are trying to find an opportunity to hit the Sri Lankan government.”

 

So Mahinda Rajapakse has abrogated yet another solemn pact with the Tamils for peace. And, we the Tamil expatriates keep sending his government billions of dollars every year with our spending habits. Our grocery spending is the most grotesque.

 

There are those who ask why?

 

“Why boycott ONLY the Sri Lankan groceries?” Why not the other ways in which the Tamil expatriates are sending money to Sri Lanka? Good question.

 

Indeed, we Tamil expatriates do send billions of dollars to Sri Lanka in ways ‘other’ than with our ‘grocery-money’. There are those of us who buy Sri Lankan textiles in Department Stores like John Martins, Victoria’s Secret, Bella Italia, John Lewis, Bloomingdales, etc., in Australia, Canada, Europe and the US.

 

Then there are other Tamils who fly Sri Lankan Airlines (or its partner Emirates), and stay at the ‘tourist hotels’. While there, they buy jewellery, saris, gems, textiles, batik, etc. They also do things like eating-out with friends and families at pricey Colombo Restaurants. Astonishingly, many of them are those who sought ‘asylum’ in western countries, because it was ‘unsafe’ for them to be in Sri Lanka!

 

What is even more troubling is the big-ticket item of luxury apartments in Colombo. The wealthiest among us (fortunately, only a few) are buying flats in Colombo. I am not sure what motivates these rich Tamils to do this. As an ‘investment’, it is an obvious loser.

 

Their losses can be quite big, as many have already found out. Those who bought property in Sri Lanka in the nineties and sold ten years later have lost big sums. With the precipitous decline in the value of SL rupees, their losses have been substantial.

 

Remember, when less than Ten Sri Lankan rupees used to very easily fetch a US dollar, (in 1973 it was six Sri Lankan rupees to a dollar). At that time more in Indian rupees were needed for a dollar (it was eight Indian rupees to a US dollar).

 

Now it takes 110+ SL Rupees (and stunningly a third of that amount in Indian Rupees) for that same one dollar. This is mindboggling.

 

A decline of this magnitude in currency value alone can land these rich Tamil ‘investors’ in serious trouble. Add to this the unscrupulous builders violating building codes, there is a disaster waiting to happen. But, if these ‘investors’ want to commit Hara-kiri, it is their business!

 

But the fact is with all such activities we Tamil expatriates around the world are currently sending enormous sums of money to the GoSL. The GoSL gladly takes all of it, to pay for arms and ammunition to kill our kith and kin. This is disgraceful.

 

It is difficult for us, who spend only a few hundred dollars on such items, to imagine that collectively these activities add up to several billions of dollars. But, mind you there are eight-hundred-thousand of us expatriates out there, and even if one or two hundred thousand engage in such activities, it adds up to massive sums of money. This is simple math. You don’t need to be an economist to figure this out.

 

If this is the case, then why single out the poorer amongst us, who spend a mere couple of hundred dollars a month on groceries. When other Tamils are giving so much more to the GoSL, why can’t I enjoy my simple pleasure of a measly Sri Lankan meal? You see, I only send a few dollars with my eating habits compared to them. Does this really matter?

 

Indeed, a fair question.

 

When Mahatma Gandhi decided on his now famous Salt March to Dondi (March 12, 1930), he too faced a similar dilemma. India had declared to be free on 26 January 1930, and nothing happened for a few months after that. The British Government simply ignored the declaration. Winston Churchill was bleating about how he was working so hard to “Save India from Gandhi!” Gandhi needed something that would invigorate the masses.

 

Under the British law, the production or sale of salt by anyone but the British government was a criminal offense punishable by law. But defying this law would have had minimal effect on the British economy. The tax on salt was miniscule, mere pennies. Not much different from the pennies we spend on things like Seeni Sambol and Katta Sambol.

 

Other areas of British trade with India were much more lucrative and much more vulnerable. A boycott of the British textiles, for example, bought by the affluent (but a smaller number of) Indians, would have had a greater economic impact. Gandhi did take on the British textile industry with his trademark handloom, but that came much later.

 

The brown-sahibs of India at that time were driving around in British automobiles, wearing British clothes and acting like their white masters, eating breakfast of Bacon & Eggs, with Forks & Spoons. As a side issue, the Indians (and Sri Lankans too) for some reason use spoons with forks, instead of knives! The brownies of India were also going to and fro from England in British schooners, hobnobbing with the British elite.

 

This ‘minority’ of Indians were spending enormous sums of money on such pursuits, not very different from the ‘minority of the wealthy Tamil expatriates’ of today. For Gandhi confronting any such activity would have caused greater harm to the British economy. Salt consumed by every Indian contributed so little to the British economy.

 

And yet, the Mahatma in his infinite wisdom decided on Salt.

 

Why?

The government has predicted that 2008 would be decisive in its campaign against LTTE separatism and reiterated its ability to defeat the Tigers in their Wanni lair before this year closes. “We must realise that military victories will surely pave the way to push the LTTE to seek a political solution to the problem... Like we overcame the tsunami tragedy, we will face the threat of terrorism and overcome it soon,” said President Mahinda Rajapaksa with imperturbable self-assurance at the national ceremony to commemorate the 2004 catastrophe.

 

The army commander too echoed these sentiments. The Daily News on December 31, 2007, said, “Army Commander Lt. General Sarath Fonseka who has already announced his intention of shifting the current battles to a decisive phase in August next year, expressed confidence of achieving the mission …”

Statements issued by other senior government figures, too, reflect an upbeat mood. They suggest that while acknowledging the battle for the Wanni would not be as smooth as clearing the East, it could be achieved by sheer military might. And why not? According to the military spokesman and the MCNS, Tiger cadres are perishing like flies in the battlefields of the North.

 

While this might be one way of perceiving on-going military operations, there are alternate perspectives too which we would do well to consider. The military establishment, assisted by sections of the media, has succeeded in projecting what has been going on in the past three months or so as that of the security forces readying themselves for a frontal assault on the LTTE’s armed formations in the Wanni. In other words, the army is poised to strike on the Tiger heartland but that the operation is yet to begin.

 

While breaking into the LTTE stronghold appears to be the overall objective, the strategy appears to clear the mainland between Vavuniya and Mannar and cut through the western flank of Tiger territory to link up with Pooneryn. Control of Pooneryn by government forces is expected to debilitate the LTTE and prevent it from launching attacks across the Jaffna lagoon on the southern part of the Jaffna peninsula.

 

With the view of executing this strategy, the military began assaults on Tiger bunker lines northwest of Vavuniya from around October last year. Its first ‘capture’ was Silavathurai. Though trumpeted by the government as a major victory, those following the conflict know that Silvathurai was actually no man’s land and it offered no strategic benefit to the rebels. The Tigers, therefore, withdrew from Silavathurai, which the army then occupied.

 

Beyond that, judged even by the information supplied by the Ministry of Defence, it is clear that fighting is centred round the forward lines, or FDLs. Recent confrontations of significance include Pandivirichchan, Parappakandal and Mullikulam. Clashes on the FDLs, where there is usually significant loss of lives on both sides, are hailed by the government as major battle gains. How come that limited progress on the advance into LTTE-controlled areas has not created adverse reactions in the public? Interestingly, the government has managed to ward off such criticism by not declaring full-scale operations have already commenced. The public is made to believe that what has been going on from October last year are no more significant than border clashes.

 

This is at variance with the army’s approach under President Chandrika Kumaratunga. Operation Jayasikurui was launched from Vavuniya and Weli Oya (Manal Aru) with the intention of establishing a main supply route (MSR) to the North by taking the A9 highway. A secondary objective was to split the LTTE-dominated Wanni through the middle. Since the government was in control of areas north of Kilinochchi it meant clearing a mere 45 mile strip between the two towns.

 

The launching of Jayasikurui on May 13, 1997 was attended by great fanfare. The then Minister of Defence, Anuruddha Ratwatte, belting out words of defiance and taunts at the Tigers became routine. But while the fanfare might have been elixir to the ego when the going was good, the setbacks that began to occur as the army approached Pulliyankulam found the media and the public beginning to criticise the government on its inept handling of the operation.

 

The present government has learnt from its predecessor’s mistakes. It is able to fend off adverse criticism by not declaring formally that a military operation has already begun. The public is made to believe that all that is taking place is a series of armed clashes on the FDLs with the great ‘push’ yet to come. While on the subject of Jayasikurui – the last major assault on the Wanni – comparisons are inevitable. Initial battlefield victories of the security forces during Jayasikurui were quite imposing. Despite a counterattack by the LTTE on the Thandikulam camp soon after the operation began, the military was able to overcome Tiger resistance and advance up to Omanthai (from Vavuniya) and Nedunkerni (from Weli Oya) in around five weeks.

 

It was only as the army approached Puliyankulam that the Tigers launched a major counteroffensive, which served to alter the whole complexion of the operation. With its armour bogged down by the monsoon rains and fierce resistance by the LTTE, Jayasikurui began floundering. Judging from the government’s accounts of the fighting in the past weeks and a glance at an atlas, it is evident the advance to link up with Pooneryan has been confined, in the past three months, to fierce clashes at the FDLs stretching between Vavuniya and the north-western coast. As far as battlefield losses are concerned, each side makes different claims and I leave it the reader to investigate the veracity of the respective assertions.

 

Unable to advance significantly on this particular front, the military’s strategy seems to be opening other fronts with the intention of dispersing the LTTE units away the northwest line. Thus there have been clashes on the Muhamalai and Weli Oya (Manal Aaru) FDLs too. Meanwhile, the LTTE clashes with the STF regularly in the Amparai jungles; two zones of insecurity have been created by civilian killings in areas near Yala and, from this week, Moneragala. If they intensify it would take away the government’s ability to concentrate its forces on advancing on the Wanni, while also resulting in civilian displacement from these areas. There is also access to the Eastern Province through Moneragala.

 

All this might very well change in the coming weeks with the army surging forward from the northwest FDLs. Its self-imposed deadline for completion of this Operation Without a Name is August this year.

 

The International Tamils Rehabilitation Organization (iTRO) has appealed to the governments of Western nations "to allow space for the Tamil Diaspora to provide much needed humanitarian assistance to their people.”

 

“The abrogation of the CFA by the GoSL will plunge the country back into all out war and the effects on the civilian population will be devastating,” the iTRO said in a statement.

 

“This callous act has extinguished any hope that the international community and the Tamil people had in achieving a peaceful resolution to the Sri Lankan conflict and is the culmination of the GoSL’s rejection of the legitimate expression of the Tamils’ fundamental rights.”

 

“The current environment in areas controlled by the GoSL is well documented and the international community is aware of the atrocious human rights record of the GoSL: the rising human rights violations, the climate of impunity, the extra-judicial executions, disappearances, torture, a silencing of press freedom, an elimination of dissenting views by intimidation and death, a silencing of Tamil voices within and outside Sri Lanka, the assassination of Tamil Members of Parliament, and a political climate that stakes its survival on the expression of military might and an authoritative and hawkish administration."

"The abrogation of the CFA and the departure of the independent Nordic Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM) will further exacerbate the situation by removing the one impartial third party witness that was able access the conflict areas of the NorthEast and make regular public reports,” the international NGO said.

 

“Over the past two years the GoSL has sought to remove international organizations from the NorthEast so as to reduce the witnesses to the violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and to restrict the amount of humanitarian aid reaching the Tamil people. Many international NGOs have been forced to leave the country due to the pressures exerted on them by the GoSL and in some cases have been expressly ordered to leave by the government. Others have not had their international staff’s work visas or work permits renewed and thus have had to leave the country or have been unable to access the NorthEast.

 

“Over 50 humanitarian workers have been killed over the past two years, the Action Contra La Faim 17 and the TRO 7 were the two major incidences, and there have been numerous attacks on NGO offices and personnel. The GoSL has also sought to hinder the work of the Tamils Rehabilitation Organization (TRO) by first freezing its bank accounts and then by “banning” it.

 

“These actions have been aimed at reducing the amount of humanitarian aid reaching the NorthEast and preventing the international NGOs and UN Agencies from speaking out for fear that they will be forced to leave the country. The intention of the GoSL is now unequivocal and signals the imminent humanitarian devastation of the Tamils of the NorthEast.

 

“Over the last 6 years international and local organisations have worked tirelessly to keep the hopes of peace alive despite the numerous threats to their personal safety. Humanitarian workers, media personnel, members of civil society and parliamentarians have been assassinated, executed, abducted and otherwise harassed by the GoSL, its affiliated paramilitaries and the state sponsored media.

 

“During this period international and local NGOs, parliamentarians, peace builders, and UN executives have been accused of being “terrorists”, “terrorist sympathisers” and of “funding terrorism” by the GoSL.

 

“Civil Society has been pressured through intimidation and executions to prevent any effective humanitarian interventions. All avenues for the protection of Tamils and their right to life with dignity have been systematically eliminated. Now, even the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission (SLMM), a strong witness to atrocities against Tamils, has been forced to leave.

 

“The unilateral withdrawal by the GoSL from CFA has effectively closed the door to development for the people of NorthEast. The GoSL has also seriously hampered the delivery of relief and rehabilitation to the war and tsunami affected populations over the past 2 years and the Tamils areas lag far behind in tsunami recovery with Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) reporting that its investigations reveal that over US$535 million have gone missing in Sri Lanka.

 

“After the signing of the CFA the International Community encouraged the Tamil Diaspora to become more directly involved in the peace process and development. The Tamil Diaspora contributed time, expertise and funds to help alleviate the suffering of the civilian population and deliver the expected “peace dividend”.

 

“Unfortunately, this is no longer the case and some countries over the past two years have actively sought to restrict the ability of the Tamil Diaspora to provide humanitarian assistance to those in the NorthEast. This is due to the negative campaigns and propaganda of the GoSL that attempt to characterize all Tamil voices critical of the GoSL as being “terrorists” or “terrorist supporters”,” the statement said.

 

The iTRO appealed to Western countries to “allow space for the Tamil Diaspora to provide much needed humanitarian assistance to their people”.

 

“International organizations have been restricted in their ability to access the affected areas and deliver the necessary relief and the GoSL has restricted food, medicine, fuel and construction materials to the Vanni. As a result in many areas TRO is the only organization with access to the war and tsunami affected populations.”

 

“iTRO wishes to clearly state that the IC, through its policies and the exertion of power and influence, has had a significant degree of influence in engineering and steering the course of this conflict and the failed “peace process” to its current state of affairs and thus is culpable and must accept some responsibility for the impending calamity that is facing the Tamils,” the statement noted.

 

Sri Lanka’s militarist government reacted furiously last Tuesday to warnings by UN Human Rights Chief, Louise Arbour, that human rights abuses in Sri Lanka left perpetrators and their commanders at risk of international war crimes charges.

 

Rejecting Ms. Arbour’s comments as “pathetically unenforceable threats,” Sri Lanka’s embassy to the UN said the Colombo government “will not be deterred by thinly veiled threats attempting to undermine the morale of its military, deter its military campaigns and save separatist terrorism from elimination.” It also challenged the transparency of funding for Ms. Arbour’s office and the extent to which it represented the “world’s peoples.”

 

Earlier Tuesday, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Arbour, noting that Sri Lanka’s abrogation of the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement comes into effect Wednesday [January 16], reminded the Sri Lankan government (GoSL) and the Liberation Tigers of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law towards civilians.

 

A UN statement noted that international law “obliges all parties to protect civilians without discrimination and includes prohibitions against the arbitrary deprivation of life, arbitrary detention, forced displacement, enforced disappearances, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It also forbids the recruitment and deployment of children as soldiers.”

 

Ms. Arbour warned that “violations of these rules by any party could entail individual criminal responsibility under international criminal law, including by those in positions of command.”

 

In a prompt response to her comments, the Sri Lankan mission to the UN in Geneva, which is headed by Ambassador Dayan Jayatilleke, slammed Ms. Arbour’s comments and rejected her warnings.

 

“Sri Lanka was not in violation of international criminal law in the years of armed conflict before the signing of the CFA and after, is not now, and will not be in the future,” the GoSL statement said.

 

“Sri Lanka is firmly committed to a political solution to the legitimate grievances of the Tamil people, based on the devolution of power. It will not be deterred by thinly veiled (if pathetically unenforceable) threats, attempting to undermine the morale of its military, deter its military campaigns and save separatist terrorism from elimination.”

 

“Reading her statement, Sri Lanka is curious to know whether similar warnings (as distinct from statements of concern or condemnation) have been issued by the High Commissioner to other States in their conduct of wars much more serious both in scale and impact on International Humanitarian Law than the Sri Lankan situation.”

 

“In the light of this obvious bias, Sri Lanka feels strongly that the OHCHR should be more transparent in its funding and decision-making and more representative of the world's peoples and regions in its composition, all of which have been repeatedly called for by the member States of the UN Human Rights Council.”

 

In statement, Ms. Arbour had warned of the impact on Sri Lankans as a result of the conflict worsening.

 

"An intensification of hostilities will likely have a devastating effect on the human rights of many Sri Lankans from all communities," the High Commissioner said in the statement.

 

“The High Commissioner visited Sri Lanka in October 2007. In her dialogue with the Government she has stressed the critical need for independent, public reporting on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and the readiness of her Office to assist in this regard,” the statement noted.

 

Following the Sri Lankan reaction, UN Watch, an NGO, expressed concern.

 

Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based NGO, said it was legitimate to debate statements by the world body but was “disappointed that a vice-president of the Human Rights Council would negate a core duty of the UN’s highest human rights official.”

 

“We regret the use of ill-advised language and the disputing of the UN’s jurisdiction to monitor the events in Sri Lanka,” said Neuer.

 

Neuer said Sri Lanka’s latest statement against High Commissioner Arbour’s office “only underscores the dangerous attempts by repressive regimes to eliminate all forms of independent human rights scrutiny.”

 

The office of Ambassador Jayatilleka had repeated a charge often levelled by China and other countries who oppose scrutiny of their records, saying the “OHCHR should be more transparent in its funding and decision-making” and “more representative of the world's peoples and regions in its composition.”

 

China, Iran, Sudan and other members of the “Like Minded Group” successfully introduced a Human Rights Council resolution (HRC 4/6) in March 2007 that imposed geographic requirements, instead of merit, as the basis for staff hiring by Ms. Arbour’s office, and sought to curb her independence.

 

The Sri Lankan government decided to abrogate the Ceasefire Agreement and President Mahinda Rajapaksa has stated that his strategy is to achieve `Peace through War in Sri Lanka`. This article aims to assess Sri Lankan government`s present strategy, the War of Attrition, against the LTTE in terms of achieving Peace and challenging the idea of Eelam which aims at secession.

 

Given the liberal democratic framework of governance as the basis of Sri Lankan government it is government`s political obligation either to consider secession or to provide evidence for why it is not an option. In this regard, the public declaration made by Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa which categorically denied 'An Eelam' as an option in Sri Lanka can be seen as a fulfilment of this political obligation to some extent.

 

Nonetheless, when declaring secession is not an option, the government has an additional political obligation to provide weighty evidence to prove government`s claim against secession. Both the claim and the evidence should be presented especially to the international community which in this case is instrumental in recognising or refuting Tamil Eelam as a new state.

 

In this respect, the Sri Lankan government has neglected its additional political obligation and this negligence is deemed to be problematic at least for two reasons. First, it implies government`s inability to assess international community`s decisive role, power and authority in recognising or refusing Tamil Eelam as a new State. Second, it implies government`s erroneous assessment that secession is an unlikely objective to be achieved in contemporary international legal context.

 

As Dr. Karsten Frey (Institute Barcelona d`Estudis Internacionals [IBEI]) observes, `successful secessions are always, [in broader terms] enforced by creating political facts but not by meeting legal requirements`.   His observation precisely mirrors two fundamental factors of secession: First, the absence of a consensus definition under international law on secession. Second, despite this absence, many forms of secessions have been emerged and recognised by the international community.

 

The growth of the United Nations membership, for example, elaborates this point. The increase of the membership from 151 in 1990 to 191 at present has been essentially due, broadly speaking, to secession. In other words, international community`s recognition and their attitude with regard to a new entity are important factors than to international law in recognising a new state.

 

Therefore, any declarations to be made and evidence to be produced against Tamil Eelam should essentially have the ability to shape international community`s recognition and their attitude against Eelam. For this reason, an ideal socio-political reality should mirror a sincere and honest context where co-existence exists and is possible in Sri Lanka.

 

In this international backdrop, the President Mahinda Rajapaksa made another declaration via Al Jazeera Television to emphasise the government`s aim, `Peace through War in Sri Lanka.` His declaration created a paradox at least due to two reasons.

 

First, the on going war of attrition against the LTTE which aimed at weakening them before talks will not make them weak because a war of attrition against terrorism is counterproductive. Second, it will make the socio-ethnic polarisation wider and deeper. Therefore, the situation will not allow government to portray a socio-political context where co-existence exists and this will degrade government`s claim against secession.

 

The objective of a war of attrition is to destroy an adversary`s `will` to fight by bringing destruction to his fighting or combat `capability`. Nevertheless, the process creates undesired effects (such as collateral damage and casualties, human rights violations, destruction of democracy, socio-ethnic polarization) as its by products and they are counterproductive especially, against terrorism.

 

The UK Joint Doctrine and Concept Centre (JDCC) that gives strategic guidance to the British military in May 2003 concluded, `An attritional campaign may have an increasingly negative effect in terms of achieving a strategic goal.`

 

After the 9/11 New York World Trade Centre attacks, the United States Government adopted an attritional approach, in Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban regime that hosted Al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London found that the campaign made the Al-Qaeda a more virtual and protean organisation and, therefore, even harder to identify and neutralise.

 

The impact of an attritional campaign on public opinion also is counterproductive. A White House panel in October 2003 reported, `Muslim hostility towards the USA has reached shocking levels, and is growing steadily.`

 

Furthermore, a survey released by Euro RSCG Worldwide in September 2003 showed, `Two years after the 9/11 attacks, most Americans felt no safer from terrorist threats, more distrustful of many longstanding allies, and increasingly anxious about the future.`

 

In addition, the Strategy deepens socio-ethnic polarization and spreads hatred. The `operation eviction` which carried out against ethnic Tamil lodgers in Colombo is a fine example. It indicates government`s polarized mind-set especially Defence Ministry`s polarized mind-set which led them to categorise Tamils lodged in Colombo as terrorist suspects. It can be seen as a culmination point of a LTTE strategy which aimed at polarizing the Sri Lankan society into two main ethnic groups: namely Sinhalese and Tamils.

 

The present socio-political context which emerged as a result of on going attritional war against the LTTE is creating a sense of fear, a sense among members of Tamils that their cultural, political, socio-economic situation and fundamental rights are getting deteriorated by the actions of Sinhalese government (as well as affiliated Forces) and within the existing union with the South (as they believe), and a sense of rejection, a sense of being discriminated by Majoritarianism which creates a belief that Tamils have no equal position with Sinhalese majority.

 

In regard to this, two recent statements made by two Southern politicians (one of them are a government Minister and the other politician is a Parliamentarian and both of them are strong allies of the government) can be seen as symbolic representations of the sense of rejection and fear that are in creating. One of them stated, `Only Sinhalese live in Sri Lanka` and the other stated, `Tamils do not belong to Sri Lanka and they should fight in Tamil Nadu.`

 

The undeniable consequence of all these statements is strong sense of confidence among Tamils that they can perform better on their own and that secession is not too risky, and a sense of acceptance, a sense that the Tamil Eelam is the only option which could restore their ethnic integrity.

 

The attitude of international community with regard to the worsening conflict situation as well as human rights violations in Sri Lanka is not positive. All theses negative effects (such as collateral damage and casualties, human rights violations, destruction of democracy, socio-ethnic polarization) are inevitable by products or undesired effects of the war of attrition against LTTE. The problem lies underneath the attritional strategy and, therefore, there is no temporary solution except abandoning the attritional approach against the LTTE.

 

Therefore, any strategy which aims at a permanent solution to the North-East problem should immediately bring the country back to normalisation at least as it was between 2002 and 2004. Then it should aims at creating a socio-political context where co-existence is possible through a period of reconciliation. Then only the Sri Lankan government can make claimss and provide evidence against any form of secession to the international community since there is no need for secession.

 

However, we need lots of patience, courage and wisdom and our fundamental focus should be stand against secession. In order to achieve this aim, perhaps we lack Abraham Lincoln`s cool ability to separate ruthlessly the issue (in his case) of slavery from that of secession. He stated,

 

`I would save the Union...My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save the Union by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the coloured race, I do because I believe it helps to save the union.` [Abraham Lincoln,Works, 5:338-39] 

The Japanese peace envoy to Sri Lanka, Yasushi Akashi, has said that the breakdown of the ceasefire may make it necessary to review Tokyo's aid.

 

Mr Akashi said he was worried that the end of the ceasefire may lead to more violence and more civilian casualties.

 

Japan is Sri Lanka's largest foreign donor, giving about $9bn in grants, loans and aid since 1985, including around $400m in 2007. Sri Lankan finance ministry figures show that Japan gave nearly $200 million of that between January and September last year.

 

"The termination of the ceasefire agreement may prompt the pursuit of a military solution of the conflict, with dire humanitarian consequences," Mr Akashi said, speaking during a trip to Sri Lankan just prior to the end of the Cease Fire Agreement on January 16.

 

The 2002 Norwegian brokered agreement came to an end after the Sri Lankan government unilaterally withdrew from it.

 

"A devolution package on which the government of Sri Lanka had been exerting considerable efforts must be drafted as soon as possible and be offered to the relevant parties, including the Tamil Tigers."

 

The Japanese envoy - who has visited Sri Lanka 15 times in an effort to end the conflict - said that his government was "gravely concerned" over Colombo's decision formally to scrap the six-year ceasefire with the rebels.

 

He was speaking at the end of a three-day visit marked by fierce fighting in the north.

 

Mr Akashi said that the future of Japanese aid would be taken "on the basis of very close monitoring and observation of the situation" which he said would be the subject of "continuous review".

 

"What the government does, does not do, will be important considerations," he said.

 

During the visit Mr Akashi had met with the Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), the main left party, for an hour-long discussion.

 

"While Japan and other international donors give a lot of aid to Sri Lanka, Mr Akashi indicated that donors may call off aid, given the current ground situation," the JVP said.

 

Japan has so far not pledged any aid for this year, but it has also not halted any existing aid.

 

Japan provides nearly two-thirds of all international aid to the island - but has so far has not linked financial assistance to the fighting or to human rights despite mounting international concern over the country's rights record.

 

Tokyo and the island's other major donors had the previous Saturday voiced concern over Colombo's decision to scrap the truce, saying they feared it would lead to more bloodshed and stall peace efforts.

 

The financial backers, who include the United States, the European Union and Norway, also sought access to meet the Tigers in their territories in the north and urged Colombo to allow a UN presence to monitor rights abuses.

 

There was no immediate comment from the government. Sri Lanka has repeatedly rejected previous calls for a UN rights mission.

 

In Saturday's joint statement, the donor quartet urged warring parties to protect civilians and allow humanitarian agencies access to people in need.

 

Sri Lanka announced it would formally pull out of the six-year truce on January 16, saying the LTTE had used the ceasefire as a cover to rearm, recruit and attack troops.

 

The government now says that it is intent on defeating the Tigers militarily, while at the same time promising to finalise a long-delayed political devolution proposal within weeks.

 

However, the Tamil Tigers said last week that it was "shocked and disappointed" by the Sri Lankan government's decision and appealed to Norway, which brokered the truce, to remain engaged.

 

In the wake of the Sri Lankan government's abrogation of the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement earlier this month, there has been increased activity by the international community. The self-styled 'Co-Chairs' - United States, European Union, Japan and Norway - broke their year long silence to reject a military solution and call for negotiations. To this end they called on the militarist regime of President Mahinda Rajapakse to "to finalise a politically sustainable devolution plan." Meanwhile, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, warned that human rights abuses in Sri Lanka left perpetrators and their commanders at risk of international war crimes charges (she earned a sneering retort from the Sri Lankan government for her trouble).

 

Although it is clear to all that President Rajapakse's administration is wholly uninterested in a political solution to the island's ethnic crisis, the international community - and they're the only ones who do - has long treated his All Party Representative Committee (APRC) with inexplicable gravity. As a consequence, the APRC has provided President Rajapakse with a convenient excuse, no matter how implausible, to ignore international calls for him to seek a political solution to the Tamil question. However, and most importantly, the APRC has also provided the international community with a plausible excuse for doing nothing while the Sri Lankan state wages a brutal war in the Northeast.

 

This is why the APRC, whilst considered nothing more than a political circus in Colombo (and it is not the first in the history of the ethnic crisis), is treated with such reverence in the international arena. Countries like Britain - a great power whose colonial links supposedly gives it greater insight than others into the Sri Lankan crisis - continues to insist the APRC must be given a chance. In a Parliamentary debate last week, British junior foreign minister Kim Howells, again calling for a political solution, reminded President Rajapakse that "the world is watching and waiting…" Unfortunately, as everyone, including Rajpakse, is aware, Britain and the rest of the international community are doing only that: watching and waiting.

 

For all the hectoring about human rights by the Co-Chairs during the Norwegian peace process, for over two years now, there has been no international action - save the temporary halting of a fraction of Sri Lanka's foreign aid - as the Sri Lankan state forces and their paramilitary arms have sustained a murderous campaign against the Tamils. Lest we forget, the prime targets of the state's dirty war have not been the LTTE's fighters, but Tamil journalists, politicians, political activists and aid workers. The fact of the matter is the Sri Lankan state is quite confident that the international community will not take steps of any consequence (despite the assurances some states have been giving to Tamil expatriates).

 

Indeed, for over the past eighteen months we have seen the international community standing encouragingly by as President Rajapakse unleashed an all out war in the Tamil homeland. It began in April 2006, notably, with a bombardment that displaced 43,000 Tamils from Sampur. Since then, 300,000 Tamils have been displaced and thousands of civilians killed in aerial and artillery massacres, extra-judicial killings and abductions. Yet the world is still issuing warnings.

 

Last week Mr. Howells quoted the UN Human Rights Chief, Ms. Arbour, as being alarmed by the “weakness of the rule of law and the prevalence of impunity for those abusing human rights” which she found when she visited Sri Lanka last year. She makes it sound as if this is something new. We refer her to the numerous reports on Sri Lanka published by Amnesty International and other international human rights groups during the past few decades (material she ought to have made herself familiar with before flying to Sri Lanka for her whirlwind walkabout). Indeed last week, Ms. Arbour was the latest senior UN official who had to swallow a contemptuous riposte from the Rajapakse regime. Her threats of war crimes charges against Sri Lankan military commanders, Colombo, quite justifiably said, were 'pathetically unenforceable.'

 

The confidence underpinning the rhetoric and conduct of the Rajapakse regime, along with the demonstrable empty threats by the international community, should bring home to the Tamils that nothing fundamental has changed in international perspectives on the Sri Lankan state. It is the international community's proclivity for forgiving abuses by states they wish to pursue shared interests with that Colombo is counting on as it continues with both conventional war and brutal counter-insurgency. In short, if the Sri Lankan state can crush the LTTE and put an end to Tamil agitation, then business can continue as usual.

 

Moreover, the Tamils should remember that the international community's insistence on 'the need for a solution' to the Tamil question only began in the late nineties when President Chandrika Kumaratunga's 'War for Peace' backfired spectacularly, forcing the conflict into the calculations of the donor community in Sri Lanka. Like all the Presidents before him, Rajapakse will only pursue the peace option when his military project fails. It has been the consistent practice of Sinhala leaders to tide over crises by making whatever undertaking is asked of them and simply tearing up the agreement when conditions are more propitious for their Sinhala-hegemonic project to advance. Moreover, Sinhala leaders have always preferred violence to accommodation in dealing with Tamil demands. In these ways, President Rajapakse is no different to his predecessors.

 

Every time Sri Lanka's conflict has resumed anew, the violence has been more destructive than ever before. The fighting in this latest phase of the war continued this week with heightened confrontations on the northern frontlines and, in an unexpected development, a sharp rise in attacks on Sinhala civilians and security forces in the deep south, which the government has blamed on the Liberation Tigers. The government's response has been to begin handing out weapons to the Sinhala population and training local youth as paramilitary guards. During the eighties and nineties, such 'Home Guards', recruited in their tens of thousands, were responsible, alongside the security forces, for massacres and ethnic cleansing of Tamils from areas subsequently colonized by Sinhalese.

 

President Rajapakse's government has been mobilizing the Sinhala community behind its planned war by training paramilitaries and conducting a campaign of demonization of the LTTE (i.e. Tamils). Those concerned with such matters have warned (on the assumption a lasting solution is negotiated, in the first place) of the consequences for long term peace and security of the militarization of Sri Lankan society and the ready availability of weapons across the island. However, given the specific understanding of the trinity of people, government and military within the Sinhala nationalist project, such measures are inevitable. The nature of the war to come is likely to irrevocably deepen ethnic antagonisms in the island. In the absence of decisive international action, this and other dynamics that the Sinhala leadership will unleash across the island in the coming years will ultimately result in a simple choice for the world: perpetual conflict in the island or a two-state solution.

In a keynote speech Monday during his official visit to India, Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, called for the shaping of a “new world order” in which the international community intervenes where populations are being threatened by "genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes or crimes against humanity, and the state is unwilling or unable to halt or prevent it." The world has "a responsibility to protect" Mr. Brown said. Last week, in a British Parliamentary debate on Sri Lanka, junior Foreign Minister Kim Howell called for a new ceasefire and for UN monitoring of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.

 

Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a "new world order" and "global society", British press reports said.

 

Reform of the so-called international architecture, Britain believes, should include an "expanded" Security Council to include India, along with Brazil, Japan, Germany and another African country as permanent members.

 

Prime Minister Brown believes the UN is punching below its weight, press reports said.

 

Mr Brown proposed the UN spend £100m a year on setting up a "rapid reaction force" to stop "failed states" sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached. Civilians such as police, administrators, judges and lawyers would work alongside military peace-keepers.

 

"There is limited value in military action to end fighting if law and order does not follow," he will say. "So we must do more to ensure rapid reconstruction on the ground once conflicts are over – and combine traditional humanitarian aid and peace-keeping with stabilisation, recovery and development."

 

The keynote speech sets out the Brown administration’s foreign policy vision. Mr. Brown took over the premiership from Tony Blair last year.

 

Recently British officials raised the theme of ‘responsibility to protect’ in the context of Sri Lanka, where the UK has been strongly backing the establishment of a UN human rights monitoring mission.

 

In the wake of the Sri Lankan government’s abrogation of the 2002 Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) with the Liberation Tigers, British parliamentarians last week debated the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka.

 

MPs from all three main British parties agreed a UN human rights monitoring mission was needed and criticised the Sri Lankan move, which resulted in the withdrawal of international ceasefire monitors.

 

Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells said the end of the ceasefire meant "we have entered a dangerous new phase in Sri Lanka."

 

"A new ceasefire must be constructed as quickly as possible if we are to make progress," Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells told MPs.

 

"The [2002] ceasefire agreement was not perfect but (it was) a basis for peace and moving forward," he said.

 

Britain, he said, has "to continue to work with international partners to make it clear that there cannot be a military solution, and to work for a cessation of hostilities."

 

"We must press the Government of Sri Lanka to address the grievances of Tamils through a credible and sustainable political solution. We must urge the LTTE to change," he said.

 

"We must work quietly and patiently behind the scenes with all the communities and with civil society in Sri Lanka to sow the seeds of a future resolution of the conflict."

 

"We must encourage the diaspora to play a bigger role in the search for peace," he also said.

 

Mr. Howells admitted "there is little substance around which to base negotiations," but said "the international community must clearly continue to stay engaged, stop the violence and help Sri Lanka build a credible environment for a sustainable peace process."

 

"Having chosen to end the ceasefire arrangement, the Sri Lankan Government have a clear responsibility to live up to their commitment to address the grievances of the Tamil people," he said.

 

He noted that the All Party Representative Committee (APRC), appointed by President Mahinda Rajapakse had had “a promising start” but had been "be-devilled" by opponents of a peace process and "hindered" by a lack of consensus between the two main parties.

 

Noting the APRC was due to report shortly, Mr. Howells said "we think it important that those recommendations go beyond the current constitutional provisions to protect minority rights."

 

"The international community will be watching carefully, and we do not want to see another false dawn," he warned.

 

He said the LTTE "must renounce terrorism and demonstrate a real commitment to democratic principles if it is to be regarded internationally as a legitimate political movement."

 

"Some Tamils argue that the military pursuit of self-determination is generated by a sense of despair that their grievances will never be addressed in a united Sri Lanka," he said.

 

"It is vital that the Government of Sri Lanka allay those fears and give them hope."

 

"For Sri Lanka to find a way forward, we need to see signs of genuine good will from the Government to any proposals for devolution that might emerge and a readiness on the part of disillusioned Tamils to contemplate alternatives to self-determination."

 

"There needs to be a full debate among the Tamils, free of intimidation and polarisation, on what an acceptable political settlement might look like for the Tamil people," he said.

 

Turning to the theme of human rights, the British Foreign minister said "there is an urgent need to address the culture of impunity that persists."

 

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, who visited Sri Lanka recently, "was alarmed at the weakness of the rule of law and the prevalence of impunity for those abusing human rights," he said.

 

"She criticised the absence of credible systems of public accountability for the vast majority of these deplorable incidents and the general lack of confidence in the ability of existing Government institutions to safeguard against the most serious human rights abuses. Surely that must be the first duty of any Government in any sovereign state in the world," Mr. Howells asked.

 

At the start of the debate, Simon Hughes, a senior MP of the Liberal Party, read out extracts of a formal statement issued by the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London.

 

"The [Sri Lankan] government wishes to avail itself of this opportunity [the British Parliamentary debate] to restate its opposition to the proposal made by the UN High Commissioner to establish UN field presence in Sri Lanka for monitoring and reporting," the statement said.

 

"The [Sri Lankan] government wishes to state that, its decision to end the CFA would not be reversed and would be implemented as previously stated, in the best interest of the country and its people", the HC’s statement added.

 

Commenting on the Sri Lankan statement, Mr. Hughes said: "I have to say that without international adjudication and verification, the Sri Lankan Government will not be regarded as acceptable."

 

"I understand the arguments about sovereignty, but if they are trying to win credibility in the world after 30 years of civil war, the UN must be represented in the country and able to go about its business there."

 

During the debate, reflecting what Tamils lobbyists say is a growing sense amongst British Parliamentarians, Jeremy Corbyn, an MP of the ruling Labour party, observed “there must be a permanent - that is, for as long as necessary - independent UN representation in Sri Lanka that can go to all parts of the country.”

A joint statement signed by the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and India, at the UK-India annual Summit held in New Delhi Monday, said they agreed that there is no military solution to the conflict in Sri Lanka and urged the Sri Lankan government to put forward a credible devolution package as a key contribution to finding a political settlement acceptable to all communities within the framework of a united Sri Lanka.

 

The joint statement, discussing a range of international issues, also said that the UK reaffirmed its firm support for India’s candidature for a permanent membership in an expanded United Nations Security Council.

 

The joint statement further said that the both countries agreed on the importance of more representative and effective international institutions to address global challenges.

 

The UK delegation led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Indian delegation led by Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, agreed that a reformed UN Security Council that better reflected the realities of the 21st century would enhance global cooperation and security.

 

The two sides also agreed to intensify practical cooperation in the fight against terrorism, both through bilateral channels and in multilateral forums.

 

Both the countries noted with satisfaction the growing partnership between India and the EU.

The 2000 year old Kural is often described by classical scholars, such as Professor George Hart of the Berkeley California, as one of the world's greatest works on ethics.

 

Widely attributed in terms of authorship to Thiru Valluvar, a weaver of cloth, who is said to have lived circa 30 BC, this is a secular work that cuts across religion, class and race. Its earliest translators were like Rev Pope, Christian missionaries to Tamil Nadu, who fell in love with the literature of the region.

 

It was they who made it available to the rest of India, including to Mahatma Gandhi who later said: “ I wanted to learn Tamil, only to enable me to study Valluvar’s Thirukkural through his mother tongue itself…. There is no one who has given such treasure of wisdom like him.” 

 

The German-born Nobel prize winner, Dr Albert Schweitzer described the Kural thus: “On the most varied questions concerning the conduct of man to himself and to the world, Thirukural's utterances are characterised by nobility and good sense. There hardly exists in the literature of the world a collection of maxims in which we find so much lofty wisdom ..”.

 

In Tamil the word Kural means “couplet” and also “voice”, whereas the prefix Thiru means “Sacred”. But equally in Tamil – a language which exudes courtesy - “Thiru” is the equivalent to the English “Mr”, an everyday honorific prefix.

 

The Kural is hence a set of 1330 couplets organised in chapters of ten, each chapter dedicated to a single concept. The concepts are wide ranging from “Possessing Love”, “Truthfulness”, “Rain” to “The Avoidance of Tyranny”. Each chapter explores different facets of the concept to which it is devoted, starting simply and becoming progressively more complex. There is often a link between chapters where concepts are related: so for example there are five consecutive chapters on friendship entitled “Friendship”, “Testing fitness for friendship”, “Old friendship”, “Harmful friendship” and “False friendship”. It is often said of the Kural that there is no aspect of life not covered by it.

 

The last 25 chapters are split into two parts, premarital and marital love, separately, yet because of their different style there is controversy whether these chapters were part of the original work. Nevertheless there is a line of thought that the inclusion of sensuality in works, which are otherwise philosophical is part of the tradition, the ancient Tamils being of the view that sexuality was conducive to spirituality: witness the sculptures that adorned the ancient temples.

 

The Kural follows a disciplined poetic structure. Signifying its comprehensive intent, the first couplet begins with the first letter of the Tamil alphabet, A and the last couplet ends with the letter N, completing the alphabet. Each couplet consists of seven cirs: a cir is a word or combination of words joined together (a compound word). And so the Kural begins, with a couplet praising “God Primordial”:

 

Akara muthal elluthellam aathi,

Bhagavan mutharae ulaghu

 

“A, as its first of letters, every speech maintains;

The "Primal Deity" is first through all the world's domains.” (Translation of G Pope)

 

And, perhaps unexpectedly, it concludes with the last of ten couplets on the benefits of sulking (in the chapter entitled “Wedded love”)

 

“Uuduthal Kamathitku inbam,

athatinbam kuudi mayanga perrin”

 

The joy of love lies in sulking, for that joy is realized
While embracing in union. (Translation of NVK Ashraf)

 

The structural organisation of the Kural also reveals much about the values and philosophy of Tamil society. The chapters of ten couplets are grouped into three themes or “books”, namely “Virtue”, “Wealth” and “Love”. 

 

The introduction to the book on virtue contains 4 chapters: “Praising God”, “The Importance of Rain”, “Greatness of Renunciates”, “Asserting Virtue”. These four concepts are a foundation to the whole work and not just the book on virtue – they are the core horizontal themes, across which the weaver weaves his multitude of vertical threads, each thread being a concept.

 

In the first of the four introductory chapters, Valluvar, acknowledges “God Primordial” and places his values in the context of the whole. So for example he says on learning and the limits of rationalism:

 

“What has learning profited a man, if it has not led him to worship the good feet of him who is pure knowledge itself”

 

He says of the concepts of “good” versus “evil”, that these opposites are illusionary and one may transcend these opposites by meditating on that which is immutable:

 

“Good and bad, delusion’s dual deeds, do not cling to those who delight in praising the immutable, worshipful one”

 

Note the non-sectarian references to “God” refered to as “infinity, the immutable one, the gracious one “ etc.

 

Having set in place the limitations of reason, good, evil and so on, the weaver, focuses on the importance of the ecology and man’s relation to it:

 

“It is the unfailing fall of rain that sustains the world

therefore, look upon rain as the nectar of life

 

Rain produces man’s wholesome food;

And rain itself forms part of his food besides”

 

Emphasising the cyclical destructive and creative powers of nature, he says:

“It is rain that ruins and rain again

that raises up those it has ruined”

 

On man’s reliance on nature, and the importance of nature relative to human functions such as charity and spirituality:

 

“Unless the heavens grant their gifts, neither the giver’s generosity

nor the ascetic’s detachment will grace this wide world”

 

Following on after the importance of the primal spirit and nature, are the qualities and importance of spiritual leaders or “renunciates”. This echoes the ancient Tamil belief that the world is sustained not just by the forces of the physical plane (i.e. the force of nature such as rain) but also by spiritual forces, an imbalance in either could lead to destruction of the world. As with the rest of the Kural, which is a secular work, the chapter makes no reference to organised or institutionalised religion, merely noting by way of definition of spirituality that:

 

“Pious men are called the priestly ones

for they are clothed in robes of compassion for all life”

 

The final introductory theme is the nature of virtue, outlined in broad brush strokes, across the ten couplets in this chapter. For example the alternative interpretations of virtue include:

 

“Virtue is living in such a way that one does not fall into these four:

envy, anger, greed and unsavoury speech” and

 

“Virtue is merely that which should be done in life

and vice merely that which should be avoided ..”

 

The body of the book of virtue, following on from the introduction is structured into the following themes: “the way of the householder”, “the way of the renunciate” and “destiny”.

 

The second of the three books, the book on wealth, has the following themes:

“Royalty”, “Ministers”, “Qualities of a country” and a general section on the qualities of people and miscellaneous other aspects of wealth. The Kural concludes as mentioned above with the book on love.

 

While “The way of the householder” is a description of the core personal values of Tamil culture, the book on wealth addresses themes of leadership and group structures.

 

Thus, on what it takes to be a “householder”, the Kural says:

 

“He alone may be called a householder who supports

students, elders and renunciates pursuing their good paths”

 

By way of example, in discussing the functions of a householder, the Kural has an entire chapter on hospitality, that most familiar of Tamil values:

 

“The whole purpose of earning wealth and maintaining a home

is to provide hospitality to guests”

 

“When a guest is in the home, it is improper to hoard one’s meal,

even if it happens to be the nectar of immortality”

 

“Charity’s merit cannot be measured by gifts given

It is measured by the measuring the receiver’s merits”

 

Thus the Kural is more than a book on ethics or philosophy. It is a description of a way of life. So much so that the Rev. G. Pope, one of the early Christian missionaries to Tamil Nadu who translated the Kural to English described the work as: “ an integral painting of a civilization which is harmonious in itself and which possesses a clearly recognizable unity.”

 

Suggested references

 

1. ‘Weaver’s Wisdom: Ancient Precepts for a perfect life’. English translation By Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami and the monastics of the Saiva Siddhanta Order (Kauai, Hawaii), Himalayan Academy Publications (http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/weaver/)

 

2. ‘The Sacred Kural of Tiruvaluva Nayanar’ by Dr. G. U. Pope, Laurier Books Ltd

 

3. International Thirukkural Conference 2005 (Washington)  http://www.thirukkural2005.org/ 

 

4. Thirrukural Browser http://www.cs.utk.edu/~siddhart/thirukkural/

 

5. Comparison of translations at http://www.geocities.com/nvashraf/kur-eng/closeindex.htm

 

6. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirukkural

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A day after Colombo praised the Indian Navy for its role in "breaking the LTTE's backbone", India on Wednesday acknowledged, for the first time in recent years, its active role in countering the Tamil Tigers.

 

Sri Lanka Navy Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda had told the Colombo Post on Tuesday that Tiger supply vessels and floating warehouses containing 10,000 tons of war-like material had been destroyed thanks to Indian help.

 

His Indian counterpart, Admiral Sureesh Mehta spoke in sync and said, "We support by checking our activities on their coast and their activities on ours. In this way, we help ourselves by helping them."

 

''Co-operation with India has been extremely successful in countering the LTTE. Every year, the Indian Navy with the Indian Coast Guard and the Sri Lankan Navy holds four bilateral discussions. We are conducting coordinated patrols with the Indian Navy as well,'' Navy Chief Wasantha Karannagoda said.

 

''The Navy has destroyed almost all LTTE vessels that could have assisted the Tigers in attacking the armed forces,'' he said adding, ''Within one year we have destroyed eight floating warehouses, which had carried more than 10,000 tons of war-like material including artillery, mortar, dismantled parts of three aircraft, bullet proof vehicles, underwater delivery vehicles, scuba diving sets, and radar, among other things."

 

He also added that the SLN had acquired ships and boats, apart from building indigenous vessels to counter the LTTE threats.

 

SLN Vice-Admiral Karannagoda also said that earlier the LTTE warehouses were stationed off the island, around 2800kms away in the high seas and whenever need arose they came up to about 300kms from the coast and transferred the arms cargo on to trawlers that brought them to land. He said the Navy has been successful in putting an end to this type of arms transfer.

 

India, which stepped up naval patrolling in Palk Strait and Gulf of Mannaar by deploying more warships under 'Operation Tasha', has now come out in the open to acknowledge its role in the successes of the Sri Lanka Navy.

 

Chief of Indian Naval Staff Adm Sureesh Mehta spoke about the coordinated patrolling between the two navies.

 

"We support by checking our activities on their coast and their activities on ours. In this way, we help ourselves by helping them," he said.

 

He also added that the Indian Navy was keeping a tight vigil on the coast and "closely watching the situation in the neighbouring country."

 

According to Indian media reports, Sri Lanka recently provided a long list of "urgent military requirements" to India, ranging from air defence weapons, artillery guns, Nishant UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) to more radars and even laser designators for PGMs (precision-guided munitions).

 

Domestic political compulsions arising out of inflammable Tamil sensitivities have ensured that the Indian Government remains hesitant in stepping up the offensive military capabilities of Sri Lanka.

 

New Delhi has not only been hesitant, but has also been clearly tight-lipped about its support to Sri Lanka. Reportedly India continues to supply its neighbouring island with a wide array of military equipment, including new low-flying detection radars.

 

The process began with the transfer of a Sukanya-class offshore patrol vessel in 2002, with the primary aim of countering Pakistan and China's inroads into the wartorn island as merchants of death.

 

On January 16, Maj. Gen Solvberg, the head of the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission, issued a press statement thanking the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE for inviting them to serve them.

 

The head of the Nordic Monitors, whose functions were terminated by the unilateral abrogation of the Cease Fire Agreement by the Sri Lanka Government, said "Future heroes in Sri Lanka will be those who recognize the complexity of the situation, and prove able to manage this complexity in a way that reduces rather than increases human pain, fear and hopelessness – those capable of respecting people with different perceptions, and bringing them together."

 

Full text of the press release follows:

 

Today, January 16 2008, marks the final day of the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) period in Sri Lanka, that has lasted for almost six years.

 

The Agreement signed by the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in February 2002 outlined the mandate for the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission, as a tool to watch the CFA implementation.

 

Thus, the abrogation of the CFA also implies the termination of the SLMM. In practical terms, this means that the Nordic monitors will leave Sri Lanka today and early tomorrow morning, leaving behind only a few personnel to wrap up administrative obligations related to the closing down of the mission.

 

During the first years of the CFA period, there was seemingly a general spirit of cooperation between the Parties. Violations were relatively few. But lack of progress on critical issues nurtured distrust between Parties, giving set backs in the peace process. Gradually the conflict level increased, involving more military activities, more violence affecting civilians, more signs of insecurity, and more displacement of people. Today, the ground situation displays a reality very far from what is outlined in the CFA.

 

The purpose of SLMM presence in Sri Lanka has all the way been to support the peace process. Defining how best to implement the potential of the SLMM mechanism, has however at times been a huge challenge. As the conflict level gradually increased, the mission re-evaluated its approach, pursuing strategies and working procedures relevant to the situation.

 

The Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission has been appreciated and slammed, loved and hated, over these six years. Some have expressed their support, saying; “Without the SLMM we will be doomed”, or “Without the SLMM many more lives would have been lost”, or “We are scared for what will happen if SLMM leaves Sri Lanka”. Others have preferred to portray SLMM as powerless, inefficient and utterly biased.

 

The SLMM has been present in the North and the East of Sri Lanka, as well as in the capital, every single day for nearly six years. Through on the ground monitoring, we have learned to recognize and respect the complexity of the conflict. Based on this knowledge, the final report from the operation is this:

 

The SLMM is absolutely convinced that this complex conflict can not be solved by military means. The Head of Mission finds it to be his duty to draw this conclusion as the operation is about to be terminated. It is not a task for the SLMM, however, to advice the parties to the CFA, nor other actors, how to find viable solutions. This has to be left to the people of Sri Lanka themselves – supported by facilitating actors of their choice.

 

The Head of the SLMM uses this final opportunity to thank the GOSL and the LTTE for inviting SLMM to serve them, in their search for a negotiated solution to the conflict between them. It is with sadness that we leave this resourceful and beautiful country at this point of time.

 

It is hard to leave behind people all over the island that we have learned to know, and come to love and respect. We will miss out on the opportunity to further adapt and contribute in the present situation, - and we would like to believe that Sri Lanka misses out on something valuable too.

 

In the time to come, fortunately, many actors both inside and outside Sri Lanka, will continue to contribute to the search for a solution to the conflict. Hopefully, wise choices will be made at all levels by those who possess the power to make decisions.

Future heroes in Sri Lanka will be those who recognize the complexity of the situation, and prove able to manage this complexity in a way that reduces rather than increases human pain, fear and hopelessness – those capable of respecting people with different perceptions, and bringing them together. The SLMM will close its operation at 1900 hrs today.

 

To the people of Sri Lanka; Thank you and farewell

 

Colombo, 16 January 2008

Lars J Solvberg

Major General

Head of Mission

Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission