Monitoring the myths on Kadirgamar assassination

BY SUMANASIRI Liyanage

D. B. S. JAYARAJ in an excellent article has exposed the contradictions in the statements issued by the world leaders including the Secretary General of United Nations immediately after the assassination of Lakshman Kadirgamar allegedly by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

Many of these statements have emphasised that the perpetrators of this assassination should be exposed and brought before the law.

Secondly, the statements have also stressed the need of the maintenance of the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) between the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) and the LTTE and the revival of the peace process.

According to Jayaraj, these two propositions when taken separately make sense; but when placed together lead to the irresolvable contradiction if the perpetrators are one of the two parties involved in the Ceasefire Agreement.

He referred to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi by the LTTE with direct orders from the LTTE leader, V. Pirapaharan and Pottu Amman, its intelligence wing head, to show that this contradiction stems from the nature of the internal structure of the LTTE.

I do not here intend to repeat the argument presented by D. B. S. Jayaraj in his article; however, as the statements made by the Sri Lankan civil society vis a vis Kadirgamar's assassination reflect the manner in which the current peace process is carried through, I will look at what these contradictions may expose. This is the intention of this article.

Why are these statements contradictory?

The statements are trying to resolve these contradictions by assuming two things. First, the dignitaries who issued those statements seem to honestly believe that the assassination of Lakshman Kadirgamar was not the work of the LTTE.

They seem to accept the statements of the LTTE that the LTTE has nothing do with Kadirgamar killing.

However, this seems to be a very weak assumption. The LTTE has never accepted the responsibility of killings of Rajni Thiranagama, Rajiv Gandhi, R. Premadasa, Gamini Dissanayake and Neelan Thiruchelvam and one cannot expect the LTTE to suddenly now claim responsibility.

In the last 36 months, many killings that have occurred in the East as well as Colombo have been attributed to some unidentified third party.

For example, violence against Muslims in Muttur, Valachchenai and many other places in the Eastern Province have also been described as a result of the involvement of an unknown third party that wanted to spoil the peace process.

Secondly, various dignitaries tend to think that the real blame for the assassination of Kadirgamar is with the Government because the GoSL has failed to carry forth with the peace process and to address the real grievances of Tamils.

by Role of civil society

This argument taken to its logical conclusion seems to suggest that there was a legitimised reason for perpetrators to kill Kadirgamar. By arguing in this manner, they are trying to legitimise their double standard on the use of violence and terror, making a distinction between the groups operating in the Western countries and in the developing countries.

In the developed countries it is totally illegitimate to use terror and violence by oppositionist groups; but in the developing countries it can be justified as developing countries have failed to address the real grievances of the dissident people. Thus, as in BBC lexicon, a terrorist in the West would naturally turn into a rebel in the East (except Iraq).

Events such as this reinforce the necessity of a strong and sustainable peace process. However, I suggest that a set of critical questions need to be posed if peace is to be in any way meaningful.

Some of these are, 1) does Kadirgamar's and other recent assassinations mean that the process should be continued without any change? Or does it imply that a different kind of process should be re-negotiated?

2) Is the international community prepared to take strong actions against CFA violations by the parties involved, such as the killings of political opponents, harassment of civilians, bullying of Muslims and recruitment of children 2? Or will the violations continue making the Cease-fire Agreement itself a mockery?

3) Will grass-root concerns be taken into account guiding factors of the negotiations?

Discursive practices of the international community in Western countries have direct influence over Sri Lankan civil society and its discourses. Discursive practices of local civil society activists in the aftermath of Kadirgamar assassination signify that peace discourse has changed considerably in the last ten years.

At the initial phase leading up to perhaps the mid-1990s, as I vividly remember, peace activists in Sri Lanka led by late Charlie Abeysekera tried to connect peace and justice. Their symbols were Rajni Thiranagama and Richard de Zoysa.

Today these symbols are no longer significant. Wittingly or unwittingly, civil society strategies are guided by a thinking that places conflict resolution as more important than lasting peace, dignity and the protection of human rights. This has been amply illustrated in their writings and statements in the last 10 days.

Sri Lankan civil society is engaged in propagating many a myth about the assassination of Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar even though they are well aware that it is extremely difficult to back the LTTE denial of his killing and its attempt to attribute it to a section of the military.

One such myth is that Kadirgamar's assassination is an outcome of the breakdown weakening of the peace process. Kalinga in his political commentary noted that assassination of Kadirgamar was the first political killing after the signing of CFA.

He said all others killed in the last 45 months had military connections with the security forces of the GoSL. This is ridiculous and is a great insult for people like Robert of the EPRLF.

He continues to say that to avoid the occurrence of events of this nature, the peace process should be restarted. Revitalisation of the peace process in their lexicon is tantamount to the revival of head table talks between the LTTE and GoSL.

This proposition does not support evidence for the LTTE did not hesitate to kill many a political opponent when the peace process was fresh and 'working'.

There is no direct association/correlation between the peace process and the LTTE killings of political opponents.

In other words, the peace process that was unleashed in December 2001 has failed to stop LTTE killing of political opponents, whatever status the process may have been at a given point. Recommencement of talks can be justified on different grounds; but it cannot be assumed that this will stop political killings.

Myth two is that Kadirgamar was killed because he in his last days became a pawn of Sinhala nationalism. Dr. Jayantha Seneviratne has put forward this argument without providing any substantive evidence.

Of course, peace activists do not say that the Sinhala nationalists and/or their pawns should be eliminated. But, it seems to have provided some basis for legitimating political killings.

As far as I know Kadirgamar never deviated from his extremely modernist position, namely, that race, religion and other ethnic factors should be treated as something that should exist in the private sphere.

He never vacillated as Dr. Seneviratne suggested on the issue that the Sri Lankan state should be restructured in order to make it more accommodative. This was clearly revealed in the speech he made in the Parliament when the Constitution Bill 2000 was presented.

Of course one can question his modernist liberal position theoretically; but painting him as someone who refused to accept the Tamil nationality question would be an insult to the efforts he has made to insist on the need for Tamils to live with dignity.

Myth three is that if the international community is trying to impose restrictions on organisations like the LTTE, such restrictions would weaken the opportunities for peace.

As such, certain civil society members here think the UN Security Council proposal to impose restrictions on foreign travel by the leaders of rebel organisations is not a good idea.

All these myths are generated as Sri Lankan civil society is not ready to accept the character of the LTTE and its mono-party authoritarian internal regime that cannot allow other viewpoints to exist.

If Sri Lankan civil society is not capable of developing a subaltern sensitivity giving privileged position to grass-root level concerns and grass-root level human right violations, it may not be worthy of its name.

As the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka in its recent statement has shown, the LTTE has not stopped its recruitment practices despite its numerous promises to do so immediately. Many more can be added to this list.

Renegotiation of the CFA should put these subjects in its agenda; Since the main parties will not talk about these marginalised people, civil society should take these issues to the forefront.

(The writer teaches political economy at the University of Peradeniya)