Regional instability and Lanka’s territorial integrity - relevance of the district as unit of devolution

Neville Ladduwahetty

CONSIDERATION: Internal considerations have guided the choice between the District and the province as the peripheral unit. The Tamil community and its leadership prefer the province because its political and economic potential caters to their interests.

Consequently, advocacy for the province is influenced by considerations of appeasement and conflict resolution despite the vulnerability of the province to considerations of territorial integrity.

The district on the other hand, while ensuring territorial integrity is also favourable from considerations of governance, management, social and cultural affinities and development. In addition to these considerations that are strictly internal, it is necessary to consider which unit would better safeguard Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity in the event of regional instability.

The territorial integrity of Sri Lanka should be the foremost consideration above all other considerations in the choice of the peripheral unit. The reason for this emphasis is because to the Sinhala majority, its survival and that of the state are inextricably linked into an indivisible whole. The District is perceived by them as a better guarantor of this wholeness than the Province.

Global and regional developments are bound to influence developments in Sri Lanka. Of the two, regional developments are bound to have a greater influence on Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity than global trends. Of the countries in the region it is developments within India that would have a greatest impact on Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity.

For instance, the vast disparities between the haves and have-nots, the emergence of formerly disadvantaged social groups as regional political powers and the increasing influence of the Maoist movement within several of India’s states, can contribute singly or collectively to destabilize India.

These trends are running concurrently with the strides that India is making towards becoming a global economic and nuclear power.

How India manages to balance these countervailing trends would determine the future stability of India and therefore the region. If India fails and she reverts back to its natural state, to what India was before she was crafted into a federal secular state, what impact would it have on Sri Lanka? Such an eventuality is considered by many analysts to be well within the realm of the possible.

Throughout its entire history India was as a conglomerate of independent regions and not even the British Raj, the Mogul Empires before them and even Emperor Asoka were not able to administer the whole of India as a single unified region as presently structured.

Pre-Independence India

Pre-independence India was territorially not what India is today. Perhaps, it was under Emperor Asoka that most of today’s India came under a single ruler. Prior to his rule and ever since, parts of today’s India have been under the rule of several Empires the last of which was the Mogul Empire until the arrival of the colonial powers starting with the Portuguese and ending with the British.

Even under the British Raj, India was administered as a conglomerate of several “...directly ruled provinces and some 560 (indirectly ruled) autocratic princely kingdoms of many sizes, religions, tribes and languages...”(Battacharyya, Federalism and Regionalism in India, University of Heidelberg, May, 2005. p.2).

These disparate regions could not have been brought together under a unified administration without structuring the state on federal lines.

Post-independence India is therefore a new creation; a phenomenon, the like of which India has never known. The question in the minds of analysts is how durable would this new federal framework be? If India is to prevent it reverting back to its natural state that had prevailed throughout the millennia, the center has to be strong.

Realizing this need, India started out with a strong center, but regional influences resulting from coalition formations of ruling governments have progressively asserted their powers causing central power to gradually erode. Under these circumstances, India has to face the challenge of keeping these centrifugal tendencies at bay and function as a global power.

If India fails to meet this challenge it would cease to be a global power and each of the sub-regions would emerge as independent economically powerful states. Since such developments could impact adversely on Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity it is vital that the Sri Lankan is structured in a way that it is better equipped to withstand the effects of possible developments in India. The District as the peripheral unit lends itself better for this purpose.

Post-Independence India

The style of governance that independent India started out with was “centralized federalism”. Arising from the influences of coalition politics the federal states started to agitate for greater control free of the influence of the center.

This led to the next phase of governance, namely, “cooperative federalism”. Commenting on these developments, Amaresh Bagchi states: “The end of Congress party rule at the Center and the rise of regional parties to power in the states seemed to provide an alternative that could avoid the shortcomings of centralized federalism.

The distinguishing feature of cooperative federalism is the primacy accorded to state and local governments...” (“Rethinking Federalism”, Publius, Fall 2003, pp. 33-34). The consequence of the states exercising greater autonomy vis-…-vis the Center was firstly to create disparities among states and secondly, to create disparities within states due to the inability of states to provide public services on an equitable basis.

This has resulted in the Maoists gaining control over many districts within states by providing public services to areas not served by the states.

On the issue of disparities Bagchi states: “Disparities have increased sharply. With the spirit of competitive federalism prevailing among states, almost every state is trying to lure investors from other states and from abroad. But only those having a good infrastructure and an investor-friendly environment are able to attract private investment.

This raises a question. Will India be able to achieve its goal of a politically and economically strong nation with balanced regional growth?...almost all states came under acute fiscal stress caused by heavy debt burdens...In some states, the proportion of debt to the states’ domestic product is over 70 percent...Several states defaulted on their debt obligation, and in some instances, staff salaries were not paid on time.”(Ibid).

The inability of states to deliver services to remote areas has permitted the Maoists to expand their activities impressively.

Quoting (Mehra, 2006:36), Professor G.H.Peiris states: “The Maoist expansion in the past few years has been impressive - from 55 districts in nine states in 2003 to 170 districts in 15 states in 2006. In their strongholds in about 55 districts in 12 states, they run parallel governments which is not surprising given the retreat, if not collapse, of the state in key social sectors such as education and health...” (The Island, November 30, 2006).

These developments within and among states need to be juxtaposed with the effects of globalization. Globalization has compounded the disparities created by state action. While globalization has created a wealthy middle class, the vote bank is with those left behind. The stability of India depends on how successfully its leaders balance these conflicting interests.

In view of the facts presented above, Sri Lanka cannot afford to follow the “Indian model” as urged by Anandasangaree, nor can Sri Lanka afford to structure the state assuming India to remain stable.

Post-independence India is structured to suit its historical experiences. Sri Lanka’s structure has to suit its historical experiences. Since the historical experiences of India and Sri Lanka are vastly different the political structure of India is inappropriate for Sri Lanka and therefore should not be transposed.

Today’s India is similar to the creation of former Yugoslavia by Marshall Tito where regions of the former Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires were amalgamated to form former Yugoslavia. That creation was as unnatural as the creation of today’s India.

The structure of independent India had to be federal because no other arrangement would have been suitable given its historical formations. Furthermore, India as presently structured is a unique experience. Throughout the millennia India existed as a vastly divergent land of many regions, cultures and traditions. This was its natural state. Whether it can survive in its new avatar is not a given.

Therefore, Sri Lanka has to structure its state in a manner that ensures its own territorial integrity irrespective of developments that could engulf India.

Sri Lanka on the other hand, has throughout millennia, been unitary and whole. Devolution of power to Provinces or regions is to the Sinhala psyche tantamount to division. This they abhor, because division of the country is an unknown experience symbolising insecurity and is therefore unacceptable.

Devolution under these circumstances is being entertained with extreme reluctance. The need for the security of self and state being foremost has to be to units that ensure territorial integrity. Such a unit is the District.

The Province on the other hand has the potential to fall victim to developments in India with the potential to influence development in Sri Lanka and visa-versa.

These sentiments are considered by critics to be views of a majority with a minority complex. The reluctance of the Sinhalese to share power with the Tamil community is because the arrangements sought and pursued by the Tamil community pose a threat to the territorial integrity of the state and consequently to the Sinhala self. Solutions sought and proposed are not sensitive to the Sinhala sensibility that state and self are one indivisible whole.

The statement by Simon Hughes M.P. in the House of Commons that a vote for independence by the Sri Lankan Tamils would have to be recognised by the International Community, confirm the apprehensions in respect of Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity, if the peripheral unit is the Province.

Hughes may have intended to boost the morale of his Tamil constituents, but in fact his statement validates the need for the peripheral unit to be the District in order to ensure the island’s territorial integrity.

The resolution of Sri Lanka’s national question has therefore to be addressed within a framework that places territorial integrity as the central issue. Concerns regarding territorial integrity run dark and deep in the civilizational consciousness of the majority of Sri Lanka’s Peoples.

Therefore, they should be recognised and respected in the pursuit of resolving Sri Lanka’s national question. The resolution of the national question must ensure the territorial integrity that the country has known for most of its history.