|
|
|
| |
| |
Life Onboard |
LAST UPDATE
July 19, 2005
|
|
| site design imagesparkle.com |
| July 29, 2004 |
Rohan Edrisinha - Sri Lanka: Conflict and
the Constitution |
|
| |
 |
| Rohan begins discussion with a group of GU (Global University) and IS (International
Student) participants |
As a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Colombo, the director of the legal and constitutional
unit for the Centre for Policy Alternatives, and an outside observer of the current peace negotiations
between the Tamil and Singhalese in Sri Lanka, Rohan Edrisinha traveled with Peace Boat from Singapore
to Sri Lanka to share his experience and perspective of the current conflict in his country.
During a two-part historical and constitutional breakdown of the internal conflict in Sri Lanka,
Rohan clarified many of the complexities surrounding the more than 25 years of violence. He explained
that the conflict is essentially between two ethnic groups, one a minority, one a majority. These
two groups are the Singhalese comprising 70% of the Sri Lankaís 18MM people, and the Tamils
who make up 17%. Rohan pointed out that many of todayís problems were born out of British
occupation; however, both parties have also made many mistakes when dealing with each other since
the occupation ended, and both must take responsibility. |
|
|
 |
| Communication Coordinators, Misato Yamaguchi, Ai Matsuda, and Emi Yoshikawa (L to
R) busy at work translating Rohan's talk |
At the core of the conflict between the two groups is the 1972 constitution, which remains the current
constitution for Sri Lanka. The conflict surrounding the constitution can be linked back to 1948;
the year in which the British Empire granted independence to Sri Lanka and drafted the first constitution
for the country. After the 1948 constitution was created, up until 1972, Sri Lankan representatives,
namely Singhalese and Tamil, joined to discuss a new draft of the constitution to outline both parties
needs. But because of a build-up of resentment by the Singhalese, stemming from favoritism shown to
the Tamils during British occupation, issues of — language, equality, land, access to political
power, and discrimination - became exaggerated, and the 1972 constitution reflected this.
Rohan explained that initially, the first response between 1948-1972 was to solve these problems
through peaceful, diplomatic means. However, over the years these talks often only escalated resentment. "Often
the two sides would come to mutual agreements, but these agreements were not always implemented
[by the Singhalese government]," said Rohan, this lead to frustration, and into a "snowball
effect" of distrust from the Tamils. "It started with these above issues, which were not
so difficult to address, but when these problems werenít solved, things got worse." In
1972 the Sri Lankan government drafted a new constitution, introducing features that went directly
against the requests that Tamil leaders had been campaigning for from over twenty years. |
| |
 |
| Clarifying points on the 1972 constitution |
"When designing constitutions, you have to learn to recognize diversity in a multi-ethnic country," said
Rohan. But the new constitution failed in this regard: the Tamils wanted autonomy, but the constitution
forbad it and created a centralized state; the Tamils wanted both languages represented, but the sole
official language of Sri Lanka became Singhalese; the Tamils wanted their religion (Hinduism) acknowledge,
but the official religion became Singhalese (Buddhist). In the end the Tamils were virtually cut out
of the constitution.
Several years later came the formation of the LTTE, also known as the Tamil Tigers. Addressing
the formation of the LTTE, Rohan said it was not at all surprising that in 1975 the violence began.
The group was formed from disenchanted youth that believed the Tamil representatives had failed
them, and up until today the LTTE remains the major negotiating and military voice of the Tamils. |
| |
|
Since 1975, countless attempts have been made to reconcile the parties. Constitutions have been drafted,
attempts at dialog have been made (both in Sri Lanka and around the world with mediating countries),
but the progress has been slow. A major stalling point came in 1985 when Tamil delegates meet in India
and formulated the Thimpu principles. These principles were a breakthrough for the Tamils but were
looked at as a major setback for the Sri Lankan government. The four main principles were:
- The Tamil people are a nation
- The particular area where Tamils lived constitutes a homeland
- Tamil nation has the right to self-determination
- Tamils want full equality and citizenship
Rohan explained that to the Singhalese government this meant the Tamils wanted their own separate
state. As a constitutional law expert, he clarified the complexity of these principles. "The
problems with terms like "nation" and "self-determination," is they have no
fixed legal meaning, and mean different things to different people." Now one of the biggest
challenges of Sri Lankaís government is figuring out if, and how, to accept these principles,
while maintaining a federalist - or a two-state, one-nation - system.
|
| |
While it is still unclear if this type of system is acceptable
to either party, the Norwegian government has stepped in to broker the peace talks. "Norway
has had successful talks in the Middle East, and it is very keen on its ability as a peacemaker," said
Rohan. Consequently, because of Norwayís efforts, in 2002, both parties signed a Cessation
of Hostilities Agreement.
To summarize the todayís climate in Sri Lanka Rohan pointed out that the peace process
still struggles with setbacks, like the LTTEís 2003 proposal for majority control of the
government. But on a positive note, he explained that this ceasefire has allowed people to step
back, and really look at the human suffering and devastation caused by the war. Even Rohan admits
being shocked by the destruction he saw when visiting Northern Sri Lanka. He believes that now,
with people outside of the immediate conflict zones witnessing the destruction first hand, both
sides will understand more clearly the effects of war. "If you travel to Sri Lanka, to the
North and the South, everyone wants peace. Because everyone - understands the costs of the conflict." |
| |
|
|
|
