Some
Reflection on the Life and Times of
S.J.V. Chelvanayakam
(100th Birth Anniversary Commemoration)
31 March 1997
The New Kathiresan Hall, Bambalapitiya, Colombo
Santasilan
Kadirgamar
Meiji Gakuin university
Tokyo, Japan
I
am happy to be able to participate in the proceedings today. I wish to thank
you Mr.Sivasithamparan, President of the
Tamil United Liberation Front, and the members of the TULF for the opportunity
you have given me to say a few words as we celebrate the birth centenary of one
of the outstanding leaders of our times in this country. Leaders who make
history, especially political personalities must be subjected to critical
appraisal, without bitterness and rancour, by their supporters and opponents.
But on an occasion like this it is but appropriate that we focus on the
positive aspects of the life and work of Mr. Chelvanayakam. As an observer,
student and to some extent a participant in the unfolding events in Lanka, I
was beginning to get the feeling that Mr.Chelvanayakam was being forgotten
expect for token expressions of respect. This occasion today and your plans to
have a yearlong programme to commemorate and celebrate his 100th birth
anniversary have dispelled any such notions. I wish to congratulate the TULF,
its members and leadership, and specifically its leader Mr.Sivasithambaram, who
is today an elder statesman not only to the Tamils but to the whole country,
for organizing these events, and thereby helping to place in perspective the
ideals and achievements if both the FP
and the TULF.
My
earliest recollections of the revered and much respected leader Samuel James
Velupillai Chelvanayakam go back to 1947. It was that historic, glorious and
memorable day in world history, August 15 1947 – when India became free. The
occasion was the opening ceremonies of the exhibition and carnival at Union
College, Tellipallai, under the principalship of Mr.I.P.Thurairatnam. Mr.
Chelvanayakam unfurled the tri-coloured flag of Independent India and delivered
a short speech. He was at that time in the midst of the election campaign and
was a candidate for the KKS seat which he won with a comfortable majority a few
days later, thereby launching a long, eventful and in some respects a
controversial political career which is now history. Nevertheless, as far as
this country is concerned, and specifically the Tamils and Muslims of this
island are concerned, an unfinished history.
Several
years later, when my family lived at Tellipallai, where my father was pastor of
the Jaffna Diocese of the Church of South India (the members of the Chelvanayakam
family were members of this church), I had the privilege of being one of the
volunteers working for Mr.Chelvanayakam at the 1952 parliamentary election. We
were then students in the university entrance classes at Jaffna College. As
students of government and politics we had read and studied federalism. One of
the popular books then was a text book written by A. Jeyaratnam Wilson, then a
young, bright and upcoming Assistant Lecturer in the University of Ceylon.
Among the 40 students in the HSC hostel at Jaffna College only two of us
(V.Kanapathipillai – presently Dr.V.Kanapathipillai of the Dept. of History,
Peradeniya University and I) were supporters of the FP. We were both from
Tellipallai and worked for the F.P. We lost, and when we returned to the hostel
the rest of the students welcomed us with a big hoot. They were mostly students
in the science classes, were totally ignorant of the ABC of politics and were
under the misconception that federalism was a division of the country and would
adversely affect their prospects of employment in the rest of Ceylon. Many of
them today are abroad and are passionate Tamil nationalists – rather late –
comers to the world of politics. These then are some of the ironies of
contemporary history!
As
mentioned above it is not my intention today to make a critical appraisal of
the life and times of Mr.Chelvanayakam. That is being done even as the history
of this country is being recorded and interpreted by numerous scholars, if
various hues and colours. In this context I recall a comment I made in the
University of Jaffna. It is the custom in our university for all the heads of
departments to say a few words of welcome to the new entrants at the beginning
of the academic year. In the Faculty of Arts we had about 10 departments in
1983. The speeches were made in the order of numerical superiority – that is
the head of department with the largest number of students addressed the
gathering first – usually Economics, followed by Tamil, Geography etc. history
was the last even after Sanskrit. As Head of the Dept. of history my turn was
the last with only seven students among a total of 500 having opted to study
history. Speaking in Tamil I said “Many among the Tamils in Jaffna are today
talking about and passionately discussing and interpreting history and several
are even writing history. But hardly anyone wants to subject him or herself to
the discipline of studying history for four years!” I do not want to comment on
this aspect any further, except to say that among the Tamil speaking peoples of
this country there is a need, a crying need for accomplished scholars in the
field of history, politics and international relations especially among the
younger generation, who have a commitment to the land and people here and are
prepared to spend time and participate in the educational and public life of
this country. We are already paying a heavy price for this vacuum in our society
and are likely to do so in the decades to come.
A Tribute to the Party
We
remember on an occasion like this the long list of devoted members of the
federal party and the TULF, from unknown and less known names to the several
office -bearers and members of parliament in a history that spans nearly five
decades. I had the privilege of interacting closely with several members of the
FP/TULF from the 1950s. As a student a Jaffna College I came to know
Mr.Amirthalingam and continued to have a personal relationship right until his
sad demise. I learnt Tamil politics in diligently listening to his speeches
when he was the star attraction at the 1952 election meetings. He was not only
an eloquent speaker in English and Tamil, but was also an outstanding debater
with a through grasp of the facts and issues. I must confess at this juncture
that I was a political opponent of Mr. Amirthalingam and the FP in the
Vaddukoddai electorate in the 1960 March/July and the 1965 elections - being an
active supporter of the left movement, the LSSP and CP at that time. This
change occurred during my period in the University of Ceylon. Mr.Amirthalingam
of course won these three elections with ease. I may add that when I finally
decided to vote for him in the 1970 election he lost his seat, placing me
always on the losing side! He nevertheless received me with utmost courtesy and
kindness whenever I called on him. I have had the privilege of organizing
visits to him and other leaders by several delegations from the south and from
abroad, such as from the SCM and CWF, the Christian Conference of Asia and the
World Council of Churches, journalists of the caliber of Dr.David Selbourne and
human rights activists, in the late 70s and 80s. This continued when I called
on him every year in Madras from 1984 to 87. On one occasion in 1970 I asked
him whether he had made any serious mistakes in his political career. He
admitted that in 1957 much against the advice of his respected leader he decided
to erase the Sinhala ‘Sri’ on the number plates of the buses that had been sent
to Jaffna, replacing them with the Tamil ‘Sri’. This, as is well known created
further anti-Tamil tensions in the country. Every delegation I took to him came
back utterly impressed with his life style, the hospitality of his home and his
intellectual flair. These students confessed to me that in their own
electorates in the South they dare not step into a MPs house and raise the kind
of questions they raised and have the kind of frank discussion they had with
him in spite of the fact that he was at that time Leader of the Opposition. One
meeting with him was enough to dispel the negative image that had been
tenaciously cultivated in the South. This was true of not only Mr. Amirthalingam
but several parliamentarians of the FP/TULF – their way of life and easy
accessibility. This quality perhaps was imbibed from their leader.
What
we owe to Vettivelu Yogeswaran will have to be recorded elsewhere. Many have
mourned and wept over the death of Yogeswaran and I for one will remember for
the rest of my life for his selfless service, at tremendous risk to his own
life, to us the citizens of Jaffna, and especially for Tamil youth. On behalf
of Movement for Inter-Racial Justice and Equality (MIRJE) some of us interacted
with Mayor Viswanathan and Senator Nadarajah. Mavai Senathirajah was the TULFs
representative in the committee of the Jaffna Branch of MIRJE founded in 1979.
Mrs. Amirthalingam participated in the first Satyagraha that MIRJE organized in
Jaffna in December 1979. Dr.S.A.Dharmalingam was a regular and active member of
our committee. Some of us also participated in a monthly study group that met
in the home of Mr. Kathiravetpillai. Here we had heated and controversial
discussions with the then members of the TULF Kovai Mahesan and Eelaventan. I
may also add that I have known several members of the Chelvanayakam family.
These included his sons Chandrahasan and the late Vasiharan. Vasiharan was a
brilliant man of intellectual honesty and integrity who stood by his
convictions, and with whom I had the privilege of having long and meaningful
discussions in the Chelvanayakam home in Alfred House Gardens… Prof. A.
Jeyaranam Wilson, Lanka’s respected and leading political scientist is well
known. His writings whether one agree with him or not are a mine house of
information, providing an insider’s view of men and events… I was able to call
on him in August last year in Toronto. We wish him a speedy recovery from his
illness
The 1951 Trincomalee Resolution
I
intend to focus today on Chelvanayakam’s role as a peace-maker. While he was
firmly committed to compromise in the larger interests of the whole country, he
had both the vision and the commitment to compromise in the larger interests of
the whole country. This approach is clearly evident from his earliest speeches.
In fairness to him and his place is history, in the context of the adverse
propaganda carried out against him, it is but right we highlight his role as
peace-maker. His speeches - choice of words and expressions - were that of a
moderate, statesmanlike, and I believe consciously drafted to provide space for
compromise. The resolution read as follows:
Inasmuch
as it is the inalienable right of every nation to enjoy full political freedom
without which its spiritual, cultural and moral stature must degenerate, and
inasmuch as the Tamil-speaking people in Ceylon constitute a nation distinct
from that of the Sinhalese by every fundamental test of nationhood, firstly,
that of a separate historical past in this Island at least as ancient and as glorious as that the Sinhalese,
secondly, by the fact of their being a linguistic entity entirely different
from that of the Sinhalese, which makes Tamil fully adequate for all present
day needs, and finally by reason of their territorial habitation of definite
areas which constitute over one third of this Island, this first National
Convention of the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi demands for the Tamil-speaking
nation in Ceylon their inalienable right to political autonomy and calls for a
plebiscite to determine the boundaries of the linguistic States in consonance
with the fundamental and unchallengeable principle of self-determination”
The
resolution further stated that:
“The
I.T.A.K recommends to the Tamil-speaking people the feasibility and
desirability of establishing the autonomous Tamil linguistic state within the
framework of a Federal Union of Ceylon, as the rational and natural culmination
of centuries of close association
between these two nations it this their common motherland and with a
view to promoting and maintaining national
goodwill and close co-operation with the Sinhalese people.” The
resolution was not worded in belligerent and confrontational language. On the
contrary the tone is one of moderation and conciliation, reflecting the values
of the vast majority of the people of this country. Some of his followers may
have in their public utterances used provocative language. That is inherent in
the nature of politics. A political movement, however, must be judged primarily
on its official declarations and statements made in parliament.
Firstly
the resolution speaks of political
autonomy and not separation. The adverse propaganda carried out against
the FP both in the south and in the north, I repeat by hostile forces in the
north, by Tamils in Jaffna itself - was to deliberately distort the demand for
political autonomy as separation long before the secessionist demand. Secondly
the resolution refers to the historical past as ancient and as glorious as that of the Sinhalese. There is no
bitterness or attempt to denigrate the achievements of the Sinhalese and their
civilization, but a genuine and sincere acknowledgement of their remarkable
history about which the Sinhalese people are legitimately proud of. Thirdly the
resolution focuses attention on the centuries
of close association between these two nations in this their common motherland.
Yes, close association and not enmity and conflict. It is a fact of history
that the Sinhalese and Tamils have lived together in peace for by far the
greater part of their history. We have NOT been at war. It is fashionable these
days for some foreign scholars with a superficial understanding of the history
of this country, and for international news agencies to state that the
Sinhalese and Tamils have been at war for centuries. The wars of certain
periods, it has been documented by reputed historians, were dynastic wars and
not between peoples. Mr.Chelvanayakam
and the FP were correct in affirming the close association in this their common motherland - emphasis again on
common motherland. And finally the resolution concludes with a view to promoting and maintaining national goodwill
and close co-operation with the Sinhalese people. Goodwill and
co-operation - not ill-will and hostility. From its inception the party under
Mr.Chelvanayakam’s leadership in adopting this resolution adopted a realistic
and rational view of the situation. There was no bitterness and animosity, or
extremist posturing. On the contrary the F.P demonstrated willingness to
compromise - providing space for meaningful dialogue and negotiations.
The Bandaranaike – Chelvanayakam Pact of
1957
The
B-C Pact as it has popularly become known is a tribute to the vision and statesmanship
of these two great leaders. Concise and to the point it laid the basis for all
future negotiations leading to agreements, accords and proposals. The main
provisions of the B-C Pact are well known and do require repetitions here. Both
Chelvanayakam and Bandaranaike exhibited their extra-ordinary negotiating
skills and a capacity for compromise, in what was and continues to be a complex
and intricate problem. Every subsequent agreement or proposals placed before
the people of this country derive their basic and fundamental principles from
this pact. These include the Dudley Senanayake – Chelvanayakam Pact of 1965,
the Development Councils Act No.35 of 1980, Annexure ‘C’ of 1983, the Indo-Sri Lanka
Agreement of 1987, and the Devolution Proposals now before the country.
The
B-C Pact incidentally was one of the shortest among these pacts and agreements,
less than three pages. Every subsequent document (with exception of the Dudley -
Chelva Pact) had become longer and longer running into several pages. The
longer these documents become the problem itself becomes more intractable and
complex, providing more scope and space for evasion and procrastination. It must
be said in fairness to both statesmen that they sincerely desired a solution
within the parameters and limitations that their politics had imposed on them.
It is now possible to discern continuity in the approach of the Federal Party
and the subsequent TULF in consistently sticking to the principles as
enunciated in the B-C Pact.
On
the other hand one can also discern a similar trend in the SLFP, now the major
partner in the Peoples Alliance under the leadership of Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga.
One must however admit that the two governments led by Mrs. Bandaranaike made
little or no effort to seek a solution based on the principles laid down by Mr.
Bandaranaike. The Dudley-Chelva Pact couched in different terms sought to
establish a framework for a solution. It however fell far short of the
principles enshrined in the B-C Pact. The subsequent UNP leadership ignored
even this limited advance made by their party at great cost to the country,
until forced by powerful forces both internal and external to arrive at the
Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement of 1987. These are events of recent history. Four
issues figured in the B-C Pact. The Official Language question and the question
of Citizenship for the up-country Tamils have now been legally resolved though
on matters of implementation fall far short of the expectations of the Tamil
people. The unresolved issues are those of regional autonomy and the matter of
land settlement schemes.
Part
B section two and three of the B-C Pact sum up the core issues at stake: (2) that
the Northern Province is to form a regional area whilst the Eastern Province is
to be divided into two or more regional areas. (3) Part (b) section two and
three of the B-C Pact sum up the core issues at stake. That the Northern
Province is to form a regional area whilst the eastern Province is to be
divided into two or more regional areas. Provision is to be made in the Bill to
enable two or more regions to amalgamate even beyond provincial limits; and for
one region to divide itself subject to ratification by parliament. Further
provision is to be made in the Bill for two or more regions to collaborate for
specific purposes of common interests.
The
Dudley Senanayake – Chelvanayakam Pact of 1966 did not go as far as the B-C
pact on District /Regional Councils. It was primarily pre-occupied with the
question of language and land, taking into account the fact that the Srimavo
Bandaranaike government of 1960-64 had done irretrievable harm to the Tamils.
However it did spell out important principles on the land question. In section
4 Mr. Senanayake agreed that granting of land under colonization schemes the
following priorities be observed in the Northern and Eastern provinces. (a)
Land in the Northern and Eastern provinces should in the first instance be
granted to landless persons in the district. (2) Secondly, to Tamil –speaking
persons resident in the Northern and Eastern provinces. Thirdly, to other
citizens in Ceylon, preference being given to Tamil citizens in the rest of the
Island.
Linguistic States, Democratic Rights and
Autonomy
In
seeking to establish an autonomous unit on a linguistic basis Chelvanayakam was
focusing on an issue that had relevance for the whole of South Asia. We have
seen in the period after the Trincomalee resolution the map of India redrawn
and in 1971 the birth of Bangladesh. In India the Constituent Assembly refused
to endorse proposals to constitute states on a linguistic basis. Nehru was
initially opposed to the concept of linguistic states on the grounds that such
a provision would endanger India’s unity and integrity.
He
was forced to revise his position in 1953when the Telugu-speaking state of
Andhra emerged as the first such state. The Commission constituted to Re-organize
States in the Indian Federation while reiterating that the Union of India was
the basis of their nationality conceded the criterion of language as the basis
for constituting a state and said:
“Linguistic
homogeneity provides the only rational basis for reconstituting the state, for
it reflects the social and cultural pattern of living obtaining in well defined
regions of the country.” The process of creating
linguistic states initiated in 1953 culminated in 1960 and resulted in
re-drawing the map of India. This was a major development as Muni suggests
toward incorporating cultural identities into political and administrative
units. The federal devolution of power strengthened this expression of cultural
diversity.
(S.D.Muni,
“Ethnic Conflict, Federalism and Democracy in India,” in Ethnicity and Power in the Contemporary World. Ed.Kumar Rupasinghe
& Valery A. Tishikov, United Nations University Press, Tokyo 1996.)
We
would do well to remind ourselves at this juncture that autonomy is desirable
even in the absence of linguistic, religious and cultural diversity. It is
increasingly being realized in the contemporary world that there is a vital
need for autonomy to guarantee democratic rights and good governance to the
vast masses of people. This is the position taken by the left movement and
human rights and peoples movements. As Hurst Hannum has pointed out, “the
development of autonomous arrangements to serve the interests of a
territorially based group (which is often, although not necessarily, ethnically
and culturally distinct from the dominant society) may respond to three primary
needs. In its broadest sense, autonomy may be an expression of the
self-determination of a people or society, where that people’s choice falls
short of independent statehood. Autonomy may also be a means of ensuring that a
state is truly democratic, so that all significant segments of society are able
to participate effectively in the political and economic decisions which affect
their lives. Finally, autonomy may be viewed primarily as a means of ensuring
that fundamental human rights are protected, by ensuring that a larger polity
can only intervene within the autonomous community within certain specified
limits.
We
have to analyse “autonomy as a component of
democratic governance, In this context, autonomy can exist within a wide
variety of structures from classic federalism to arrangements of confederation,
devolution, or decentralization … ensuring that issues are considered by the
lowest appropriate level of government has long been thought to be politically
desirable.” We have also got to remember that “autonomy is not a panacea,” and
that there is a need for solutions based on mutual respect “plea for pragmatism”
and that is a need for solutions based on mutual respect and tolerance and that
these should remain the ultimate goal of attempts at meaningful conflict
resolution.” (Hurst Hannum, “The right to Autonomy: Chimera or Solution.” in Ethnicity and Power in the Contemporary
World. Ed.Kumar Rupasinghe & Valery A. Tishikov, United Nations
University Press, Tokyo 1996.)
I
do not intend going into the several agreements in the post Chelvanayakam
period. It is however as mentioned above possible to discern a continuity right
up to the present moment, first under the joint leadership of Mr.Amirthalingam
and Mr.Sivasithanparam, and subsequently of the TULF under Mr.Sivasithamparam’s
leadership and other Tamil political parties. The broad based People’s Alliance
today enjoys the backing of nearly all the Tamil members in parliament and a
large segment of the Muslims. The chances of establishing a similar alliance
occurred in 1960 and again in 1964, when the left movement was still strong in
this country. These attempts unfortunately failed. The SLFP has from its
inception, historically, represented the forces of Sinhala nationalism. Mr.Chelvanayakam
being the representative of Tamil nationalism was right both in 1957 and in
1960 in seeking to resolve the outstanding problems facing the Tamils with the
SLFP – the authentic representatives of the forces of Sinhala nationalism. We
have waited for three long decades to see a similar alliance emerge that has
given priority to a resolution of the outstanding problems facing this country.
Any lasting solution must take into account the legitimate aspirations and
fears of the Sinhala people, the Tamils of the North and East and in the
UP-Country, the Muslims and other ethnic groups. When Bandaranaike was
assassinated Principal Selliah of Jaffna College paying a tribute to him at the
College Assembly said that Bandaranaike was a leader who was capable of solving
this problem. In saying so he gave expression to a sentiment that was widely
prevalent among the Tamils. Whether that was right or wrong we can say that Bandaranaike
grasped the essence of the problem and made an effort which no other Sinhalese leader
since then has demonstrated until 1994. Where Bandaranaike was not able to
succeed we hope his daughter will.
These
are days with a proliferation of writings, speeches, centres, institutes,
seminars and discussions of ethnicity. In fact there is an epidemic in this
field, and it is not confined to this country. I have myself been infected by
this epidemic! It is a global phenomenon. We have also witnessed the speed and
ease with which Tamils who have left the country in the last fifteen years – leave
alone those who left much earlier – have lost their cultural identity in the
white man’s world. It is a complex world of rapid changes. In this context I
wish to conclude with a true life anecdote.
Time:
Sometime around 1942-43. Place: Primary school at the St.Paul’s Institution in
Seremban, Malaysia, then Malaya under Japanese occupation. A Japanese officer
walked into our classroom to take a head count of the racial break-up of the
students in the classroom. He asked the Chinese students to stand up and the
Chinese did. There were no Malays (Muslims) in this Catholic school run by
Italian and French priests and brothers. (The Italians and conquered French
were allies of the Japanese regime and were allowed to run this school. American
and British missionaries and teachers were under detention.) Next he called on
the Indian students to stand up and they did as required. We, the Ceylon Tamil
students who were the second largest group next to the Chinese remained seated.
He shouted at us and asked why we did not stand up. We naturally replied that
we were Ceylonese. Visibly angry he ordered us to stand up and screamed, “No
Ceylon, only India.” We were hardly eight years old but had a clear and strong
sense of a Ceylonese identity.
In
1987 I happened to be in Singapore in the month of August. Prime Minister Lee
Kuan Yew’s annual national day address was on the air. It was a speech marked
by his intellectual flair and he dealt at length on the state of the economy
and the challenges faced by the country. He ended his speech with personal
reminiscences. I recall from memory. In the 1930s, he said, we were citizens of
the British Empire and we sang “God Save the King.” Then came the Japanese and
we sang “Kimigayo” the Japanese national anthem. Japan lost the war and it was
back to “God Save the King.” This soon became “God Save the Queen” when King George
VI died. Then Singapore became free and we had our anthem. Then we became a
part of Malaysia and we sand the Malaysian national anthem. In 1965 Singapore
was forced to quit Malaysia and we had our own national anthem. He concluded
his speech with the question “What Next?”
We
have not reached that point in our history to be able to ask what next? The big
question facing us twenty years after the passing away of S.J.V.Chelvanayakam
is what now? Will his aspirations and vision be ever realized? Will we have
peace with justice which we can accept with honour and self respect? Can we
hope that this will be realized in this the fiftieth year after decolonization in
Lanka and even as we celebrate the hundredth birth anniversary of Samuel James Velupillai
Chelvanayakam.
--------------------------------------------------------
Extracts
of this speech were published in Sri Lanka News, Wednesday, April 23, 1997 and
in the Daily News of the same week. It was also relayed over the English Service
of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation.
Speakers
at the meeting included Prof. Sitrampalam of the University of Jaffna, Prof. Sandrasekaram
of the University of Colombo, Mr.Rauf Hakeem M.P and of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress,
Mr. R. Sambandan of the TULF, and Chairman Mr.Sivasithamparam, leader of the TULF.
The short but eloquent speech that evening was delivered by Mr.Bernard Soyza, Cabinet
Minister in the Government of the day and leader of the LSSP sending out a
powerful message favouring justice and equality. It marked a return of the LSSP
to its pre 1972 days, and on this occasion underlined the just demand by the minorities
for devolution/autonomy. Unfortunately
his death robbed the country of one of its last statesmen and a stalwart of the
Lanka Sama Samaja Party.
Also
worth noting is that having lived abroad and not in contact with many that I
had known and interacted with prior to 1983, I received a warm welcome at this
meeting, among others, from Neelan Tiruchelvam M.P., Thangathurai M.P and Mrs.Yogeswaran,
(briefly Mayor for Jaffna) widow of Yogeswaran, one time M.P for Jaffna and assassinated
by the LTTE in 1989. Sad, tragic and unforgettable since this was the last
occasion I met them – all three brutally assassinated shortly after this event.
No comments:
Post a Comment