Status Quo Ante for Sri Lanka?

Sixty one years (and one day) ago, on the fourth day of February in 1948, Sri Lanka gained political independence from Britain.  Lanka's independence marked the end of a protracted history of colonial dominance beginning with the Portuguese in the 16th century, continuing with the Dutch in the 17th and 18th centuries, and extending to the mid-twentieth century with the British (just over 350 years of foreign domination).  Since gaining independence, Sri Lanka has struggled to reconcile its disparate ethnic, religious, and linguistic identities, and for just under half of Sri Lanka's history as an independent nation, the country has been engaged in a civil war.  In most international web and newspaper articles regarding the contemporary political situation in Sri Lanka, a stock addendum relates a brief history of the war (ie. formation of LTTE, ethnic war commences '83, temporary cease fire '02, heavy fighting resumes '06).  Though this 'go-to' stock addendum gets across the basic chronology of the conflict, the complexity of the situation is utterly lost.  Now (perhaps this month or next), there will probably be a small addition to the addendum: "victory '09, civil war ends."  If the addendum was incomplete before, it will only grow to be more so, as the use of the word "victory" fails to communicate the shattered status of the Lankan aggregate.  

It is easy to see that the war has wreaked havoc on Sri Lanka over the last quarter of a century, and, for many, an end to the war and an end to the LTTE is a welcome prospect.  Many Sri Lankans feel a mixture of optimism and caution as the government continues to eradicate the Tiger force in the North.  But what comes next?  After a so-called victory, what is Sri Lanka left with?  Sri Lanka remains a nation of ethnic plurality and dislocation.  So, before a true victory can be declared, the country must construct and promote a 'durable solution' which–it has been argued–must come in the form of inclusivity and true equality.  

I've included an excerpt from an article by Tissa Jayatilleka, the Chairman of the Fulbright Commission of Sri Lanka, in which he discusses what finding a 'durable solution' entails, and what might be in store for the country if there is no resolution,– "victory" or no victory.  

"Given Sri Lanka's self-inflicted wounds that have now festered for over twenty five years, we are today, as a state, perilously close to turning gangrenous[...]  If the war continues and if the Sri Lankan Forces were to prevail against all odds, it will most likely result in a return to the status quo ante – the dominance of our Tamil and Muslim citizens by the Sinhalese.  This[...] is precisely what happened when the "Insurrection" of April 1971 was put down by the State.  Most, if not all, of the grievances of the marginalized social groups that gave leadership to that revolt have not yet been addressed with the care and the attention they ought to have received.  At best we have sought to change pillows to cure a headache[...]  Hence priority number one is a speedy end to war and the consequent sharing of political power with all of our citizens.

"I am all too aware that there are those who claim to belong to "the Realist School" of Sri Lankan politics who feel that arguments and suggestions as explicated above are off the wall.  To these 'Realists' one has to be either a bleeding heart liberal, a hopeless idealist or a deracinated Sri Lankan to subscribe to non-sectarianism and secularism.  They are of the opinion that a conscientious objector is an unpatriotic citizen or a false alarmist out to undermine the heroic deeds of our Security Forces personnel.  Furthermore, these "Realists" are of the view that the lives of the poorer segments of our society (for none of their progeny is on the battlefront) are somehow expendable in the larger interests of re-establishing Sinhala supremacy.  They thus seek to lead only by precept, not by example.  They seem to fail to realize that "capturing" or "re-capturing" territory is only half the battle won.  Holding such recaptured territory with authority is another matter as we learnt to our enormous cost in the 1990s.  Moreover we may yet win the battle and lost the war so long as we continue to think and act in exclusivist terms.  I insist that if we are ever to win a sustainable peace in our bleeding country, we have to be inclusive not exclusive.  To truly defeat the LTTE, we have to treat all of our Tamil citizens as our equal partners with all of the rights and obligations they are entitled and subject to under our Constitution.  of course if goes without saying that our other fellow citizens, the Muslims, Malays, Burghers and others must also be guaranteed the same rights if national stability is to be re-established."  

As a final thought, I wanted to mention how the Independence day celebrations on the 4th of February and the enthusiasm that is currently circulating about the upcoming "victory," feels distinctly "Sinhalese" in tone (and decidedly not wholly inclusive).  Perhaps it feels this way because I am surrounded almost exclusively by Sinhalese, but the patriotism felt in Sri Lanka today, reminds me of the post-9/11 patriotism in the U.S.  As our nation grieved, it seemed organic and cathartic to express national solidarity.  The national solidarity that emerged after 9/11, however, soon became distorted; in my opinion, patriotism was manipulated to an Orwellian degree.  Patriotism can easily become a means for exclusion and other-ing, and when patriotism is thus twisted into jingoism, you'll find it to be a wickedly slippery slope.  So, paressam karagena yanna... proceed carefully.