BETA

British MP Simon Hughes is reported to have said in the course of the recent House of Commons debate on Sri Lanka; "if later the Tamil people voted for independence, unharassed and without any pressure, that would raise other issues the world would have to accommodate that through proper international recognition ."  Now, in my view the matter is probably academic since I doubt whether the majority of Tamils support independence, but that is beside the point. The topic of this article is this: If, hypothetically, "without pressure or harassment", a majority did support independence, what then?

Sovereignty and self-determination

The concept of sovereignty of a nation state traditionally lays emphasis on non-interference in its internal affairs by other states; it's about letting countries get on their own economic, social and cultural policies without others dictating terms. This concept is not necessarily opposed to recognizing the right to self-determination for constituents of the nation state. The old USSR constitution explicitly incorporated such a right, though what would have happened if one of the units had tried to secede is moot. My point is that, conceptually, a sovereign state, whose constitution recognises the right to self-determination of some of its constituent citizens, is perfectly logical and non-contradictory; sovereignty and the right to self-determination are logically compatible.

There is a further version of 'sovereignty and territorial integrity' which prohibits secession; an example is the 6th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution. This vicious Amendment threatens persons or organisations who espouse or support secession, even by peaceful and democratic means, with dire consequences including imprisonment and the confiscation of property; probably music to the ear's of the aforementioned ilk. Members of the Scottish National Party would be behind bars if the UK had legislated similarly.

Remember that JR rushed this Amendment through in the aftermath of the 1983 mayhem, just to make sure mobs could rampage with impunity and the victims not demand to secede! This makes the purpose of the Amendment doubly clear.
All this should not be confused with the right of the international community to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign state in the event of gross human rights violations. This is a different issue; it is about the limits of national sovereignty. International intervention in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Timor, Sudan (Darfur) and possibly before long in Zimbabwe have clearly demonstrated that national sovereignty is on a short leash, as it should be, in the event of widespread human rights violations. The two issues are conceptually separate but often conflated in people's minds because, in practice, they often overlap; denial or violation of rights may be the trigger for self-determination demands. In this article, however, I wish to keep them separate; self-determination irrespective of whether it is accompanied by rights violations is my theme today.

The Marxist perspective

The litmus test of a Marxist is said to be attitude to the national question – the acid test that the self-styled Marxist JVP fails appallingly. In simple words, the right to self-determination means that if a distinct group of people, with a clear and separate identity, living in a clearly separate land area, wish to detach themselves into a separate nation state, then the democratic left should defend their right to do so. In a specific instance the left may deem secession to be unwise and erroneous and may make strenuous efforts to persuade the said community not to secede, but always subject to accepting the community's decision as final. This attitude is in sharp contrast with those who see the nation state as a sacred entity never to be soiled by base human tinkering.

This raises an obvious difficulty; what if the other part, the Sinhalese majority if one were to use Sri Lanka as an example, were to strenuously object to separation, as it manifestly does in our case? The answer is 'tough luck'; it takes two to tango or to stay married but only one to say "adios" - the response to the majority rejecting minority self-determination rights all over the world is the same. There are, however, complications in divorce like custody of children and partition of property and in national separation whether the seceding community inhabits a distinct land area becomes crucial, as discussed next.

Necessary and sufficient conditions

Self-determination theory leans on three factors:-
a) The existence of a distinct community with a clear identity,
b) living in a clearly separate land area, and
c) with a proven wish, manifested over a period of time, to secede.

In Sri Lanka, it is agreed by almost everybody, even chauvinists, that the N-E Tamils, Muslims and Upcountry Tamils constitute separate ethnic groups with a clear consciousness of their own separate identity. Therefore there is no doubt that the N-E Tamils are a 'nation' in respect of  (a). The word 'nation' has a rather special usage among Marxists when discussing the National Question and this special usage includes (a) and (b) together.
Regarding item (b), an obvious difficulty arises in respect of the Eastern Province. If one speaks of the land area of the N-E Tamils, then one can only definitely say that it includes all or nearly all of the Northern Province and some parts of the Eastern Province. To put it another way, all we can say with confidence is that the minimum area of a hypothetical Tamil state will include all or nearly all of the Northern Province and some parts of the East.

What do the Tamils really want?

An even greater difficulty arises when it comes to (c) since there have been no free and fair elections or referenda in the Tamil areas for decades. Hence different people have different conjectures of what Tamil opinion really is. There are those who believe that the Tamils overwhelmingly support the LTTE and want Thamil Eelam, at the other end there are others who believe that the Tamils really love the Sinhala state and are yearning to escape from the LTTE and accept its embrace.
My own estimate is neither of these. In terms of degrees of support I think less than 1/3rd of Tamils align themselves with the LTTE and the Eelam project, more than another 1/3rd support the LTTE-TNA combination, and a final 1/3rd are anti-LTTE/TNA, or pro-UNP, or just uninterested in all this. This is what Tamils when talking loosely call the simple 1/3rd-1/3rd-1/3rd rule. It is a rough estimate and a referendum or free election may prove me wrong; but let me stay with this simplification.

One thing, however, seems certain; no Tamil wants the LTTE defeated until after the national question is settled. They know that not past, nor present, nor future Sinhalese governments will take any notice of snivelling Tamils, let alone share power or grant federalism, if the LTTE is militarily vanquished. Despite the LTTE subjecting them to much coercion and stealing their democratic rights, the great majority of Tamils want the national question sorted out first.

So my answer to the question of what do the majority of Tamils really want is as follows: (i) Not Eelam, (ii) military success for the LTTE until there is a settlement, (iii) a high degree of autonomy in the settlement since they do not see today's so-called Sri Lankan state as incorporating them, (iv) fear of the LTTE and possibly rejecting it after a settlement. If you deem any part of this equation erroneous, no problem, be my guest and feel free to disagree.

A personal statement
When discussing self-determination in present day Lanka a brief personal statement in helpful to assist readers gauge an article in context. This writer, nominally a Tamil, believes that it is detrimental for the Tamil people, as well as for the Sinhalese, if the former were to secede; detrimental from long term economic, strategic and democratic-political considerations. This appraisal is true, I think, despite the last 50 years of blood and deprivation. Hence I will make an effort to discourage those Tamils I interact with from seeking a separate state. However, if the majority replies: "Thank you, but no thank you; we have decided to go the other way", then I will, with equal resolve, stand for their right to secede. A simple analogy is that old adage about free speech: "I may fervently disagree with you, but I will vigorously defend your right to have your say".

Coutesy: Sunday Island, Sri Lanka