(9) Problems of perception - supporters of the state - An outsider's comments on the Sri Lankan conflict

Many opponents of the LTTE accuse them of being intransigent. They complain that the LTTE is fanatically devoted to secession and will not compromise – say, with a new federal constitution, or regional devolution.

Actually, after decades of foolhardy intransigence when offered reasonable devolution-based solutions, by 2002-3 the LTTE was prepared to compromise – not that its enemies believed them. It was the refusal of Mahinda Rajapaksa and his extreme right-wing allies to accept a federal solution that closed the door to compromise.

But the real point is this. Sinhalese nationalists and their apologists have been every bit as intransigent as the LTTE. Their intransigence lies in not being able to conceive of a partition of Sri Lanka.

And it is not just the extremists who are caught up in this intransigence. It seems self-evident and obvious to many Sri Lankans that their island is a single nation and that the geographical border of their state should be the ocean shore. The idea that the land should be divided appears to them to be a monstrous and irrational proposition.

But in truth, the notion of a separate state for the Tamils is absolutely reasonable as a concept. There is no historical, economic, demographic or moral reason why the island of Lanka should all be under the control of the same, unitary state.

Neither is the notion of self-determination for the Tamils, or for the North and East, intrinsically unreasonable. There is no reason why referenda should not be held in these regions to determine whether their inhabitants want a separate state.

Personally, I think that a partition of Sri Lanka would be a bad idea. I favour a strong federal constitution, with a power-sharing structure for the central executive, and possibly full independence for the Jaffna peninsula in a manner similar to that ceded to Singapore by Malaya. But while I think partition would be a mistake, as a proposition it is reasonable, and there is nothing in the history of Sri Lanka, modern or ancient, that mitigates against it.

And so my message to Sinhalese nationalists and their apologists who support a unitary state is as follows:

Try to realise that the emotions you feel about the contiguity of your island are false emotions. When you feel that sense of Lankan unity dancing through your heart and setting you aglow, what you are really feeling is the bite within you of a puppeteer’s string.

Your puppeteer is the demon of White, Western nationalism. The fact that you cannot imagine or countenance even the concept of the partition of Ceylon is evidence of how deeply, and for how many long generations and decades, you and your leaders have been in his thrall.

Similarly, when you get angry – more than angry, enraged – at what you label as ignorant outsiders’ meddling, just think for a moment. Your anger is far too hot. Once again, the nationalist string is pulling within you, along with a second string whose bite is also of such second nature you think it is an intrinsic part of you, such that you have learned to savour it and enjoy your indignation.

This is the string of post-colonial resentment. You detest your former masters still telling you what is best. You detest being patronised by these hypocrites. This is why you are so eager to get into bed with countries like China and Iran, who, quite apart from cash, give you the “respect” you crave, but smirk behind your back at how easy it is to push your buttons.

Your assumptions about the natural unity of Sri Lanka as a country, and the anger you feel when people question the concept of a single, unitary “nation”, are irrational. They are indicative of pathology. The cure is to cut the cords and stand on your own two feet, truly and not in the ugly and contorted way one does on puppeteers’ strings.