Wigneswaran saga is not a political

issue Sampanthan

I belong to Sri Lanka Sri Lanka belongs to me Opposition Leader R. Sampanthan

Courtesy: Sunday Observer

( September 6, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Guardian) After finding ones way up four flights of the dusty and poorly lit outside
staircase to Rajavarothiam Sampanthans flat in the MPs housing scheme at
Keppetipola Mawatha, Colombo, on Friday evening, one cannot but feel for the 82year-old lawyer-cum-political leader. But, despite the usual health challenges of age,
physically frail, the somewhat portly, cherubic patriarch of Tamil politics is not. And this

veteran politician remains as mentally astute as he always has been over his decadeslong leadership of his community as, relaxing in verti and bush-shirt in his tiny sitting
room, he laughs away concerns about his housing inadequacies, and replies probing
questions about his outlook as Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.
Excerpts
Q: All these years you have been known as the pre-eminent leader of the Tamils of Sri
Lanka, having outlived all those militant leaderships, including the LTTE. As Leader of
the Opposition, you will be actually monitoring the work of the Government over the
next five years on behalf of not just the Tamils but on behalf of ALL the citizens of the
country irrespective of ethnicity, religion or class. Do you see it like that? Will there be
any clash of interests between your direct electoral mandate as a Tamil
parliamentarian and your required constitutional role as Opposition Leader?
A: I belong to Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka also belongs to me. I have become leader of
the opposition as a Sri Lankan Parliamentarian representating all the citizens of this
country. There are many vital issues in this country that need to be resolved. I will
continue to work for a reasonable, workable and durable solution to the Tamil question.
This will be also of significance for the whole polity and all of its people. On all issues, I
will work closely with all the parties in the Opposition. We will oppose the Government
whenever it needs to be opposed, and we will support the Government on all
progressive moves and legislature to meet the urgent national needs.
Q: Although you say you will work with all Opposition parties, there could be issues
where the positions of different parties in the Opposition will be too divergent to allow
for consensus especially on the Tamil Question and the issue of power-sharing and
autonomy arrangements. Some Opposition parties may oppose Government initiatives
in this regard whereas the TNA may wish to support. How could you then function as
Opposition Leader?
A: We will always try to build a consensus on issues. But certain issues may never see
a real consensus and we should not be delayed by that. We will endeavour to explain
and clarify issues and our positions on them as much as possible. In some cases we
may have to go along with the greatest collective agreement on a particular issue even
if some groups do not agree and choose to remain on the margins. We want to ensure
the maximum possible agreement on power-sharing and devolution. If certain forces
choose to be difficult, then it is inevitable that the more moderate forces will come
together and move forward.
Q: As head of the TNA, in recent weeks you have said that the TNA, even while
remaining in the Opposition, is prepared to support a UNP-led coalition government to
stay in power. Does not such a position confuse the public about your legitimacy as
the main parliamentary opposition?
A. We supported President Maithripala Sirisenas presidency to ensure an end to a
very corrupt and dictatorial regime, and we are still committed to sustaining the good
governance movement that has been initiated through Mr. Sirisenas victory. The
parliamentary elections of August have heralded a further transformation of

governance.
Q: In the most recent elections at national level, there has been a more enthusiastic
participation by the mass of Tamil voters as can be seen in the voter participation rates
in the North and the East. Does this mean that, after decades of sympathy, if not active
support for, separatism, the Tamils are now on a different track that excludes
secession? Will this be a useful platform for negotiations on power-sharing?
A: It is not very accurate to say that there was active mass support for secession. In
fact as far back as in the 1970 general election, the Federal Party (ITAK), in its
manifesto, called on Tamils to oppose separatism and to defeat candidates espousing
secession. In that election, every candidate who espoused separatism was defeated.
It was the enactment of the 1972 Constitution which did not accommodate the
reasonable Tamil proposals, that resulted in the Vaddukoddai Resolution of 1976
demanding restoration of Tamil sovereignty.
If the tragedy of the 1983 riots encouraged more sympathy for separatism, the 1987
Indo-Lanka Agreement was a turning point with Tamil sentiment moving away from
separatist leanings and an acceptance of devolution within an undivided Sri Lanka.
Even in 1977, when the TULF was elected on a separatist platform, the then TULF
leader (Appapillai) Amirthalingam, did not cling to separatism. He later moderated his
position. Today all communities have realised that violence can get them nowhere, that
violence can make things more difficult. The Tamil people today vote overwhelmingly
for a platform that advocates a settlement based on an unified Sri Lanka.
Q: But can you say that all communities have given up on violence? Isnt it possible
to argue that, since the armed forces defeated the LTTE militarily in 2009 (which
certainly brought a modicum of stability), there could be many Sri Lankans especially
the Sinhalese who will feel that violence can and has worked?
A: The military operations against the LTTE, which was a violent movement, cannot be
equated with violence against the Tamils. I refer to the violence against innocent Tamil
civilians. Today, the lesson has been learnt that it is not the way to deal with the Tamil
question. The LTTEs violence was the consequence of the serial failure to resolve the
Tamil querstion in engagement with the Tamil moderate leaderships. For example, the
non-implementation of the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact, the failure of our
proposals for the 1972 Constitution, etc.
Q: At a time when the LTTE was claiming to be the sole representative of the Tamil
people, the TNA was seen to be in coalition with them. Was this a result of coercion?
After all the Tigers assassinated many Tamil civilian political leaders.
A: The TNAs engagement with the LTTE was similar to the engagement by
successive Sri Lankan governments with the Tigers in efforts to bring about an end to
the war. Not only Sri Lanka governments, but foreign governments, international
bodies and many NGOs engaged with the LTTE in such peace endeavours. So it was
our responsibility to make every effort to engage with them in whatever way possible.
It was not easy but we had to try, whatever others may say.

Q: The TNA has chosen to coordinate with the JVP in the Opposition. But in 1987, the
JVP was firmly opposed to the provincial devolution mechanism although it later did
participate in Provincial Councils. Is it easier to work with them today?
A: There are many groups that took up hardline positions in the past but have realised
the complexities and have become far more flexible today.
Q: When you talk of a comprehensive settlement of the ethnic problem, do you have in
mind any particular track or format to initiate moves such as an all-party conference?
A: It is too early to make any indications immediately. Let us see how things develop in
the coming months. There are many people and groups all with various useful ideas.
There is much to be done.
Q: The UN Human Rights Council meeting comes up this month. There is a constant
refrain among some groups about war crimes. How central is this war crimes issue
to the resolution of the Tamil question. Isnt the issue of war crimes only one of
interpretation of the wide range of human rights violations that occurred during the
war? Will this be an obstacle to negotiations?
A: Our objective as the TNA is for a comprehensive settlement of the Tamil question
and we will not be distracted just by subsidiary issues. For a comprehensive
settlement we first need to establish the truth about what has happened and rectify
these issues. Justice must brought to all violations of rights and it should be based on
the truth. Those who are found to be responsible, must be made accountable.
Q: Will you attempt to revive the useful parliamentary practice of a Shadow Cabinet?
Any idea of appointing shadow ministers to monitor government action?
A: That is a useful practice, but we have to see how the current Opposition
coordinates before we can hope to have that kind of sophisticated system of
Opposition parliamentary politics.
Q: As Leader of the Opposition, what are your immediate and most urgent priorities at
national level?
A: Our priorities in Parliament are the achievement of good governance, the
restoration of law and order, an end to corruption, an end to economic waste arising
from corruption and poor governance, a redressing of human rights violations and
compensation for victims of violence. We want to put the whole system right again.
Q: But what about your electoral mandate to resolve the Tamil question?
A. The Tamil question is one of the burning issues of the failure of governance and will
necessarily be part of the restoration of good governance. That is only one issue at
national level.
Q: Northern Province Chief Minister Wigneswaran is a TNA member but seems to be
out of synch with the TNA at national level .
A: Mr. Wigneswaran is a provincial leader with his own outlook on regional affairs. This

is a matter of internal party coordination of policy. We are working on that. This is not a
political issue.
Posted by Thavam