The Legitimacy Of The Armed Struggle Of

The Tamil People Essay, Research Paper

Democracy may intend submiting to the regulation of the bulk,

but democracy besides means authoritiess by treatment and

persuasion. It is the belief that the minority of today may

go the bulk of tomorrow that ensures the stableness

of a functioning democracy. The pattern of democracy in

Sri Lanka within the confines of a unitary province served to

perpetuate the oppressive regulation of a lasting Sinhalese

bulk.

It was a lasting Sinhala bulk, which through a series of

legislative and administrative Acts of the Apostless, runing from

disenfranchisement, and standardization of University admittances,

to prejudiced linguistic communication and employment policies, and province

sponsored colonization of the fatherlands of the Tamil people,

sough to set up its hegemony over people of Tamil Eelam.

These legislative and administrative Acts of the Apostless were reinforced from

clip to clip with physical onslaughts on the Tamil people with purpose

to terrorize and intimidate them into entry. It was a class

of behavior which led finally to lift of Tamil combativeness in the

mid 1970s with, ab initio, sporadic Acts of the Apostless of force. The combativeness

was met with broad runing retaliatory onslaughts on progressively

big subdivisions of the Tamil people with purpose, one time once more to

repress them. In the late seventiess big Numberss of Tamil young persons

were detained without test and tortured under exigency

ordinances and subsequently under the Prevention of Terrorism Act

which has been described by the International Commission of

Jurists as a & # 8216 ; smudge on the codified book of any civilized state & # 8217 ; . In

1980s and thenceforth, there were random violent deaths of Tamils by

the province security forces and Tamil sureties were taken by the

province when & # 8217 ; suspects & # 8217 ; were non found.

The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

reads:

& # 8220 ; Whereas it is indispensable if adult male is non compelled as a

last resort to rebellion against dictatorship and

subjugation, that human rights should be protected

by the regulation of law. & # 8221 ;

The rise of the armed battle of the Tamil people constituted the

Tamil rebellion against a go oning Sinhala subjugation over a

period of several decennaries. The gross consistent and go oning

misdemeanors of the human rights of the Tamil people have been good

documented by countless studies of human rights

administrations every bit good as of independent perceivers of the Sri

Lankan scene.

Walter Schwarz commented in the Minority Rights Group

Report on Tamils of Sri Lanka, 1983

& # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; The devisings of an embattled freedom motion

now seem assembled: sufferer, captives and a

pathetic mass of refugees. Talk of & # 8216 ; Biafra & # 8217 ; which had

sounded misplaced in 1975, seemed less unreal a

few old ages subsequently & # 8230 ; As this study goes to press in

September 1983, the general mentality for human

rights in Sri Lanka is non promising. The present

struggle has transcended the particular consideration

of minority rights and has reached the point where

the basic human rights of the Tamil community & # 8211 ; the

rights to life and belongings, freedom of address and

ego look and freedom from arbitrary apprehension

hold in fact and in jurisprudence been capable to gross and

continued misdemeanors. The two communities are

hayloft polarised and continued repression coupled

with economic stagnancy can merely bring forth

stronger demands from the embattled minority,

which unless there is a alteration in way by the

cardinal authorities, will ensue in a stronger

Sinhala recoil and the possibility of outright

civil war & # 8221 ; .

David Selbourne remarked in July 1984:

& # 8220 ; The offenses committed by the Sri Lankan province

against the Tamil minority & # 8211 ; against its physical

security, citizenship rights, and political

representation -are of turning gravity.. Report

after study by impartial organic structures & # 8211 ; By Amnesty

International, By the International Commission of

legal experts, By parliamentary delegates from the West

by journalists and bookmans & # 8211 ; have set out clearly the

graduated table of turning devolution of the political and

physical good being of the Tamil minority in Sri

Lanka & # 8230 ; Their cause represents the really kernel of

the cause of human rights and justness ; and to deny

it, debases and reduces us all & # 8221 ; .

A Working Group chaired by Goran Backstrand, of the Swedish

Red Cross at the Second Consultation on Ethnic Violence,

Development and Human Rights, Netherlands, in February 1985

concluded:

& # 8220 ; There was a general consensus that within Sri

Lanka today, the Tamils do non hold the protection

of the regulation of jurisprudence, that the Sri Lankan authorities

nowadayss itself as a democracy in crisis, and that

neither the authorities, nor its friends abroad,

appreciate the serious inroads on democracy which

hold been made by the legislative, administrative,

and military steps which are being taken. The

extreme steps which are presently being

adopted by the authorities necessarily provoke

utmost reactions from the other side & # 8230 ; The normal

life of the ( Tamil ) population of the North has been

earnestly affected. Peoples either have great

trouble or happen it wholly impossible to go on

with their employment and there is a terrible

deficit of nutrient and basic necessities Many Tamils

are day-to-day flying across the Palk Straits to Southern

India. The go oning colonization of Tamil countries

with Sinhala colonists is worsening the

state of affairs & # 8230 ; and the state is on the threshold of civil

war. & # 8221 ;

Senator A.L.Missen, Chairman, Australian Parliamentary Group

of Amnesty International, expressed his turning concern in

March 1986:

& # 8220 ; Some 6000 Tamils have been killed wholly in

the last few old ages & # 8230 ; These events are non

accidental. It can be seen that they are the consequence of

a deliberate policy on the portion of the Sri Lankan

authorities & # 8230 ; Democracy in Sri Lanka does non

exist in any existent sense. The democracy of Sri Lanka

has been described in the undermentioned footings, footings

which are a just and accurate description: & # 8216 ; The

reluctance to keep general elections, the muzzling of

the resistance imperativeness, the continued trust on

extraordinary powers unknown to a free

democracy, arbitrary detainment without entree to

attorneies or dealingss, anguish of detainees on a

systematic footing, the bullying of the bench by

the executive, the disenfranchisement of the

resistance, an ex

ecutive President who holds

dateless letters of surrender from members of the

legislative assembly, an elected President who publically

declares his deficiency of attention for the lives or sentiment of a

subdivision of his electorate, and the continued

subjection of the Tamil people by a lasting

Sinhala bulk, within the confines of an unitary

constitutional frame, constitute the world of

& # 8216 ; democracy & # 8217 ; , Sri Lankan style. & # 8221 ;

The studies speak for themselves and that which emerges is a

chilling form of a 40 twelvemonth genocide onslaught on the Tamil

people intended to repress them within an unitary Sinhalese

Buddhist province.

Karen Parker of the Non Governmental Human Rights

Administration, International Educational Development put it

compactly at the 42nd Sessions of UN Sub Commission on the

Protection of Minorities.

& # 8220 ; The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provinces

that all individuals, including members of minority

groups, have the right to the full realization of their

human rights and to an international order in which

their rights can be realised.

The Sri Lanka state of affairs has shown that for the yesteryear

40 old ages, the Sinhala controlled authorities has

been unwilling and unable to advance and protect

the human rights of the Tamil population, and the

Tamil population has consequently lost all assurance

in any present or future willingness or ability of the

Sinhala bulk to make so. Are people in this

state of affairs required to settle for less than their full

rights. Can the international community impose on a

people a forced matrimony they no longer want and

in which they can clearly show they have

been Abused? & # 8230 ; We consider that in the instance of Sri

Lanka, 40 old ages is clearly plenty for any group to

delay for their human rights. & # 8221 ;

The dwellers of the Northeast of the island of Sri Lanka

represent a & # 8216 ; people & # 8217 ; and are thereby entitled to the right of ego

finding. Since it has been recognised that the exercising of

this right is non designed to rule others but instead to get away

domination by others, the international community, through the

General Assembly Resolutions on Friendly Relations Among

States ( Resolution 2625 ) and on Definition of Aggression ( move 7 )

and 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva convention of

1949 ( Act 1 C4 ) , declared that as a last resort armed battle

can be used as a method of exerting the right of ego

finding. The Sri Lankan authoritiess usage of force in

denying the Tamil & # 8217 ; s right to self finding is in misdemeanor of

Articles 1 ( 2 ) , 1 ( 3 ) , 2 ( 4 ) and 56 of the United Nations Charter.

The Tamil people have been subjected to barbarous and petroleum

personal psychological and institutional force by the Sri Lanka

authorities and its bureaus. The Sri Lanka Government has

built up a monolithic 70,000 member armed force constituted

entirely of Sinhalese and allocated huge financess for its

support. The Tamils have resorted to weaponries to support themselves

and the war being waged by the Liberation Tigers is a defensive

war. Unlike the steps adopted by the Sri Lankan

authorities, this battle is non aimed at domination ; alternatively it

serves to protect the autonomous individuality of the Tamil people.

The armed battle of the Tamil people is both merely and lawful

because the regulation of jurisprudence for the Tamil people had ceased to be ;

because the Government of Sri Lanka had become a racialist

authorities ; and because the laden people of that racialist

authorities were compelled to fall back to weaponries to support

themselves against that subjugation.

Based on ground and international jurisprudence and coupled with the

absence of any internal or external machinery to gain the Tamil

right to self finding, the Tamils opposition evolved from

peaceable agitation to armed battle. As Professor Reisman of

the Yale Law School provinces, & # 8220 ; insisting on non force and

respect to all established in a & # 8230 ; system with many unfairnesss

can be tantamount to verification and support of these

unfairnesss. In some fortunes force may be the last

appeal.. of a group.. for some step of human self-respect.

The international community & # 8217 ; s acknowledgment of a & # 8220 ; People & # 8217 ; s & # 8221 ; right to

support themselves and to utilize force to procure their legitimate

political aims is reinforced by the modern-day political

discourse. The formation of armed forces by the Ukraine,

Moldavia ; Georgia and Armenia and the European Community & # 8217 ; s

Peace program for Yugoslavia & # 8217 ; s current crisis are all cogent evidence of the

above mentioned proposition.

The legitimacy of the armed struggle of the people of Tamil Eelam

was afforded unfastened international acknowledgment when the battlers

in the armed struggle, participated in negotiations with a specially

appointed Minister of the authorities of Sri Lanka at meetings

convened by the Indian Government at Thimphu in 1985. It was

a legitimacy which was reinforced in February 1987, by the

United Nations Commission on Human Right when it adopted a

declaration on Sri Lanka in which the armed struggle was

discussed in footings of human-centered jurisprudence. Again, it was a legitimacy

which the Indo Sri Lankan Agreement signed by the Prime

Minister of India and the President of Sri Lanka in July 1987,

recognised when it described the Tamil hawkish motion as

& # 8216 ; battlers & # 8217 ; in an armed struggle. Finally, in 1989/90, the

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam engaged in direct negotiations with the

authorities of Sri Lanka and were accorded acknowledgment as

battlers.

The statement made on behalf of the joint Front of Tamil

Liberation Administrations at the Thimphu Talks in 1985 serves to

underscore the merely and lawful nature of the battle of the Tamil

people:

& # 8220 ; We are a release motion which was

compelled to fall back to the force of weaponries because all

force of ground had failed to convert the

consecutive Sri Lankan authorities in the yesteryear.

Further under conditions of national subjugation and

the intensification of province terrorist act and race murder

against our people, the demand for a separate province

go the lone logical look of the

oppressed Tamil people. Our armed battle is the

manifestation of that logical expression. & # 8221 ;

The hereafter of that lawful armed struggle clearly falls to be

determined in the context of the security of the Tamil people and

their right to self finding and these are affairs for

declaration across a negotiating tabular array, non in vacuity.