© 2001 - The contents of this page are owned solely by THE LANKA ACADEMIC and Lanka Academic Network. Reproduction in any form is prohibited except when proper credits are assigned to THE LANKA ACADEMIC and/or to http://www.theacademic.org.

The Lanka Academic carried an online "Question and Answer" session with Mr. Lakshman Kadiragamar, Presidents Counsel, Member of Parliament, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and the special adviser on Foreign Affairs to the President of Sri Lanka, from to March 11, 2003 to April 10, 2003. Below are the questions from our readers and the answers by Mr. Kadiragamar.

BIOGRAPHY

Mr. Lakshman Kadiragamar, Presidents Counsel and Member of Parliament, is a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and is currently the special adviser on Foreign Affairs to the President of Sri Lanka. An illustrious alumnus of Trinity College, he, captained the college first eleven Cricket team in 1950 while also competing in the college athletic and rugger teams. In recognition of his all round performance in academic and extra curricular spheres he was awarded the Ryde Gold medal for the best all round student. Mr. Kadirgamar went on to study law at the University of Ceylon, graduated with a Bachelor of Laws (Honors) degree in 1953 and became the top student in the First Class at the Advocates Intermediate Examination in 1953. In 1954 he won the Scholarship for the candidate placed first in the First Class at the Advocates Final Examination of the Ceylon Law College and was awarded prizes for the Law of Evidence and the Law of Persons and Property. He was admitted to the Ceylon Bar in 1955. Later, at Oxford University, UK, where he received his B.LITT degree, Mr. Kadiragamar he attained the rare distinction of being one of the few Sri Lankans ever to have been elected to be the President of the Oxford Union. Mr. Kadirgamar is the author of a number of scholarly articles published in international legal journals such as the Modern Law Review, The South African Law Journal and The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer, etc. An ardent international civil servant of impeccable credentials, Mr. Kadiragamar, held many positions in numerous international organizations including the ILO, International Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC) and South Asia Foundation (SAF). In 1963, he was the Special Commissioner of Amnesty International to investigate Buddhist Catholic clashes in Vietnam.

22	Sun Mar 30 00:27:21 EST 2003 Dear Mr. Kadiragamar, You are dealing with Norwegian negotiators from the inception of the peace talks. Sometimes, you were very harsh with them, especially with Mr. Eric. As an international political expert, what do you think about the real motive behind the Norwegian involvement in Sri Lanka peace process?  -  Trevor Joseph, Toronto Canada Answer: Not available yet.
21	Tue Mar 25 05:02:59 EST 2003 Mr Kadirgamar, Of Late, mainstream schools have encountered competition from International schools in luring students away into English medium streams. There is a noticeable decline in standards in mainstream schools... in particular at Trinity College your Alma Mater of which youa re an illustrious product. What is your view on arresting this decline in general? [Edited by moderator]  -  V.R.K.A Muragedera, Melbourne, Australia Answer: Not available yet.
20	Tue Mar 18 01:06:43 EST 2003 When you seconded the name of Mahinda Rajapakse for the post of Leader of the Opposition, you told the central committee of the SLFP that it needs to change its outlook and make it a more minority friendly party. One year since then, do you feel the SLFP is heading in the correct direction?  -  A. C. N. Joseph, Colombo Answer: Not available yet.
19	Sun Mar 16 06:54:41 EST 2003 I would like to first thank and congratulate you on the bold statement you recently made identifying yourself first as a Sri Lankan and then as a Tamil. Dare I say had there been more politicians, leaders and ordinary citizens who identified themselves in similar terms both from among the Sinhalese and Tamils,we would not have the problems of today. Now to my question: Are you in a possition to reliably comment on whether the LTTE ship recently sunk by the navy was engaged in arms smuggling as as alleged by the SL Navy and later implied as correct by the US ambassador who had labelled it a "gross violation of the caesefire agreement" or not as claimed by the LTTE. What implications would the ammendments to the caesefire agreement the Notwegians are now contemplating to "protect merchant ships of LTTE", have on the potential for LTTE to further engaged in arms smuggling undetected?  -  Chula Rajapakse, Wellingto New Zealand Answer: Not available yet.
18	Sat Mar 15 13:45:48 EST 2003 The previous PA regime was a disaster by any standards. Now you are asking the people to give you back power. What radical transformation has the PA undergone, duing the past 1 1/2 years for people to take you seriously?  -  Sunil Perera, USA Answer: Not available yet.
17	Sat Mar 15 03:07:13 EST 2003 Sir, It is positive that some form of negotiations is in progress. Is it okay that LTTE represents the entire tamil population? The backround is violent, also they have still not changed their attitude. Now they do not operate in Sinhala areas, but terrorising in Tamil and muslim areas of the North and East. They do not allow other political organisations to operate in the NE. What will be the plight of the people of these areas after a settlement? Muslims are promised of a seperate administration by our president, if PA was to take charge soon. that means diving the island into smaller units. Is it not better to carve out that area in the east where muslims are in the majority, to come under the jurisdictions of the central govt.? thanks Neutral  -  Neutral, Lankan abroad Answer: Not available yet.
16	Fri Mar 14 01:08:07 EST 2003 Would you comment about the resolution adoptd by the inaugural session of the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Katchi(Lanka Tamil State Party or Federal Party) in 1951 declaring self-determination of the Tamil people and the three principles presented by the Tamil political party representatives at Thimpu Talks in 1985 regarding (a) Tamil Homeland (b) self-determination of the Tamil people (c) Tamil people as a distinct nationality with two nations in one country. Does the SLFP now accept these principles as a basis to resolve the insurrection launched by the LTTE on behalf of the Tamil people and if not how do you propose to end this insurrection to bring peace to the country. Has the SLFP reached some understanding with the JVP regarding these principles stated above. Daya Gamage-Las Vegas, Nevada,USA  -  Daya Gamage, Las Vegas,Nevada,USA Answer: Not available yet.
15	Thu Mar 13 20:47:27 EST 2003 Your existence in the PA regime was well recognized and respected by the present Sri Lankan President; and as a result, You have been serving as the closest AIDE of the President. What do you think about your future in PA politics in the absence of the presidency of Mrs. Chandrika Kumaratunga?  -  Mathi Kanapathipillai, Toronto, Canada Answer: Not available yet.
14	Thu Mar 13 08:38:04 EST 2003 Earlier, Tamil moderates pleaded the Sri Lankan Government for settlement, thus reached Banda/ Dudley -Chelva agreements, which were dumped later. In contrary, currently, LTTE's might forces the government for an agreement with Tamils, thus chances of implementation are brighter. However, under MOU, government is allowed to acquire military wares but not LTTE, which may weaken the LTTE, if that happen, what is the assurances that the new agreement/proposals will not face the same fate as the earlier ones. K.Arulananthan, Colombo  -  K. Arulananthan, Colombo Answer: Not available yet.
13	Thu Mar 13 06:47:54 EST 2003 Dear Sir, As a peace loving Sri-Lankan Tamil, I welcome your view that you consider yourself as a Sri-Lankan first before considering ethnicity. But, as a Sri-Lankan Tamil-Academic/Politician could you please recommed me any Sri-Lankan tamil-political organisation or any Tamil-Poloitician I could work together in future for the betterment of Sri-Lankans.  -  Yoganathan Putra, Germany Answer: I am sorry I am not able to recommend instantly a Sri Lankan Tamil political organisation or any Tamil politician you could work together with in future for the betterment of Sri Lankans. But I will make inquiries to see whether I can find such persons or organisations. If I find them I will certainly get in touch with the moderator of this series and give him some particulars which he could pass on to you.
12	Wed Mar 12 23:48:14 EST 2003 Dear Mr Kathirgamar I am a Tamil born in Jaffna to parents from Mulliattivu. My father was a government servant and in 1987 was severely wounded by a shell blast. Now he lives in Canada and is still unable to breath and eat as result of injury inflicted on him. My brother-in-law was detained by the Sri Lankan army while travelling from Trincomalee, and is still missing. It is just not myself but, almost every one I know have undergone the same. It seems, that it never stopped. I fled Sri Lanka unable to bear the mental agony of war. I cannot fathom the meaning of "Democratic Republic" of Sri Lanka. Having lived in Canada I have experienced value of human life (ie, in the way manner in which my father has been looked after) and the dignity and respect of an individual. My question is, how do you think that the Sri Lankan government could help to heal people like us. Seeing the squabble between the two main stream parties of Sri Lanka today, it seems to me that they are not even remotely closer to addressing this issue. Thank you in Advance Regards Suresh  -  Suresh, Canada Answer: It makes me very sad indeed to read the harrowing details of the pain and suffering inflicted on your father who was a government servant severely wounded by a shell blast in 1987. Similar pain and suffering have been inflicted on a large number of Tamils who during the 80's left Sri Lanka and for very good reasons. The question of helping to heal people like you and your family is a major problem that confronts any government in Sri Lanka. A report of a Presidential Commission which went into the events of 1983 is expected to be released shortly. It would be interesting to see what measures that Commission can come up with on the question of the kind of healing you refer to. At the very least I feel that the President should, on behalf of the State, apologise to the Tamil people who have over the years been subjected to racial violence. Will the LTTE apologise to the people of Sri Lanka - all communities including the Tamils, for the immense damage it has done to thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children ? Both apologies would go some distance towards the healing you mention. One of the difficulties is that many of those who suffered in the 80's are no longer in Sri Lanka. They live abroad, mainly in the West, where they are comfortable and well looked after and there seems to be no prospect that they would come back here. Therefore the question of any government doing something positive to heal people like yourself becomes all the more difficult. You are right when you say the two main stream parties of Sri Lanka do not seem to be even remotely closer to addressing this issue. They are concentrating more on trying to bring a peaceful resolution of the conflict by negotiations and by working towards some kind of Constitutional arrangement that all the communities can live with. That is the priority at this time. But I agree with you that an effort will have to be made at some stage to address the problem you refer to.
11	Wed Mar 12 20:34:40 EST 2003 Very recently you have been paying excessive attention for India’s sensitivity regarding the peace talks. If not for the arming, training & transforming a handful of youths into a formidable force, Sri Lanka would not be in this state today. Can you please explain what are the real threats to India that it cannot contain and how far we should go to please India in compromising the pain & interest of Sri Lanka?  -  Jonathan Lewis, London Answer: It is undoubtedly true that in the 1980's India did extend support to the fledgling LTTE by arming, training and financing them resulting in incalculable loss to Sri Lanka. But one must not forget that due to the mismanagement of our ethnic policy by successive governments culminating in the events of July 1983 India got dragged into our conflict in a way which could not possibly have been envisaged prior to 1983. A very large number of refugees fled from the North and the East across the Palk Strait to India. Many of them are still there. Thus our problem became a humanitarian problem for India, both for the State of Tamil Nadu and for the Central Government in New Delhi. It also became a political problem, particularly in Tamil Nadu. As we all know, that involvement led to the introduction of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) which was initially brought here to keep the peace between the LTTE and the government forces but ultimately ended up fighting the LTTE. The IPKF had to withdraw without having brought their mission to a conclusion. Since then the policy of the Central Government of India has been not to get involved in our problem. The Indian government has made numerous statements on many occasions that it wishes to see a peaceful resolution of the Sri Lankan problem along the lines of a formula that accommodates the legitimate aspirations of all our communities. It has always emphasised its commitment to the territorial integrity, unity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka. The presence of India a few miles away from Sri Lanka is a huge political, geographical and historical reality. India is the only country which could be said to have an abiding interest, if not for any other reason but because of its own self interest, in the resolution of the Sri Lankan problem in a way which does not have consequences for the Constitutional structure of the Indian Union. Therefore it is very clear that India can never support a separate State here. As for the various forms of federalism now being canvassed India will not be able to live with any form of federal or quasi-federal structure here which could be seen to have the potential for disturbing the Constitutional arrangements that have existed in India for over fifty years. Therefore, it would be wise for us always to keep in mind India's concerns, and to elicit and maintain India's support for a fair and just solution of our problem. We must learn from history, not allow it to be become a millstone round our necks All human beings make mistakes, all States make mistakes. Old enmities must be buried. Out of the horrors of World War II came the European Union.
10	Wed Mar 12 20:22:23 EST 2003 What are your views, as a person familiar with matters of foreign policy, on the current alliance between the SLFP and the Marxist JVP party? What do you think will be the effect of a SLFP/JVP controlled government coming to power on an anti-peace mandate, on international support, economic and otherwise, for Sri Lanka?  -  P. Pahalawatta, IL Answer: Discussions between the SLFP and JVP towards forming an alliance are proceeding. Finality has not yet been reached. The JVP has moved very far away from the positions it espoused 10 years ago. There is very clear evidence that its bloody past has come to an end. At general elections it secured one seat in 1994; 10 seats in 2000; and just one year later at the general election of December 2001 it secured 16 seats. It is today the third largest party in Parliament. The JVP as a Parliamentary party is here to stay. It has a vote bank said to be in the region of one million votes. It attracts young people but it is also beginning to attract more and more professionals and others of an older age group who would not have taken a second look at the JVP years ago. I believe this is because there is a wide spread sense of disenchantment in Sri Lanka with the two major parties. A large number of people in both parties feel that Parliamentary politics has reached a very low point indeed in respect of corruption and inefficiency. Many people are beginning to think that the JVP, untainted by holding office in any government, might be able to provide an injection of idealism and optimism into our Parliamentary process. Wide spread hostility to the JVP has certainly waned to a great extent. There is also clear evidence emerging that the JVP is not in favour of war as a means of settling the ethnic conflict. Further, it is prepared to state publicly that the on going negotiations with the LTTE should proceed. On the question of the nature of the final solution to our problem they appear to favour moving in the direction of national discussions involving all the concerned parties and groups, including the LTTE, in order to strive for consensus with regard to the ultimate solution taking into account the legitimate aspirations of all our communities. If this statement is made in the document setting out the end result of the discussions between the SLFP and the JVP it would be a very big step forward and is something that should be welcomed on all sides. To get the JVP to come on board on the question of a negotiated settlement of the ethnic conflict would be a very big achievement for democracy in Sri Lanka. To leave them out of a share of responsibility in the negotiations would be a great mistake. On the economic side, the JVP now accepts the necessity for a market economy and privatisation except for important State assets. It emphasises the need for transparency and accountability in government transactions. If both the PA and UNP are committed to dealing with the LTTE, a fascist group with the most appalling record of violence, why should not the SLFP try to get the JVP into the mainstream of national politics.
9	Wed Mar 12 13:00:11 EST 2003 Dear Mr. Kadirgamar, Since you're the special advisor to the president, what type of federal model that you and/or your party propose to solve the ethnic probelm in Sri Lanka and what is your vision on sharing power with LTTE. thanks. [Edited by moderator. Also see Q4]  -  T.Sritharan, Toronto, Canada Answer: As the Moderator has suggested questions 4 and 9 could be answered together. I do not think a constitutional arrangement which is intended to be permanent can be based on a "power sharing" arrangement with the LTTE alone. At the moment the Government of the day has to negotiate with the LTTE because of the military realities on the ground. But a durable peace based on a constitutional arrangement acceptable to all the communities, reflected in a major amendment to the present constitution, passed by a two thirds majority in Parliament, and endorsed by a national referendum, can only be achieved if a number of important rights are enshrined in the amended constitution - human rights, parliamentary democracy including multi-party participation in democratic elections, the rule of law etc. None of these concepts is consistent with a "power sharing arrangement with the LTTE." The type of federalism suitable for Sri Lanka is a matter for national discussion, not a matter for agreement only between the ruling party and the LTTE. Already there is a federal-type model on the table. President Kumaratunga's previous Government produced a draft Constitution in 1997 which, with amendments, was tabled in Parliament in August, 2000. The President herself presented that draft constitution in a speech that was greeted by the then Opposition (the present Government) with derision - burning of the Constitution, hooting and jeering through the entirety of that speech. It was probably the saddest, the most disgraceful, day in the history of our Parliament. Now the Government has said that that Constitution would be the starting point for discussion on a new Constitution. Such is the nature of our politics. As you know there is no particular model of federalism valid universally. The concept is broad and flexible. In the United States, for example, it emerged as a more centralized form of government than the confederation model that they had before. But in countries like Belgium, recently, federalism emerged as a move away from a unitary structure. The PA is for a federal-type structure which could give minorities, and particularly the Tamils, ample autonomy in their regional affairs without allowing the disintegration or break up of the Sri Lankan State. Therefore, two principles are important - (1) to allow autonomy as much as it is necessary; (2) to ensure safeguards against any type of disintegration, break away or secession. We also believe that given current international developments and the challenges that our country is facing we need to have a rather strong system at the centre as well. Therefore, we propose considerable power sharing at the centre in addition to devolution of power to the regions or the periphery. There are several minorities in the country and their geographical spread is such that we need to ensure a full measure of human rights and safeguards and their participation at all levels of government from periphery to the centre. There is another factor that we have to take into account. There is a system of federalism in India which is not as broad as in many Western countries. What was primarily in the minds of the Indian Constitution makers when they devised a federal form of government for India was to preserve the unity and integrity of that country without allowing for its disintegration. This principle applies to South Asia in general considering the existence of several secessionist movements in our midst. We also have to take into account our own evolution towards a federal type of system since the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1987. We already have in place some extensive measures of devolution of power, of course, with major structural impediments. This is what the PA government during its last tenure tried to rectify through more measures for devolution that culminated in the new Constitutional proposals which were placed before Parliament in August 2000. We believe that the basic principles of those proposals, and the background documents and proposals which were made previously by President, Kumaratunga, supply a principled frame work for a viable federal structure for Sri Lanka. But the whole matter needs further and fuller discussion on a national scale in the light of evolving events on the ground in the North and East which throw doubt on whether the LTTE truly wishes to have a federal form of government, notwithstanding public statements to that effect.
8	Wed Mar 12 11:04:09 EST 2003 As a senior srilankan government official, trusted by the majority sinhalese and a Tamil, you are in a unique position. You are respected by moderate Sri Lankans of all ethnic groups. What are your thoughts on the need to bridge the gap between the two major ethnic groups in Sri Lanka? Have you thought about or already involved in any projects that could develop mutual trust and frienship between the communites?  -  Kumar Ratnasingham, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Answer: Thank you very much for your kind words. Sri Lanka has not suffered from anything like the corrosive effects of apartheid, the doctrine based on the congenital superiority of the white man over the black. What has happened in Sri Lanka is that gradually, over some decades, ever since language streams were introduced into our school system, young Sinhalese and Tamils have drifted apart. The young have not been able to mix and move, let alone communicate orally, with each other even in the same school. We have to face the truth, unpalatable though it may be to some, that English helped to keep the communities in touch with each other. All those wonderful opportunities for extra-curricular activities that older generations so much enjoyed, and in which all communities participated, and from which lifelong friendships were formed, have slipped away. At the older level thousands upon thousands of Tamils live and work in the South peacefully and comfortably with the Sinhala majority. But the young have become estranged. Now there is a national cry for more and more English. That is certainly necessary in the interdependent world of today. But it is probably too late through English to build bridges between the young of the two communities. Efforts are being made to promote contacts between the North and the South through sports and cultural activities. This is a slow process. There is plenty of scope for imaginative activities in this area.
7	Wed Mar 12 09:30:57 EST 2003 “While people in the rest of the world are marching against war in the Middle East, in Sri Lanka opposition supporters are protesting against their government's peace initiative.” I quoted this from a news report of the BBC (11 March 2003). How do you see this situation Lakshman? [Edited by moderator]  -  Priyanka Ramaswamy, London Answer: The BBC, I am sorry to say, has been known to put out unbalanced reports on Sri Lanka. I did not see the report you mention (11th March, 2003). But if it referred to the large SLFP-JVP rally in Colombo I must say that it is not correct to report that rally as being anti-peace process. It laid much greater emphasis on the cost of living which is becoming an intolerable burden on the mass of the people. With regard to the peace process the criticism which is becoming increasingly widespread is not of the process of talking to the LTTE but of the direction the talks are taking which is widely perceived as being very much to the LTTE's advantage with possibly dire long term consequences for the future of Sri Lanka.
6	Wed Mar 12 09:08:55 EST 2003 Dear Sir, You are certainly a great leader whose future contribution is very much expected to put Sri Lanka back on track. When we see no other politician of your stature and character in the present Lankan political arena would you accept the very bold challenge of voicing the opinion of the vast majority of Tamils who are disgruntled with terrorism and who vision a united Lanka? P.Dissanayake  -  P.Dissanayake, USA Answer: Thank you very much for your kind words. I cannot presume to speak for the "vast majority of Tamils" because, quite simply, I do not even represent a Tamil electorate. I am a member of Parliament on the National List. I can only speak for myself and, on occasions, for the SLFP. The vast majority of Tamils, wherever they may live, are law-abiding, hard working, peaceful people. I cannot believe that they condone terrorism, especially the child conscriptions, abduction, killings, extortions that are still being carried out by the LTTE in the North and East, accompanied by the suppression of peaceful dissent. I also believe that the "vast majority of Tamils" would prefer to see, for the future, a united Sri Lanka, rather than two separate States. The concept of devolution of power from the centre to the periphery - some kind of federal structure - is now espoused by the major political parties. But what kind of devolution is a matter for discussion. Within the Tamil community - as indeed within the Sinhala and Muslim communities - there are different views on this question.
5	Wed Mar 12 01:24:01 EST 2003 Dear Mr Kadiragamar, You are one of the few honest and intelligent politicians left in Sri Lanka today, thus I would be very honoured if you would answer the following question. Why did people lose faith in your government after mere 7 years, when they put up with the UNP for 17 ?  -  Rohana Rezel, Bangkok, Thailand Answer: Thank you very much for your kind words. The proportional representation (PR) system of voting that applies in Sri Lanka under the present (1978) Constitution has advantages (the representation of minorities who might not otherwise be represented in Parliament) but also many disadvantages (one of them being the extreme unlikelihood of a general election ever throwing up a government with an adequate majority of its own, without having to depend on alliances to enable it to govern comfortably for its allotted term). Thus, if the general election of 1994 had been held on the old first-past-the-post system the PA would have won about 4/5th of the seats in Parliament. As it turned out it had only a majority of one seat in Parliament and was held up by its parliamentary allies. Similarly, at the end of its first six year term it won reelection in October 2000 for a second six year term but again with a small majority and heavily dependent on allies. Within a few months of the October 2000 election disgruntled elements in the PA Cabinet began conspiring with the UNP to bring the government down. A certain number of PA Ministers and MP's had decided to cross over to the Opposition. The leader of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC), an ally of the PA, was dismissed from the Cabinet and he and his colleagues crossed over to the Opposition, and so did the members of the Ceylon Workers Congress (CWC), another ally. Thus the Opposition acquired a majority of one in Parliament, the President dissolved Parliament and called for a fresh election and at that election the UNP was able to form a government, but again with a majority of one, propped up by its new allies. When defections of this nature occur voting blocks change sides. At the December 2001 election the PA lost a large segment of Muslim, Indian Tamil and Sri Lankan Tamil votes without which no government can be formed, even an unstable one, under the present Constitution. In addition , the people had become dissatisfied with the PA's performance in certain areas of governance between October 2000 and December 2001. Also, it must be remembered that the UNP at the end of its first six year term extended the life of Parliament by a further six year period, using its large majority in Parliament for that purpose, endorsed by a national referendum which only requires a majority of one vote over 50% to be valid, not a difficult objective to achieve for a government in power. Who knows what the result would have been if, as normal democratic morality would have required, a general election had been held after the expiry of the first term ? Six of the 17 years was, therefore, seriously flawed, and the general election held in 1990 at the end of the second six year term was a highly disturbed one as the JVP insurrection was then at its height.
4	Tue Mar 11 21:03:07 EST 2003 Mr. Kadirigamar, If a Federal solution were adopted for solving Sri Lanka's present political situation, what form of federalism would you recommend? [Moderator note: Also see Q9]  -  Nihal de Lanerolle, USA Answer: As the Moderator has suggested questions 4 and 9 could be answered together. I do not think a constitutional arrangement which is intended to be permanent can be based on a "power sharing" arrangement with the LTTE alone. At the moment the Government of the day has to negotiate with the LTTE because of the military realities on the ground. But a durable peace based on a constitutional arrangement acceptable to all the communities, reflected in a major amendment to the present constitution, passed by a two thirds majority in Parliament, and endorsed by a national referendum, can only be achieved if a number of important rights are enshrined in the amended constitution - human rights, parliamentary democracy including multi-party participation in democratic elections, the rule of law etc. None of these concepts is consistent with a "power sharing arrangement with the LTTE." The type of federalism suitable for Sri Lanka is a matter for national discussion, not a matter for agreement only between the ruling party and the LTTE. Already there is a federal-type model on the table. President Kumaratunga's previous Government produced a draft Constitution in 1997 which, with amendments, was tabled in Parliament in August, 2000. The President herself presented that draft constitution in a speech that was greeted by the then Opposition (the present Government) with derision - burning of the Constitution, hooting and jeering through the entirety of that speech. It was probably the saddest, the most disgraceful, day in the history of our Parliament. Now the Government has said that that Constitution would be the starting point for discussion on a new Constitution. Such is the nature of our politics. > As you know there is no particular model of federalism valid universally. The concept is broad and flexible. In the United States, for example, it emerged as a more centralized form of government than the confederation model that they had before. But in countries like Belgium, recently, federalism emerged as a move away from a unitary structure. The PA is for a federal-type structure which could give minorities, and particularly the Tamils, ample autonomy in their regional affairs without allowing the disintegration or break up of the Sri Lankan State. Therefore, two principles are important - (1) to allow autonomy as much as it is necessary; (2) to ensure safeguards against any type of disintegration, break away or secession. We also believe that given current international developments and the challenges that our country is facing we need to have a rather strong system at the centre as well. Therefore, we propose considerable power sharing at the centre in addition to devolution of power to the regions or the periphery. There are several minorities in the country and their geographical spread is such that we need to ensure a full measure of human rights and safeguards and their participation at all levels of government from periphery to the centre. There is another factor that we have to take into account. There is a system of federalism in India which is not as broad as in many Western countries. What was primarily in the minds of the Indian Constitution makers when they devised a federal form of government for India was to preserve the unity and integrity of that country without allowing for its disintegration. This principle applies to South Asia in general considering the existence of several secessionist movements in our midst. We also have to take into account our own evolution towards a federal type of system since the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1987. We already have in place some extensive measures of devolution of power, of course, with major structural impediments. This is what the PA government during its last tenure tried to rectify through more measures for devolution that culminated in the new Constitutional proposals which were placed before Parliament in August 2000. We believe that the basic principles of those proposals, and the background documents and proposals which were made previously by President, Kumaratunga, supply a principled frame work for a viable federal structure for Sri Lanka. But the whole matter needs further and fuller discussion on a national scale in the light of evolving events on the ground in the North and East which throw doubt on whether the LTTE truly wishes to have a federal form of government, notwithstanding public statements to that effect.
3	Tue Mar 11 13:07:09 EST 2003 Dear Mr.Kadirgamar, You have earned our continued respect as a real national leader with country's interest more than self-interest. When it comes to Terrorism, Sri Lanka has faced grave and serious threats to it's stability from LTTE for the last twenty years. Why do major Sri Lankan parties still lack an essential consensus addresing this with a perfomance based negotiated agreement? Aren't the grievances claimed by the terrorists common to all Sri Lankans( Tamils,Muslims, Malays, Burghers and sinhalese) ?  -  Ananda Markalanda, California, USA Answer: Thank you very much for your kind words. I can assure you that there is consensus on the necessity for a solution to the ethnic problem being sought through negotiations. Nobody, except perhaps for a few fringe elements, believes that continued war is going to bring ultimate peace. There were times when the war had to be fought as when the LTTE suddenly went back to fighting in April 1995 after nearly seven months of a ceasefire and negotiations and the Jaffna peninsula which had been unlawfully occupied by the LTTE after the departure of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) had to be retaken. Thus, the process of seeking peace through negotiations (the peace process) was started in earnest by the PA in 1994 and is being continued by the UNP from 2001. It is with regard to the end result that agreement may not be possible. There is an apprehension in the minds of many that the talks are proceeding in a manner which will unduly strengthen the LTTE on the ground in the North and the East and thus make it less likely that a just and durable peace, which accommodates the aspirations of all communities, can be reached. These apprehensions have to be addressed by the Government and the Opposition. I am confident that there is enough good sense left in the country to ensure that all the communities and their leaders can talk these problems through.
2	Tue Mar 11 12:26:28 EST 2003 Among moderate tamils like us you have earned our great respect as a timely Sri Lankan leader. Sri Lanka is a small country one sixth of California so division is dangerous. During your time as the Foreign Minister why was a performance based agreement not negotiated with rebel groups(LTTE, PLOTE, EPDP, EPRLF) with international support.?  -  Canddiah Yoganathan, Los Angeles. California Answer: Thank you very much for your kind words. The PLOTE, EPDP and EPRLF have renounced armed struggle and entered main stream politics. The EPDP and PLOTE are in Parliament. All three of them are represented at the local government level and the EPDP was in the last PA Cabinet. In that context I am not sure I undertand what a "performance based agreement" means. With the LTTE it is well known that President Kumaratunga began direct talks with them in 1994 accompanied by a ceasefire. In April 1995 the LTTE went back to war and the Jaffna Peninsula was retaken by the Government. Notwithstanding renewed fighting considerable efforts were made to draw up a new Constitution containing important provisions for the devolution of power. Norway was brought in as a facilitator. Through Norway discussions were resumed with the LTTE which it was hoped would have led once more to face-to-face negotiations. For a variety of reasons which history will analyse this did not happen until time ran out for the PA Government in December 2001 when it was defeated at a General election.
1	Tue Mar 11 11:57:29 EST 2003 Dear Hon.Minister Kadiragarmer, Having read the article on Lanka Academic by Bandula Jayasekara, you must be appreciated by all Sri Lankans of your view that you consider yourself as a Sri Lankan first before considering ethnicity. I understand that as a minority community in Sri Lanka the Sri Lankan Tamil have certain concerns. What is your view on the claims by LTTE that the Tamil are being discriminated in Sri Lanka? Isn’t it true, that the Sri Lankan tamils would have been better off, if LTTE did not drag the country to a bloody civil war? Although they might support the idea of separate homeland, would majority of tamils living in government controlled south, be really willing to live under Mr. Prabakarans rule? [Edited by moderator]  -  Anura, USA Answer: Thank you very much for your kind words. There was a time when, for instance, the use of Tamil for official purposes was not recognised and there was discrimination against the Tamil-speaking community in respect of education and employment. The Tamils had grievances. That cannot be denied. The situation is much better now. But since independence the ethnic policy of successive governments has been characterised by a lack of foresight, mismanagement and broken promises - the Bandaranike/Chelvanayakam pact and the Dudley Senanayake/Chelvanayakan pact are examples. President Kumaratunga in her address to the nation on the historic occasion of the 50th anniversary of Independence, spoke courageously as follows: "We must also with humility examine our failures. We have failed in the essential task of nation - building. We have meandered and faltered along the path, whilst our neighbours in Asia and many other countries have forged strong and united nations in which peoples of various communities, of race, religion and language live in harmony". As for your question whether the Sri Lankan Tamils would have been better off if the LTTE did not drag the country into a bloody civil war, my personal view is that socio-economic and political questions can never be resolved by war. But one must try to understand why a generation of young Tamils who had witnessed unsuccessful satyagraha campaigns and other peaceful attempts to secure redress for their grievances came to the conclusion that there was no alternative but to resort to arms. However, as the armed conflict has progressed it has become increasingly clear that war cannot resolve the problems that led to war in the first place. Many Tamils, even those of a moderate persuasion, hold the view that if the LTTE had not taken up arms the question of a negotiated settlement of the ethnic problem would never have been considered by any government in the South. The same group of moderate Tamils would, I am sure, now say "enough of war"; the armed conflict must end; a solution must be found through negotiations. As for the homeland question I do not think the vast majority of Tamils, whether they presently live in Sri Lanka or abroad, would prefer to live under Mr. Prabhakarn's rule, rather than in a free, democratic, united Sri Lanka where the rights of minorities are adequately safeguarded.