TIGed

Switch headers Switch to TIGweb.org

Are you an TIG Member?
Click here to switch to TIGweb.org

HomeHomeExpress YourselfPanoramaFacets of Terrorism in Sri Lanka
Panorama
a TakingITGlobal online publication
Search



(Advanced Search)

Panorama Home
Issue Archive
Current Issue
Next Issue
Featured Writer
TIG Magazine
Writings
Opinion
Interview
Short Story
Poetry
Experiences
My Content
Edit
Submit
Guidelines
Facets of Terrorism in Sri Lanka Printable Version PRINTABLE VERSION
by Sanjana, Sri Lanka Feb 23, 2003
Peace & Conflict   Opinions
 1 2 3 4   Next page »

  

Introduction

In the context of a militarily strong secessionist guerilla movement actively seeking a negotiated settlement to their goal of a separate state, an examination of the dynamics of terrorism in Sri Lanka is pertinent – a country ravaged by terrorism, racial tension and bad governance.

In a global context, while successive regimes have tried to address and then root out the evil of terrorism, the latest efforts spearheaded by America, show that many who engage with the problems of terrorism do not really know what they are dealing with, or the implications of what they are doing to address it. Fighting against terrorism has become the facetious couture of a seemingly bi-polar world which is either with terrorists or against them. However, rhetoric and action that claim to root out terrorism often disguises the vacuity of anti-terrorism’s greatest exponents, who, like weathervanes in a storm, like to self-importantly spin and rattle largely in a world of their own imagination, where the causes of terrorism are ignored in the battle against its manifestations, where arrogant self-interests define the borderlines of conflict, and where the difference between an ally or an enemy is judged by the degree of subservience to a soi-disant coalition against terror.


Towards a definition of terrorism

The reality is somewhat different. Although legislation in many countries purportedly addresses terrorism, very few have dared define the word. So what exactly is terrorism?

In its broadest sense terrorism can be thought of as the use or threatened use of force against civilians designed to bring about political or social change. Moreover, while we think of terrorism as being both a political and irrational act (especially suicide terrorism), terrorism can also be thought of as a rational act conducted specifically because of the impact it will have - fear, confusion, submission etc.

Today, terrorism must be viewed within the context of the modern nation-state. Indeed, it was the rise of a bureaucratic state, which could not be destroyed by the death of one leader that forced terrorists to widen their scope of targets in order to create a public atmosphere of anxiety and undermine confidence in government. This reality is at the heart of the ever more violent terrorism of the last 100 years.

The overwhelming salience of a coherent definition of terrorism must also address the wider socio-economic issues that give rise to terrorism. All we have to do is look at both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide to understand that violence, including terrorism by the state, rarely stops further violence as long as underlying societal grievances are not addressed.

Furthermore, definitions of terrorism must tread warily between restricting the freedoms of the individual with legal provisions required to guard against the contingencies and imperatives confronting the state and the primary necessity to protect democratic processes without excessive intrusion in to the private domain of the individuals. Maintaining the democratic process, which is the ultimate guarantor of individual liberties and human rights, must be uppermost in any definition of terrorism.
A single definition of terrorism then, cannot account for all possible uses of the term. In the context of Sri Lanka, a useful description of terrorism was given by the President Chandrika Kumaratunga at the first Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture held in Delhi recently. The President made the insightful observation that terrorism cannot be tackled without addressing its causes. “The tactics of terror and murder cannot... and should certainly not be tolerated by any state or government. The strictest action should be taken efficiently and expeditiously, against all movements and individuals participating in or condoning terrorism as a political strategy. But the causes that have generated such movements must be addressed” and went on to say that “the rational political, social and economic aspirations of peoples which, when frustrated continuously, give rise to full blown terrorism of modern day must be sifted out of the process of terrorist actions and looked at separately.” This is a definition that has not thus far been lucidly articulated by Chandrika herself in Sri Lanka. While one could argue that the President's ‘War for Peace’ strategy was also one that tied to isolate terrorists whilst promoting constitutional reform, the failure of the strategy highlights an important facet of the Sri Lankan state – that dominant power structures rarely address the conflict with a commitment to find the underlying causes for terrorism.


Post-independence politics and roots of terrorism

It is easy to say that the roots of the present conflict lie with British colonialism. As they did throughout their empire, the British ruled Ceylon by creating an English-speaking elite from amongst the Sinhalese and the Tamils. Their favoritism engendered an opposition which took racial and religious overtones. The majority of those who had been left out of the elite spoke Sinhalese and were Buddhists, and they began to promote a racist notion of Sinhalese superiority as an ‘Aryan race’. After independence it was this Sinhalese-speaking group that gained control of the new state of Sri Lanka, and began to exclude Tamils from higher education, jobs and land mainly by making Sinhala the only official language. Not surprisingly, Tamils resented this discrimination. As the anthropologist Stanley Tambiah has argued, the island's violence is a late-twentieth-century response to colonial and postcolonial policies that relied on a hardened and artificial notion of ethnic boundaries.





 1 2 3 4   Next page »   


Tags

You must be logged in to add tags.

Writer Profile
Sanjana


Sanjana Hattotuwa is a Rotary World Peace Scholar presently pursuing a Masters in International Studies from the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. The views expressed here are his own. He can be contacted at hatt@wow.lk.
Comments


Permission to meet you online
Esther Cheong | Nov 22nd, 2007
Dear Sir We are studying about Sri Lanka in our school in Singapore. Can we talk to you online on Friday, 0930 on TAKINGITGLOBAL?



Permission to meet you online
Esther Cheong | Nov 22nd, 2007
Dear Sir We are studying about Sri Lanka in our school in Singapore. Can we talk to you online on Friday, 0930 on TAKINGITGLOBAL?



There is much more to this issue...
Kermi Liya | Nov 7th, 2008
Hello Sanjana, I really enjoyed reading your article. It was full of information and very deep academic understanding. However I beg to differ on the case of "racism" on the Aryan race concept. In Sri Lanka, it is not the Buddhists and the Tamils who are causing tension and destroying the peace-it is the Guerrillas and their movement to destroy the country. I have seen both Tamil and Sinhalese people living in bad conditions, and from my perspective I disagree that it is the "racial divide" between them that is the root of the problem. Many Tamil speak Sinhalese, and several Sinhalese people speak Tamil. Also, the two "races" or the Sri Lankans share their land and respect each others' religions, and cultures, doing their utmost to avoid (more) aggravation and hatred, as caused by the Guerillas. It is those vile Guerillas, whose organization ACTUALLY consists of corrupted people who are either "Sinhalese and Tamil" (which does NOT matter since they are inhuman anyways) that cause the violence. They abduct children from families, force them to fight and kill, terrorize communities, break apart the already halting economy-it is these Guerillas, who are so devoted to rule Sri Lanka that are destroying the homes of both Sinhalese and Tamil people, regardless of their "race". What the British did when they came to Sri Lanka-it is such a shame that no one knows the destruction they have caused in the societies of past colonized countries. It is the Guerrilla's fault that they are complete psychologically unstable serial killers, but what the British did is unmistakably and sinfully, deeply harmful. I only hope that the people will stop going against each other and trust their unity and ambivalence towards eliminating the corrupt government and horrid guerrillas.

You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.