transcurrents

Separatist violence in Canada and Sri Lanka

March 23rd, 2007

By D.B.S. Jeyaraj

“How did Canada escape protracted political violence despite having a flourishing separatist movement?”

This was a perplexing question that six Sri Lankan media participants seriously tried to grapple with during a ten – day study tour in Canada February 25th to March 6th. We raised this question often at our meetings with academics and professionals particularly in the French – Canadian majority province of Quebec.There were answers and answers and then questions and more questions. The round table discussion at Laval university was lively and focussed much on this issue.

[Maple leaf foliage during Autumn, reflecting the Canadian Mosaic]

We spoke about this matter among ourselves too both collectively and individually and struggled to find answers. Our interest went far beyond a detached and objective curiosity. There was strong subjectivity in our spirit of inquiry. If Canada has its Quebec then Sri Lanka has its Tamil Eelam. Both are two “states” of mind.

There is a healthy debate going on about the future of Canada and Quebec. But the current reality is that in Canada there is virtually no related political violence now . The debate however heated is confined to democratic fora like the Parliament, political meeetings and discussions, media interviews , debates, editorials, articles and press conferences, letters to the editor columns etc

In Sri Lanka the “debate” turned into violence many, many years ago. The acrimonious politics of ethnicity transformed itself into war and institutionalised violence from a very early stage. It was a case of cracking rather than counting heads. In Clausewitzian parlance war became the logical extension of our politics.

This does not mean that Canada did not undergo political violence of a terrorist nature. Yes it did! The late sixties saw a steady rise in violence that culminated in the infamous “October crisis” of 1970. It was like a cathartic experience. Thereafter Canada has not seen major political violence related to Quebec separatism. Passions are aroused and there are “oddball” threats and cranky remarks but there are no signs of violence on a big scale occurring or emerging.Why did this happen? What lessons can Canada offer us by way of its experience in handling a separatist crisis?

The seeds of “modern” separatism were sown in the sixties in both Canada and Sri Lanka. Actually separatist violence began in Canada even before Sri Lanka. Canada had its own home – grown terrorist movement in Quebec known as the Front de Liberation du Quebec (Quebec Liberation Front) or FLQ. It was formed in 1963. It reached its peak in 1970. The “October crisis” was an indication that the FLQ had over- reached itself. The stern response of the Canadian state and the overwhelming backing given by the people resulted in the FLQ being crushed. Thereafter it was downhill all the way for the Felquistes as the FLQ members were known.

[Citadel gate - The gate used to be the entrance to a fortress, or citadel, which protected Canada from intruders. The gate and walls still exist but the city has grown up around it. Quebec City is the oldest city in all of North America. Quebec City, Canada Photo:Rick Aiello]

In contrast separatism and related violence began only in the seventies in Sri Lanka. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was formed only in 1976. Its fore-runner the Tamil New Tigers(TNT) emerged only in 1972. Governments in Colombo came down heavily on the Tamil militant movement even as it sprouted. All three arms of the defence services, the Police and a crack Special Task force of the Police were all deployed. Even the Indian army stepped in briefly. Yet the Tamil armed separatist movement in Sri Lanka has reached the point where it controls territory, runs parallel administrative structures and even has a “navy” of sorts and an airwing.

So how did separatist violence in Sri Lanka withstand the powerful state and reach this level whereas separatist violence in Canada wilted vis a vis the state and simply withered away?Nobody has the perfect or complete answer and it would be audacious to presume such knowledge. Besides it would be false analogy to compare the experience of one Country situated in the so called first world with that of another located in the developning or third world. Nevertheless there are a few comparable notes that may shed some light and possibly generate a little heat too.

[Cyclist passing Sangilithoppu, Place of the old Kingdon of Jaffna, Photo HA]

The illuminating discussion at Laval was chaired by Gerard Hervouet , Directeur du programme Paix et Securite internationales ( director of Internationational Peace and security program) and a Professor at the Political Science dept in the University. A significant point was made by “diplomate en residence” Michelle Bussierese during this discussion about an observation made by Rene Levesque when people were killed for political reasons in Quebec. “Independence is not worth the life of even one man” Levesque reportedly said.

Rene Levesque as is well – known was the father of modern Quebec nationalism. It was he who founded the movement for Sovereignty – association which later merged with another party to form the Parti Quebecois (PQ) that espoused separatism through democratic means. The crucial difference in the case of Quebec separatism was that the democratic proponents of sovereignty or separatism had no tolerance for violence however “justifiable” the cause. Almost all the mainstream Quebec separatist leaders were firmly opposed to violence as a means to an end. Moreover they firmly rejected it and lent support to the Government in power to curb and eradicate it.

This was in stark contrast to how Tamil democratic leaders conducted themselves in regard to separatist violence. Had the “Gandhi of Eelam” SJV Chelvanayagam been healthy and alive he may have condemned the violence. But many Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) politicians did not condemn the violence. In fact some even encouraged it. When youths were charged in courts TULF leaders appeared for them in courts. Youths with links to violence were paraded on political platforms. Several TULF leaders made speeches glorifying the violence and even tried to bask in reflected glory. When many political opponents of the TULF were killed as “traitors” by armed youths the so – called moderates did not object or condemn.

The different reactions of the Francophone and Tamil democratic, moderate political leaders towards the rise of separatist violence is a crucial factor when attempting to discern reasons for separatist violence decaying in Canada and flourishing in Sri Lanka.In fairness to the TULF and other Tamil leaders they had in a way assessed the Tamil public’s political mood. They realised that there was a groundswell of sympathy and admiration for Tamil militancy among many sections of the people. Being crafty politicians they capitalised on this mood. Therby they churned up a wave and also hoped to ride that wave’s crest.

This would not have been possible without genuine undercurrents of public support for armed Tamil militancy. Here again there was a big difference with Canada. There was genuine revulsion against political violence among Canadian people. This was not confined to English Canada alone. It is estimated that almost 90% of French Canada also disapporoved of political violence as a strategy. French Canadian leaders from different political parties backed strong action against “terrorism”.When former Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau invoked the War Measures act , suspended civil liberties and sent the army in , the move had significant backing from French Canadians too. Also Trudeau himself was a Francophone..

In the case of Sri Lanka the situation was different. Initially there was shock and surprise when violence accompanied the demand for Tamil Eelam. Afterwards there was gradual support for it. People seldom articulated it publicly but if hidden thoughts were any indication there can be no denying that the people “sanctioned” it silently. I write this not only as a journalist but also as a Tamil youth who was born six months before Velupillai Pirapakaran.

The overwhelming Tamil mood for my generation then was that liberation of Tamil Eelam was the only way for Tamil salvation. Armed struggle was the only way to achieve this. Those early acts of political violence were seen as precursors to the ultimate struggle. To think otherwise was deemed treachery in those times. Incidently the best article justifying the Tamil armed struggle in those times was the one written by Dayan Jayatilleke in “Lanka Guardian”.

What made the Tamil people regarded as docile and law – abiding lend support to the armed struggle then? What made the bookwormish Tamils turn? Why did they not condemn and turn away from the violence that began then? It is with the wisdom of hindsight that I venture to comment that the violence has not brought Tamils anywhere near political emancipation. To the contrary it has only debilitated the people and reduced them to despair. Such is the corrosive nature of violence. So how and why did Tamils unlike French Canadians not spurn violence from the beginning itself?

Again there are no firm answers but the rising tide of resentment against what was seen as majoritarian oppression by the Sinhala dominated state was important. Various acts of perceived discrimination led to the feeling that there was no place for Tamils in a Sinhala dominated Sri Lanka. The moderate Tamil political tactics of agitating through Gandhian methods and negotiating with Governments in power had failed. Non – violent protests went unheeded and were ruthlessly suppressed. Once the Tamils began clamouring for a separate state it seemed a logical conclusion that violence would be the acceptable form of struggle. As Maoist leader N. Shanmugathasan would remind us often “All Gods in the Hindu pantheon had weapons to destroy evil”.

There was also the fact that Canada was way up in the developed first world. Within Canada the province of Quebec was developing economically through the “Quiet revolution”. It was in the interests of French Canada not to upset the equilibrium through violence. Economic considerations played a big role in curbing emotions prone to violent conduct. Ordinary Francophones felt that political violence was not in their best interests.In Sri Lanka there were some Tamil leaders who argued against separation and violence but were submerged in the emotional torrents of Tamil Eelam and “Aayuthap Porattam” (Armed struggle).

It must also not be forgotten that there was Federalism in Canada long before FLQ violence. Quebec enjoyed much autonomy.The role and history of French Canadians in building up Canada was recognized and appreciated. The English and French were seen as the two solitudes who created what is now Modern Canada. They were the founding parents. In Sri Lanka the Sinhala majoritarian Governments of the 50’s, 60’ss and 70’s did not recognize the historic place and contribution of the Tamils. They were seen as outsiders. Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka was the land of the Sinhalese alone was the dominant credo then.

When Tamils wanted federalism it was rejected. Federalism was depicted as secessionism . It became the “F” word in Sinhala political discourse. Even agreements entered into with Governments by the Tamil dominated Federal Party were not implemented.In that context the Tamils went to the extreme and wanted a land of their own. The mono- state ideology resulted in the two – state response. It is possible that secessionism may have been contained if a viable alternative within a united Sri Lanka was offered. That did not happen.

Another point is the nature of political violence in post – independence Ceylon or Sri Lanka. There have been three types of political violence. One is the mob violence ( often state backed) against Tamil ciivilians. Then there is the violence of the armed forces. This is primarily directed against Tamils (civilian and militant). Today that violence has been institutionalised as war.Thirdly there is the armed Tamil violence which deteriorates into terrorism at times. Thus much of the violence in Sri Lanka is caused by state terror, majoritarian terror and minority terror.

[Water Fall in Hatton, Sri Lanka, Photo: HA]

If the approach towards political violence in the Tamil psyche is to be properly gauged , it is necessary to understand that historically, Tamils were the victims . Mob violence of 1956 , 1958, the reprehensible way in which the Satyagraha campaigns of 1956 and 1961 were suppressed etc are all indicators. Tamils were powerless in a situation where violence was a monopoly of the Sinhala majority or the Sinhala dominated state.

Collectively Tamils were angry at this state of affairs. It was then that the Tamil militants began hitting back. For the first time Tamils were not at the receiving end of violence. Many Tamils were happy that some youths were engaging in violence. The violence then washed away the shame and perceived cowardice of a people being continuously repressed through brute force. So Tamils were horrified by violence but were reluctant to condemn it.

If this collective psyche was an indicator of Tamil ambiguity towards violence the manner and mode in which the Government and rest of Canada responded towards Quebecois violence and the Sri Lankan situation is another moot point. In Sri Lanka the heads of state who spearheaded the fight against Tamil terrorism were all Sinhala leaders but in Canada the two men who led the anti – terror campaign were respected French Canadians. Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister and Robert Bourassa was premier of Quebec when FLQ violence peaked in 1970. Both were able to carry with them the approval of the majority of Francophones in their actions against the FLQ.

In Sri Lanka it was not the case. The Colombo governments which cracked down on Tamil militants did not have support among the Tamil people or their accredited leaders. They were not able to co-opt the TULF also. It was like a Sinhala vs Tamil fight. Indeed the state thought of and conducted itself in that manner. Brute force was used without any attempt to reach out to the Tamil people. The long use of the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act treated every Tamil as guilty unless proved otherwise. Thousands were incarcerated.

[Niagara Falls Ontario - Photo: Ian A. Fraser]

This was not the case in Canada where the War measures Act was invoked by Trudeau. The army was called in to Quebec and the capital Ottawa. Civil liberties were temporarily suspended. The people at large supported drastic measures as a temporary, necessary evil. 497 peope were arrested; 435 were released. 62 wete charged 32 of them without bail, Once the crisis was over civil liberties were restored and the army sent to barracks. Years later the very same Trudeau was responsible for introducing the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. It is perhaps the best of its kind and is regarded today as a defining characteristic of Canada.

The FLQ was also weakened due to heavy infiltration by the Police. French Canadians were involved. This was not possible in Sri Lanka because the Tamil militants targetted Tamil police sleuths from the start. Thereafter the Police was “Sinhalaised” and lost its information gathering capacity. This was not so in Quebec. Canadian officials also managed to “convert: many FLQ members and activists. All this would not have been possible without the support and cooperation of French Canadians. It could be seen therefore that French Canadians in Government, opposition, Police and media spearheaded the drive against FLQ terrorism. Moreover it had the backing of an overwhelmingly high number of Francophones.

[Statue of Sri Lanka's first Prime Minister D.S. Senanayake, at the entrance of Colombo-Cinnamon Gardens School bearing his name, D.S. Senanyake Vidyalaya]

This was not so in Sri Lanka where the Sinhala dominated state treated all Tamils except for some “quislings” as the enemy. It was a case of a Sinhala dominated Government and Police force and armed forces waging war against Tamil militants. It was in a sense an ethnic confrontation. The PTA became permanent law. The human rights of the Tamils were ruthlessly denied. People were killed, made to disappear, tortured, detained without trial etc. The state bombed and shelled its own people and practised a scorched earth policy. Under these circumstances the state alienated the Tamil people.All these were absent in Canada. There would have been hell to pay if even a fraction of what the state did to Tamils in Sri Lanka was done to Francophones in Canada under the guise of fighting terrorism.

The response of the state therefore was crucial. In Canada successive Governments tried to reach out to Quebec. There were French Prime Ministers like Trudeau and Chretien and also Anglophone PM’s like Mulroney and Martin from Quebec. Francophones are adequately represented in Cabinet and Supreme Court. There is official bi – lingualism in Ottawa and in all Federal institutions. The charter guarantees equal protection under the law. French is the official language in Quebec and a determined campaign is on to empower it further. Quebec’s economy is growing.

Thus a conscious effort is underway to remove Francophone insecurity and demonstrate that they could live as equals in a united but federal Canada. The referendums of 1980 and 1995 saw the Sovereignists being defeated. This would not have been possible but for substantial sections of Francophones aligning themselves with Anglophones and Allophones.

[At the time the colonies were considering forming a new nation, John A. was the "prime minister" of the United Canadas (today, Ontario and Quebec). After Confederation in 1867, John A. served as the first Prime Minister of the new-formed Dominion of Canada-the first dominion in the British Empire.

This statue of Sir John stands af the very head of Queen's Park, overlooking University Avenue southbound - Photo: Lone Primate]

Again the attitude of English Canada towards secession has been of great importance. Impatient cries are often heard at what is perceived as Sovereignist intransigience. Objections have been raised against special treatment being given to Quebec. Despite these there has been an overall tendency to reach out to Quebec. The percentage of Anglophones learning French or teaching French to children is very high. Though annoyed by the separatists English Canada has tried to accommodate French aspirations as far as possible.

More importantly English Canada was tolerant of the Francophones in their midst even when FLQ violence was at its highest. English mobs did not attack French living in Ottawa or Toronto or Vancouver as retaliation for terrorist violence as Sinhala mobs did to Tamils in Colombo and elsewhere in 1977 or 1983. Neither do they pat themselves on their backs for exercising patience in the face of provocative violence. When looking at violence being condemned by civil society the contrasting conduct of the majority in Canada and Sri Lanka in the wake of minority violence has to be given full cognizance

These are but a few thoughts that come to mind when comparing the political violence of Canada and Sri Lanka and in trying to ascertain why separatist violence withered away in the former and flourishes in the latter.The difference in conduct of French Canadian leaders and Tamil leaders played a crucial part in this. So too was the role of the people themselves. Though the crises were ethnic in nature, ethnicity was not allowed to dominate in Canada whereas in Sri Lanka ,ethnicity was everything in the state’s response.

In Canada the state led by French Premiers at Federal and Provincial level spearheaded the anti – FLQ campaign. In Sri Lanka it was an All Sinhala affair. After invoking harsh measures for a specific period the Canadian regime let things slip back to normal. Extraordinary attempts were made to reach out to th French people. Much legislation was brought to assuage Quebec sentiments. French Canadians remain an integral part of Canada and its Government notwithstanding a separatist movement enjoying much support in Quebec. This is not the case in Sri Lanka.

Likewise the French politicians and people are to be commended for not encouraging violence to pervade the just struggle for equality. This again was not the case in Sri Lanka as far as Tamil leaders and public at large were concerned..

However much the Tamil struggle has now been distorted or undermined through violence it is of paramount importance to realise that the under – lying roots of this conflict lie in the Tamil perception that they have been denied their rightful place in Sri Lanka. Though that perception was allowed to crystallise in the form of secession through armed struggle the quest for Tamil equality remains unfulfilled. Basically the Tamil struggle was for justice, egalitarianism,democracy, pluralism. power – sharing, human rights, honour and dignity. In Canada these concepts were recognized and addressed whereas it was not so in Sri Lanka. If a disease is to be cured permanently both causes and symptoms have to be addressed.

The difference in attitude and approach among the majority and minority communities in Canada and Sri Lanka towards political violence is therefore the crucial factor when trying to determine the reasons for the fall of separatist violence in one Country and its rise in another. Again it must be said that the experience of one Country cannot be applicable in all respects to that of another. Yet , there are valuable lessons to be learnt if we can shed our xenophobic insularity and seek enlightenment with an open mind.

Related: The Power Sharing Experience in Canada

transCurrents feedback : editor@transcurrents.com

transCurrents feedback :Contact DBS Jeyaraj : djeyaraj2005@yahoo.com

Entry Filed under: transCurrents