By

Rauff Hakeem, Minister of Justice

(Text of the 36th S.J.V. Chelvanayakam memorial oration delivered by Leader of Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) and Minister of Justice, Rauff Hakeem, at the Chelva Square, in Jaffna, on 26 April 2013)

In the past 15 years, we have all pursued our own politics and played our respective roles. However, in that process, our efforts are strengthened by the contribution of men of eminence and calibre of S.J.V. Chelvanayakam. Recalling our memories of Chelvanayakam renews and invigorates our resolve to stand on our feet and discharge our responsibilities. The Chief Priest of the Nallur Temple, who spoke before me, said the Minster of Justice is here, but we are tired of pleading for justice. Brother Ayub who spoke before me said we should have supported the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) after the Provincial Council Elections in the East.

He also said as Muslims, we are deeply anguished by speeches made by former and present Tamil parliamentarians.

I wish to impress on him the essence of the adage that one solitary tree does not make either a forest or an orchard. Those who were raised on the ideological foundation of Chelvanayakam, would not be disposed to accept the derogation of the Muslim community.

When we speak of Chelvanayakam, we recall a gentle man with indomitable courage and a frail physique. When we reflect on his remarkable career, his commitment to non-violence and his relentless struggles we are also reminded of the serenity and the gentleness he never abandoned even at the height of the most acute crisis. All his actions were guided by non-violence. Even today when we recall his life and times, we cannot help but recall his gentle diminutive persona. This audience needs no description of the calm, persuasive style that placed him amongst that rare breed of politicians whose memory remains etched in the peoples’ psyche. This audience needs no introduction to his persuasive style and singular leadership of his people.

Speaking on the life of Chelvanayakam and his political ethos, I wish to combine it with the trajectories of contemporary politics in the standards he observed in distinguishing principle from expediency. His active political career spanned three decades from 1947 to 1977. I will, in the course of my sweep of these interesting times, make some anecdotal references to important issues that he was concerned with. These are the demands for self determination and autonomy under a federal framework conceptualized in the Trincomalee resolution and culminating in the Vaddukkottai Declaration.

In the lives of leaders, anecdotes are interesting narratives etched in history. When reading the political biography of Chelvanayakam, entitled S.J.V. Chelvanayakam and the Crisis of Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism, by his son-in-law, Professor A. J. Wilson, one is amazed by his political sagacity. He was a thinker, activist and an exemplary leader par excellence among other colourful and dynamic minority leaders who were his contemporaries.

The non violent satyagrahas and civil disobedience campaigns he conceived and implemented were essentially and exclusively based on the principles of non-violence, which he adhered to in his politics outside the parliamentary discourse. The slow painful process of non-violence was the highest price he was willing to pay for the ideals he pursued. After his passing, the non-violent struggle was muted and politics turned into a violent armed struggle that reached the heights of atrocity and human brutality. Instead of non-violence as another form of negotiation, violence became the futile substitute. After three decades, the wheel has turned full circle and the non-violence of Chelvanayakam has become the instrument of politics once again.

When we return to satyagraha of which he was a profound exponent, we need to think how we could make it a persuasive and compelling force. Ayub who preceded me shared his sense of letdown or disenchantment with the Muslim Congress for not coalescing with the Tamil National Alliance to administer the Eastern Province. I did not fail to notice the applause he received or the audience response he evoked. At this point I can only make one riposte. We were prisoners of peculiar circumstances. When reaching a prudent decision at a given moment one needs to be foresighted. Even the right decision taken in the wrong context could turn out to be counterproductive.

In my opinion, in the unfolding post-war political space of the victorious South, The Muslim community had to take note of the signs of the times. The Muslim community had to be cautious and consider its options in the contextual compulsions. What Ayub pronounced was the correct decision. Yet in our opinion although it was the right decision it was a wrong decision in that particular situation. Before long we should be able to view these events in the right context and the turnaround is not too far away.

No one after Chelvanayakam was referred to as the ‘Periyawar’ (an Exalted Superior). ‘Thanthai’ (Father) was never the prefix used for any other person. He has been variously referred to as the ‘great one’ ‘father of the community’ and the ‘oldest child of Tamil nationalism’. The stark reality is that he epitomized the hopes of all Tamil speaking people of our community.

Never did an intemperate word escape from his lips in his entire political life. Compared to the challenges he had to overcome since the earliest days of his life, the challenges confronting us seem to be inconsequential.
Those of us who are called to lead are only too familiar with backbiting, betrayal, smear and slander. However, when we really examine the contentious conundrums that Chelvanayakam had to unravel or resolve we find ourselves relieved that our own predicaments are not insurmountable at all.

One cannot speak of Chelvanayakam without making a special reference to G. G. Ponnambalam, his iconic friend and fellow in the early days in politics. Together, they dominated the Tamil political landscape. While the two titans chartered their different paths, they both pursued the same overarching objective. One cannot ignore Ponambalam while tracing the political life of Chelvanayakam, however nuanced one could be in that endeavour. The two roles were so intertwined that no matter how the subject is approached from whatever direction ignoring one would result in an incomplete canvass. The leadership and authority of Ponambalam in the early days left a lasting influence.

Before I get there, allow me to make a comparative appraisal of the two personalities. Here, my attention was drawn to a statement made by Gajendra Kumar Ponnambalam, the grandson of GG, published in an English daily. He has called for a total boycott of the forthcoming Northern Provincial Council elections. On reading that, my mind was immediately drawn to the Chelvanayakam oration, last year by the historian, Professor C. Pathmanathan from the University of Peradeniya. In that, he spoke of a historical disadvantage suffered by the Tamils by their repeated boycott of elections in the past. He too, drew the example of Gajendrakumar’s grandfather’s political life. That was the time when GG was preparing to contest a seat in the Legislative Council under the Donoughmore Constitution after his return to Sri Lanka as a young Barrister in England. The Jaffna Youth Congress of the time was strongly opposed to a Tamil contesting for a seat under the Donoughmore Constitution on grounds that it had not accorded justice to the Tamils and that it offers only a form of partial independence to the country. They therefore, vigorously campaigned for a boycott of elections.

They expected the South to react in a similar manner. They were soon to be hugely disappointed. Much to their astonishment, it did not happen, and it paved the way for the eventual creation of a Pan-Sinhala Cabinet of Ministers. Prof. Pathmanathan explained the extent of the negative impacts on the Tamil community in contemporary politics. The catalogue of deprivations suffered by boycotting elections can be a very long. I am confident and reassured that the TNA would never commit such a grievous error of judgment this time around.

Chelvanayakam and GG were giants who wielded remarkable authority. One was a lawyer, intellectual and a brilliant mesmerizing orator. As a criminal lawyer he was unmatched and his forensic skills still remain even today as the stuff of legend. On the political platform he was equally flamboyant. Chelvanayakam who was endowed with an equally brilliant intellect was the exact antithesis of the mercurial GG. He was equally peerless in civil law. He had a deserved reputation for gathering and orchestrating facts with a razor edged precision. He was twice offered a seat in the Supreme Court Bench by the British administration. The quiet unpretentious sage with his steely resolve spurned high office to dedicate his life to a career in politics in the service to his people. In the pursuit of his political ideals he spared nothing including his substantial wealth. It is in that Spartan image that we see Chelvanayakam, diminutive in physique but a giant in his humanity.

The Tamil Congress (TC) contested and won the elections in 1947 under the leadership of GG who won the Jaffna seat. Chelvanayakam was elected in Kayts. GG proceeded to make representations to the British rulers in Whitehall asserting that the Tamil people had completely rejected the constitutional proposals of the Soulbury Commission. He presented his 50-50 demand calling for a new Constitution that would accommodate his demand for equal representation for the Tamils. D.S. Senanayake was then assiduously pushing his own constitutional proposals that endorsed the Soulbury recommendations. He was working behind the scene with a strategy designed to counter the TC.

Senanayake then made a surreptitious move inviting Chelvanayakam to join his government when GG was away in England. Here, we see the uncompromising rectitude and unbending integrity of Chelvanayakam. He rejected the offer swiftly and firmly. His loyalty to the party and the leader was far beyond the price of ministerial office.
From that point onwards GG faced many vagaries in his political fortunes. There are many narratives of how the two epochal Tamil leaders parted ways. However, it was indeed a great historic moment when the two men appeared as counsel for the defence of Amirthalingam who faced a Trial- at- Bar for sedition against the State. It is rightly regarded as a watershed even in Tamil politics when the two leaders estranged on matters of policy were united on a basic principle of the right of dissent in a democracy.

More than 20 counsel, of whom six were Queen’s Counsel appeared in this celebrated trial. Chelvanayakam was a King’s Counsel who took his silk earlier. G.G. Ponnambalam took his silk later and was a Queen’s Counsel. There was much speculation on who would be the lead counsel as Chelvanayakam was more senior of the two colossuses. However, the matter was resolved by Senator M. Thiruchelvam QC who together with GG made oral submissions. This was a symbolic victory for the Tamil community.

The appearance of the two Tamil leaders who sank their political differences was emblematic of the mood of the Tamil people’s nationalist struggle at the time. The cream of the educated articulate Tamils was defending Amirthalingam before a court of law. They firmly upheld the rule of law, the right to dissent and the constitutional process. GG died in February 1977 and Chelvanayakam departed in April 1977. The passing of the two within a year of the famous trial marked the beginning of the end of an era.

With those tranquil days of justice administered after a deliberative process in focus, one could wonder if this government would be brave enough to institute legal proceedings against the bigotry of individuals who seek to create ethnic disharmony. Today, we are constrained in our actions. We need to be circumspect even when we seek equity. We practice a kind of bland politics with tremendous patience and limitless tolerance.

An assessment of the politics of satyagraha practised by Chelvanayakam would show us the unreserved commitment to engage wisely in a deliberative process to attain what he believed to be the rights of the people. Politics of non-violence as practised by Chelvanayakam requires less rhetoric and more intellectual engagement. That was the trajectory followed by Chelvanayakam who abhorred violence in any form. It is necessary for us to evaluate the impact of the satyagraha campaign of Chelvanayakam from the Federal Party Convention in Trincomlaee in 1956 to the Vaddukkottai resolution in 1976. He pursued his aims amidst many obstacles never abandoning either his goals or his commitment to non-violent satyagraha. He made the Federal Party the bastion of defence of the rights of the Tamil speaking people.

In the proceedings of the Trincomalee Convention in August 1956, we can discern carefully structured language that was intended for compromise and concessions while anchoring the claim of a Tamil nation. The English maxim says that ‘Politics is the art of the possible.’ He did accept that dictum by always leaving the space for persuasion by both the protagonist and the antagonist. Undoubtedly, he remains the best example of a politician who strived to achieve what was ‘possible or probable’.

He negotiated three pacts after negotiations with three Prime Ministers. In 1957, he signed the Bandaranaike – Chelvanayakam pact. He reached an ‘understanding’ with Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike in 1960. He then signed the Dudley Senanayake – Chelvanakam pact in 1965. It is no exaggeration to claim that the remedies for redress of Tamil national demands are embodied within the contours of all three pacts that he was a party to.
Today, we critique the Indo-Lanka agreement for its many faults. I wish to draw your attention to two incidents. One occurred after the death of Chelvanayakam and the other was in 1952 when he was in the midst of his election campaign. In that year he broke away from the All Ceylon Tamil Congress and formed the Federal Party (Illankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK)). In the general election that followed he launched a rigorous islandwide non-violent campaign to build awareness among Tamil communities on the autonomy of the Tamil people, the discrimination in language and education and the need for a federal form of government. He suffered a serious setback in that election. The reversal he suffered was mostly due to the fact that Chelvanayakam was not a Hindu. His faith was a disadvantage in the electoral democracy.

V. Navaratnam suggested to Chelvanayakam to pose for a photograph where he would be seen receiving a temple offering from a Hindu priest. It was to counter attacks in the media by image profiling. He bluntly rejected the suggestion and said that he had no intention of mixing religion with politics. He of course lost the election. “I did not lose. The Tamil nation lost,” he declared walking out of the Kachcheri. It is at this stage in 1952, that Amirthalingam assumes the role of the master campaigner of the party.

I am often invited to make memorial lectures. However, I take special pride in this case of Chelvanayakam. I am proud of delivering two memorial lectures in honour of the great Tamil Leader.

In 2010, Managaiyarkkarasi Amirthalingam requested me to deliver the memorial oration of Amirthalingam. I then spoke of the challenges faced by the Tamil speaking minority community in the post-war context. A few years earlier, I delivered a memorial lecture of Sivasithambaram, at an event organized by his school mates at the Colombo Tamizh Sangam.

The Tamil autonomy-ideology of Chelvanayakam of years past remains in a living form of the Tamil nationalist ideology although it has transformed into varying forms. To this date in the South it is perceived as a divisive enterprise. The Tamil Congress too viewed it in the same light and called it a charade. The grandson of the founder of the party, Gajendra Kumar Ponnambalam has now adopted an extreme stance in his politics. We can see how history transforms people and perceptions.

Those were the days when Chelvanayakam’s federal solution was scorned and derided. ‘If there was a federal solution, the train will not go beyond Elephant Pass’, they said. Amidst such challenges Chelvanayakam proceeded with his campaigns for Tamil rights which relied on persuasion and engagement through well established democratic forms of protest and agitation. E. M. V. Naganathan and C. Vanniasingham were some of his contemporaries in school and later in politics. They shared the same ideology. The persevering activists such as Dharmalingam, the father of my friend Sidhdharthan who is here, were committed volunteers in the non-violent struggles of satyagraha and non-violent civil disobedience. If they could persist with these wholly ahimsa campaigns and satyagrahas and achieve progress, we need to do some introspection while reminiscing the past. Can we not follow the same form of actions to realize our aspirations? Should the Tamil speaking communities follow the same example of cooperation and concession, I can say in no uncertain terms that we too can be successful, in the not too distant future.

I should share some views on the Indo-Lanka accord of 1987. If the 1983 pogrom was a watershed event that changed the political history of the country, 1990 was the watershed year that changed the course of history of the Muslims in the country. The sad memories of ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the North and the innumerable atrocities against Muslims in the East are still in our collective conscience. The year 1990 cannot be erased from the minds of Muslims. That was the year that brought about the historical change in Muslim politics as well. The root cause for the feeling of neglect and exclusion is the failure to make any reference to the fate of the substantial Muslim population that was also affected by the Indo-Lanka accord of 1987. The Sri Lanka Muslim Congress was a political expression of this Muslim fear of exclusion and neglect and the most important aspect of this phenomenon was the ideology of a Muslim homeland.

We perceive Chelvanayakam as an exceptional national leader who firmly held that Muslims too had a right to self determination in the country. He not only alludes to this fact in the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam pact but reiterated it in the post Vadukkottai period by insisting that Tamils had a natural affinity to the North and East the Muslim nation had the right of separating itself from the Tamil nation.

He clearly enunciated this principle in the 1977 election manifesto of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF). With the passage of time politics of violence attracted a considerable segment of the Tamil community and an arms culture got entrenched in the polity.

When Tamil nationalism was overwhelmed by the culture of violence, the Muslims in those areas were taken hostage by the armed militants. This affected all of us Muslims. After the 1985 riots in Kalmunai and Valaichchenai, we Muslims volunteered to build bridges with the Tamil communities in the area in a mutual endeavour of restoring harmony. The process of healing was well underway with goodwill and confidence reassuring to the public psyche which was grievously wounded by the senseless acts in 1990. The relations between the two communities were almost irretrievably undermined and the painstaking process of building confidence and goodwill was destroyed.
Unlike the sporadic events of bloodshed and violence, these seemed well orchestrated, and pre arranged. The violence experienced left the Muslims in a state of perpetual fear and panic with no trace of any confidence in the Tamil community.

The 1987 Indo-Lanka accord was reached in this backdrop of uncertainty and fear gripping the Muslim community, to a degree that made them feel, trapped in a rudderless boat adrift in an ocean of violence. They felt abandoned.
This deep sense of absolute despair manifested in the form of Muslim identity politics where the Muslims sought an identity within a geographically defined territory. Obtaining a voice in the 1988 Provincial Council elections and in the provincial council became an imperative for the Muslims.

The immaturity and adventurism coupled with the absence of any experience in state craft ensured the eventual downfall of all past Tamil armed struggles. They were incapable of recognizing the different groups for their distinct ethno religious identities and were totally bereft of any refinement to appreciate the multi ethnic dimensions of our society. It seems that the problem was not confined to them alone as we are still engaged in the struggle of nation building. The problem we now find is one that confronts the whole nation.

The struggle for self determination was carefully nurtured by Chelvanayakam with a secure place for Muslims. The fascist Eelamists rudely abandoned that policy and threatened the very existence of the Muslims. They expelled the Muslims living in their midst by brute force. We should understand the impact of cataclysmic events in order to comprehend the Tamil Muslim division.

It was with these bitter emotions lurking in our minds that we entered the next phase of our political dealings with the LTTE. Today, the Tamil National Alliance has a major challenge in repairing this breach and reconciling with the Muslims from whom they distanced themselves in the Tamil national struggle that was hijacked by the Fascist LTTE. The restoration of Tamil Muslim amity in areas which both communities call home is a serious challenge. They have the responsibility to learn and discover the reasons for their political incapacity that seemed to overtake them in the post- Chelvanayakam years.

The recent speeches of Annan Sampanthan, are reassuring in that direction. However, they cannot be mere pronouncements and need to translate into genuine acts of cooperation. It should not suffer the fate of the understanding reached in 1960 between Sirimavo and Chelvanayakam which was repudiated soon after the elections that followed. We have arrived at a point where we need to engage in a deep introspection to understand our past mistakes and chart our future activities.

Chelvanayakam’s capacity to think ahead of his time was essentially a deeply ingrained personal trait. On this account his son in law A. J. Wilson has some anecdotes to share in his book. G.G. Ponnambalam propounded the theory of “responsive cooperation”. He later joined the government of D. S .Senanayake. When Chelvanayakam formed an alternative party, the Jaffna based middle class intelligentsia requested Chelvanayakam to give time for GG to try out his “responsive cooperation” formula. Thanthai was not prepared to wait and watch. He believed that he had no alternative. His overriding conviction was that they would surely be betrayed. He then realized that the frontline of the Tamil nation was not in the North but in the East. He shifted his focus to the East.

He had a strong premonition that the lands of the Tamil speaking people of the East would soon be lost. He formed the ITAK, and mobilized support as speedily as was possible to build an effective voice to fight for their rights. Before he could launch his political front, the Gal Oya scheme was initiated and State aided colonization had begun in the East.

This experience was the reason why Chelvanayakam never had any faith in the slogan ‘responsive cooperation’. His response was expressed carefully measured words and was never meant to hurt anyone. He was consistently prudent and judicious in his political activities. The practical value and relevance of his actions have not diminished with the passage of time. They are as valid and relevant in contemporary politics. The most effective instrument he used to uphold his convictions and fight for what he believed to be injustices was his unwavering commitment to Ghandism and ahimsa. There are plenty of instances in his life that tested his resolve.

He and his adherents witnessed attacks by hoodlums, baton charges and other incidents of savagery. Such responses only served to harden his resolve and increase his ranks. Those who wish to further the aspirations of Tamil people should realize that these are the means that could lead them to their desired goals.

Fifteen years ago when I delivered an oration in memory of Chelvanayakam, I said that at the time of his campaign demanding a federal form of government there was a parallel development in Tamil Nadu. Aringnar Anna too had left Periyaar and the Thravidar Kazhaham, and formed a party called Thiravidar Munnetra Kazhaham. The divisive politics in India was far worse at that time. I mentioned in that earlier speech that after the Central Government of India demarcated the state on the basis of language, the divisive tendencies were totally eradicated. The success of that exercise was the judicious handling of a sensitive issue and the strategic foresight of the Indian Central Government.

The blanket suppression or removal of all options of political inclusivity is not a prudent course of action. The ideological differences between the Tamil-speaking community and the Central Government were not the only contentious issues. There were other problems of practical implementation that needed resolution. What mattered was the mutual recognition by the Central Government and the representatives of Tamil Nadu to identify the required measures to overcome the problems.

I am well aware of the adverse publicity my speech will receive when it appears in the newspapers tomorrow. Some things should be said at the correct moment when the situation warrants it. What is right and meant to be right will not be wrong. That is why I decided to speak my mind on this platform.

Chelvanayakam had the ingenuity to intertwine the claim of a traditional homeland with the most appropriate language. It was a smart strategy. Prof. A. J. Wilson in his book Chelvanayakam and the Crisis of Sri Lanka Tamil Nationalism writes pointedly of the same. Chelvanayakam never asked his followers to propagate the demand for a separate state. He single-mindedly kept reiterating the need for internal autonomy. Although it morphed into extremist demands after the Vaddukottai resolution, in his lifetime Chelvanayakam demonstrated that ahimsa, non-violent struggles and intelligent political negotiations were the correct instruments to realize the Tamil aspirations.

If his followers wish to successfully reap the benefits of his life-work they must necessarily tread the same path with no diversions. Their politics must stress on inclusivity that will embrace all. It should be the kind of calm, collected and balanced politics that could respond effectively to the suspicious vehemence of the South. In the post-war times, we must avoid a vicious trend in politics that finger the wounds of war suffered by all communities. We must clear a new path towards consensual politics. Here, I am reminded of another anecdote from the life of Chelvanayakam.
When the new 1972 Constitution was framed, all provisions protecting the minorities in the earlier Constitution were removed. Chelvanayagam, representing Kankesanturai promptly resigned from Parliament as a mark of protest. He challenged the government to hold a by-election and test the views of his constituency. The then government could not meet his challenge and put off the by-election for nearly three years. In the by-election which was eventually held in 1975, Chelvanayakam emerged with an unprecedented majority. It was a high point in the history of the struggle of the Tamil people. Such extraordinary feats of political protest should not be forgotten.

Since that by-election victory, we find the TULF scoring great triumphs where Annan Amirthalingam rose to be the Leader of the Opposition in 1977. A lesson for all here is the danger of postponing elections.
Now, there are clear indications that the government will hold the elections for the Northern Provincial Council. However, there are some spoilers making unnecessary pronouncements. I sincerely hope that they are not true and that they do not reflect the position of the government.

Tracing through the pages of Chelvanayakam’s life, we should resolve never to repeat the historical mistakes. Let us hope that we could work towards the dawn of a new era in which the Sinhala nation in the South and the Tamil nation in the North along with the Muslims living in the North and the East and those dispersed in other provinces would live in harmony and peace, united in the pursuit of prosperity for all. The path that we need to take is that of ahimsa that was scrupulously followed by the legendary leader Chelvanayakam. Let me conclude my address by repeating a slogan on one of the banners displayed in his funeral procession at Thellipalai Junction, where thousands rallied to accompany him in his last journey: “Uththamanaar oorvalaththil uyirodu pohindraar; Setthavaraai naam ellaam veethiyile nitkindrom,”(The great soul walks away with life while we are left dead by the sidewalks).