The Conflict in Sri Lanka: Ground Realities - Ilankai Tamil Sangam

to power sharing. This behaviour, together with what they had
experienced of the Sinhala political leadership over the last five
decades had convinced the Tamil people that there was little to
distinguish between the Presidential contenders. As far as the
Tamils were concerned Wickramasinghe and Rajapakse were
simply two different sides of the same Sinhala chauvinistic coin.
The Tamil people’s collective decision to refrain from voting was
based on this assessment.
It is vital that the international community which seeks to help
forge an enduring peace does not continue to delude itself by
regarding those with a veneer of western sophistication or liberal
pretensions to be less chauvinistic than those who are openly
so.
In times of crisis the façade always cracks and the chauvinism
stands exposed. The most recent example was the outburst by
Dr Dhanapala a seasoned diplomat and Secretary General of the
Peace Secretariat in Colombo who launched vituperative attacks
on the LTTE and the Tamil people in the course of his addresses
to audiences in Washington. As this writer put it “Dhanapala’s
unbecoming conduct ought to be an eye opener to those who
subscribe to the notion that Sinhala chauvinism is simply confined
to the JVP and the ‘patriotic’ parties. The extent to which this
chauvinism has permeated Sinhala polity comes to the fore at
times of crisis. This is when the likes of Dhanapala, despite their
veneer of sophistication become undone” 7
India, the regional power
It is only natural that India, the regional power, should have
an abiding interest in the manner in which the conflict in the
Island of Sri Lanka is resolved. It is unfortunate, however, that
Indian policy makers have persisted with the policy that was set
in motion almost two decades ago when in a misguided attempt
to reverse its earlier policy of arming Tamils, India intervened to
protect the ‘unity and integrity of Sri Lanka’.
29