THE TERMS ‘TERRORISM’ AND ‘TERRORISTS’, AS USED BY CERTAIN COUNTRIES, IN RELATION TO THE FREEDOM STRUGGLE OF THE TAMILS OF EELAM

The above two words have gained much currency in the world in recent years and are currently on the lips of most persons today. These words, ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’, were in vogue long before the ‘twin towers’ incident at the New York Trade Centre.

This was the incident that led to the unfortunate loss of countless innocent lives in the USA. The western media in particular, had already started to use these names freely, to cover any or all incidents around the world that they could not ascribe to a legitimate movement or revolt or insurrection or war, well before the ‘twin towers’ incident. Since the ‘incident’ and following on the retaliatory actions of America and Britain against Afghanistan and Iraq, the term ‘terrorism’, has found a place in every day usage.

It is regrettable that following the ‘twin towers’ incident, for which the al-Qaeda group acknowledged responsibility, most persons who were Muslim or believers in the Islamic religion or just had a Middle Eastern appearance, were labelled ’terrorists’. There was even an incident in London when a young Brazilian (who was not a Muslim) was pumped full of lead by terrified armed police in the belief that he was a terrorist. This innocent young man’s tanned appearance was his undoing.

Let us first examine the word ‘terrorist’ as used in the English language. There are a number of dictionary meanings but I will give just a few that should prove sufficient for our purpose.

1. The Oxford Concise Dictionary gives - Terrorist (n) one who favours the use of terror- inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government or community.
2. The Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary gives - Terrorise (v) to terrify; to govern by terror.
3. Odhams Dictionary of the English Language gives – Terrorism (n) policy of terror and intimidation; a government or administration founded upon such policy.
4. Encyclopaedic World Dictionary gives - Terrorist (n) one who uses or favours terrorising methods of resisting a government or of governing.

The above are just a few dictionary meanings taken at random, but serve to demonstrate what this word signifies. One should note however, that according to these dictionary meanings, this word applies not only to a group opposed to a government, that adopt terror as part of their tactics, it also applies to governments who use ‘terror’ as a means of governing. It is clear that though there may be groups or organisations that are described as terrorists it is equally possible that there could be governments that are ‘terrorists’.

Those Tamils of Eelam who were fortunate to be accepted into Britain as asylum seekers have experienced, along with their fellow Diaspora into other countries, at first hand, the crude and almost primitive behaviour of the military arm of the Sinhala government of Sri Lanka. They well understand the word ‘terrorists’ and what it signifies in the English language. They must be excused, if they do not understand why western governments and western leaders in what are called ‘democracies’ will insist on calling asylum seeking Tamils, ‘terrorists’ but not the Sinhala soldiers who are responsible for their seeking asylum abroad in the first instance. These same Sri Lankan Sinhala soldiers, have bombed the Tamils from their homes, tortured them, denied them food and clothing and raped their women folk but are not called ‘terrorists’. One has only to read the transcript of the interview that the American ambassador in Sri Lanka granted to the Sri Lankan government newspaper, the ‘Daily News’, on the 5th November 2006.

Here is an extract from this interview that was with the editor of the ‘Daily News’ and was televised over Sri Lankan television.

Q: We see that the coast guards the ‘Couragers’, which you gifted to Sri Lanka are being put to good use. Could you elaborate on the military assistance provided by the US to Sri Lanka?

A: Well, I do not want to exaggerate that. We are doing what we can within our capabilities to help the Sri Lankan military. I think the Sri Lankan military has a lot of need in terms of being able to identify where the LTTE arms shipments in particular are coming from.

So we are looking at ways to help expand their capabilities to identify those shipments and hopefully interject them. We are doing a lot of training to help in all kinds of military activities. All this to help Sri Lanka defend itself. We have been very clear that our strong interest is in not seeing the military prosecute this war, but to send a signal of strength that will hopefully see the LTTE coming to the negotiating table.’

Apart from the unfortunate ‘Bushisms’ in the language of the ambassador, it is clear from his response, that America is actively helping the Sri Lankan military. If the Americans are not aware of the ‘misuse’ by the Sri Lankan army, of the military assistance they have been providing, I can only say that both the American embassy in Sri Lanka and American intelligence services there, are not earning their keep.

One should pay particular attention to the following words in the transcript above – ‘All this to help Sri Lanka defend itself’. Defend from whom? The ambassador claims that America’s efforts are directed at ‘helping Sri Lanka defend itself’.

We are told that the LTTE (the Eelam freedom fighters) are ‘forcing’ Tamils to join their ‘terrorist’ groups. We are also told that they are forcing children to fight their wars. The Tamils are a small minority nation in the north and east of Sri Lanka who are outnumbered by almost 10:1 by the Sinhalas, who form the government. Yet, it is necessary for that great democracy USA to help Sri Lanka to ‘defend itself’ against the child soldiers and soldiers ‘press ganged’ into the war by the freedom fighters. This war has been going on for over 30 years now yet the superior Sinhala army, with its fire power and its command of the skies and the sea, is unable to make any headway against this small army of ‘press ganged’ Tamil men and women and child soldiers whom the ‘world’ has labelled ‘terrorists’!

Should not the western powers and the peacemakers take another look at their sums?

Is there not something lacking here? The Americans have the history of the independence wars of their young nation to learn from. Perhaps, the Americans holding the important positions like ambassador O’ Blake and civil servant Burns are not aware of their own country’s history.

There have also been examples in history, where groups have adopted ‘terror’ tactics to achieve their ends. In the years after the Second World War when Palestine was still ‘mandated territory’ under the British, the Irgun under Menachem Begin was responsible for a bomb at the King David’s Hotel in Jerusalem that was then the headquarters of the British army in Palestine. This bomb resulted in the death of 90 British soldiers. The same Jewish group was also responsible for the assassination of the British ambassador in Cairo. The Irgun were not called ‘terrorists’ for these acts. The Jews were fighting for a Jewish homeland in a land that they considered their ‘traditional’ home. Indeed, a few years later they were able establish their homeland – Israel over which Menachem Begin was to become prime minister. The world did not complain. They knew that the Jews were fighting to establish their homeland.

Even the young country of America had to fight for its independence from the British colonial government of George III. I would in this connection like to quote some extracts from the American Declaration of Independence.

‘When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with one another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them……..’

‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, and that among these are life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness……..’

‘That whatsoever form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, It is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute New Government…..’

We see that many years ago people were more ‘civilised’ and that went for the Founding Fathers of America as well.

This brings us to the recent decision of the EU to ban the freedom fighters of Eelam as ‘terrorists’. Among the countries of the EU who decided that the LTTE (freedom fighters) were a ‘terrorist’ organisation, three countries stand out. These are Portugal, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. These three countries were at one time, colonial rulers of the island now called Sri Lanka. They each, called the island by different but similar names. The Portuguese called the island Ceilao (m); the Dutch as Zeylam and the British as Ceylon. These names were all variations of the original name of the island that was Eelam.

The British especially, were always aware that there were two separate nations on the island. The Sinhalas and the Tamils. No lesser person that Hugh Cleghorn who was principal secretary under the first governor Frederic North in 1799 has described the position of the two nations in the island in an official minute that he submitted, that stated ‘two different nations, from a very ancient period have divided between them in possession of the island (Ceylon) ………These two nations differ entirely in their religion, language and manners…’ We see that Portugal, the Netherlands and Britain were all aware of the background to the Tamil fight for sovereignty yet all three countries voted to ban the freedom fighters of Eelam.

Clearly, there is something that seriously concerns these western democracies that the world has not been made aware of. It is time thinking persons of all nations of the world sat up and took a long hard look at what is going on in Sri Lanka and in Eelam in particular.

It is obviously more sensible to avoid the slaughter and bloodshed, famine and starvation now, than to say ‘sorry’ make a fuss over the dead and starving after the damage is done.

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed