I refer to Radhika Coomaraswamy’s article under the caption ‘Wither the Tamil conscience’ appearing on page 15 of ‘The Island’ of 22.09.1999.

Coomaraswamy, in proceeding to analyse the silence of the Tamils over Dr. N. Tiruchelvam’s death, describes the Tamils as the ‘the Sri Lankan Tamil minority’. Having been associated with Tiruchelvam for almost the entirety of her life, it baffles me that she refers to the Tamils as a ‘minority’ when Tiruchelvam, for more than two decades, at least, has seen the Tamils living in this island as a “Nation” (or did he?).

Coomaraswamy also refers to the fact that the “Tamil Times” which she describes as “the leading international Sri Lankan Tamil journal has dedicated its whole issue” to Tiruchelvam.

 Whilst the death of Tiruchelvam has shown that there is an inexplicable obsession in some quarters with the element of “internationalism”, the dedication of the “Tamil Times” issue to Tiruchelvam wholly lacks quality because it is nothing but a collection of all messages and articles that had appeared, even a month previous to the publication of the “Tamil Times”, in the English edition of Colombo newspapers and, in this respect, no different from the special publication put out by Coomaraswamy’s own International Centre for Ethnic Studies.

There was absolutely nothing original or new in that `dedicated issue’ barring an article by “Tamil Times” own perpetual columnist, Narapalasingham.

Coomaraswamy asks the question “why was the Tamil community silent upon hearing of Neelan’s death? “ and proceeds to give a discourse on the meaning of silence and when and why there is such silence. But this question lacks relevance anymore .

This question was asked by both the local and international media soon after Tiruchelvam’s death and goaded the Tamils to say something, which they did.

Coomaraswamy now wants Tamil intellectuals and opinion - makers to show their remorse on Tiruchelvam’s death and questions where their conscience is.

But D.B.S. Jeyaraj complains that these very same Tamils have already said their piece and what they have said is not complimentary of Tiruchelvam.

So where do we go from here?

Is it Coomaraswamy’s position that when silence has to be broken, then the  Tamils must necessarily say some thing good about Tiruchelvam and if they do not, then the Tamils have no conscience?

The eternal question that will remain is “what was Tiruchelvam’s contribution to the Tamil Nation, after all?

If it was nought, no Tamil will be interested in Tiruchelvam. And in this, no Tamil will be interested in what Dr. Jehan Perera has written, in the same issue of “The Island”, that Tiruchelvam had done many things to individual Sinhalese and Tamils. That is not politics. That would be charity.

Coomaraswamy refers to ‘the right to life’ and the ‘dignity in death”.

Why ask these questions only now? All this is all happening in this island since June 1956.

Where has Coomaraswamy been all this while? Is it not more appropriate to talk of the decadence of Sri Lankan Society? Is it not more appropriate to say that this country is finished for all times?

Coomaraswamy tells us that Tiruchelvam “did a great did deal for the Tamils”. She does not say what all these are. No Tamil seems to be  knowing these either.

She refers to Tiruchelvam’s parliamentary speeches and that they are to be published soon. Let us see in how many of them there is reference to the Tamils.

Coomaraswamy refers to Krishanthy Kurmaraswamy’s murderers being in jail due to Tiruchelvam’s efforts.

Please, what does this statement mean? But does she know that when a Tamil lawyer close to Krishanthy’s family had approached Tiruchelvam to help in the matter, Tiruchelvam told this Tamil lawyer, that all he will do would be to arrange for a lawyer to look after the interests of that family but that the lawyer had to be paid Rs. 10,000.00/ per day?

She also refers to the fact that the Chemmani inquiry was due to Tiruchelvam. What does she mean by this? If she would elaborate, I will call her bluff.

Coomaraswamy has the audacity to ask whether life has become meaningless to Sri Lankan Tamils. Such questions had better be addressed to successive Sinhala Governments with whom people like Tiruchelvam and Coomaraswamy consort and are comfortable with.

If Tiruchelvam “had qualities that those who aspire to lead the Tamil people, should try to emulate” then surely he did not cut much ice either with the Tamils who live in this blessed island or the Diaspora!

Coomaraswamy refers to great nationalist leaders like Gandhi and Mandela being loved by the world and that they “became international icons”. But before that happened, they were loved by their own people. Did Tiruchelvam enjoy the love of his own people?

Coomaraswamy says that Tiruchelvam “believed that democracy was more important than ethnic loyalty”. If that be so, nobody should begrudge the Tamils for not being concerned with Tiruchelvam!

Coomaraswamy tells us that Tiruchelvam “was essentially non-violent to the very core of his being”. How can she be heard to say this because it was when he was in the TULF that the military wing of the TULF - the Tamil National Army - was formed? Will Coomaraswamy refute this?

Coomaraswamy is at pains to say that Tiruchelvam “believed in the power of persuasion and dialogue”. Perhaps Coomaraswamy does not know the history of the Tamils. It is because the TULF - the party to which Tiruchelvam was wedded-had come to the end of its tether in the matter of dialogue, persuasion and pacts, that it decided on creating the separate state of Tamil Eelam. So it is rather late in the day for Coomaraswamy to be talking about these things. If this was Tiruchelvam’s style, then the Tamils were not interested in his style and some sections of the TULF were also not interested in this.

Coomaraswamy tells us that Tiruchelvam “wanted Tamil rights but always within the framework of democratic constitutional order. His engagement with successive governments on constitutional drafting is only manifestation of this. The devolution package is one such initiative.”

Again, Coomaraswamy displays pathetic ignorance of Tamil political history. Is it not the fact that Tiruchelvam’s dissenting report in the District Development Councils Commission, though incorporated in the Act, the Sinhala Government saw to it that the system came to a grinding halt?

Is it also not the fact that even with the amendment of the 1978 Constitution by way of Article 157 to accommodate the provisions of the Indo - Lanka Agreement, the Sinhala Government saw to it that the Provincial Council for the North-East did not function according to the letter of the law? Is it, once again, not the fact that the 1996 Devolution Package was less than the 1995 Package and the 1997 Package even less than the 1996 Package and the 1997 Package being finally pigeon-holed for the last 24 months? So why talk about all these matters?

So , was Tiruchelvam’s style, then, only to hobnob, rub shoulders and curry favour with the Sinhala powers that be and was such things like dialogue, persuasion, constitution-making, etc. only different vehicles used by him to achieve that end? The Tamils seem to think so.

Finally, Coomaraswamy’s defence of Tiruchelvam is self-serving as she is part of Tiruchelvam’s bandwagon. Let us have some independent Tamil person singing hosannas. She recognises herself as an intellectual. But all other intellectuals are on the other side. Surely the whole Tamil Nation cannot be wrong in their assessment of Tiruchelvam? Coomaraswamy or her minuscule ilk cannot hold the monopoly on truth about Tiruchelvam. The Tamil Nation as a whole has passed judgment on Tiruchelvam.