The Constitution was amended for the 13th time in 1987. It was Rajiv Gandhi’s idea. Sorry, Rajiv Gandhi’s thuggery. Since then Sri Lanka has more or less resolved to live with it, flaws and all. We have provincial council elections contested even by those who violently opposed that particularly nauseating expression of India’s hegemonic aspirations. No proper study has been done, as far as I know, of how effective the 13th Amendment has been in terms of all the things it was supposed to achieve - resolving Tamil grievances and addressing their aspirations included.

The ‘grievances’ themselves and the related ‘aspirations’ have arguably been inflated by the Eelam lobby and its lackeys. The ‘13th’ is therefore ‘not enough’ for some; and for others it is the best given political realities. I contend that the 13th, in terms of real grievances, i.e. those that can be substantiated, and in terms of reasonable aspirations, i.e. in terms of history, geography and demography, is not the white elephant that some have argued it is, but rather a red herring.

The ‘13th’ arrived in the context of concerted historicizing by Eelamists and complicity one way or another by Sinhala politicians. It appeared to be a ‘reasonable compromise’ then and some argue it still is. This, to me, is a bastardization of the early articulation of Tamil nationalism, i.e. ‘parity of status’. The true parity of status, I believe, is that which is derived from the equality that meaningful citizenship confers.

If someone believes that a Tamil being in power in some regional unit increases the degree of self-determination of Tamils in general, he/she should consider the status of women in Sri Lanka, a country which gave the world its first woman prime minister and once had a woman as executive president. It just doesn’t work that way. No, the 13th Amendment was a square peg in a round hole and the current demand to thrust it forcefully down that hole will only further scar inter-communal relations. One does not stay with a decision even when that decision was wrong, just because one took that decision or was forced into it one way or another.

Today, as the sun sets on the Eelam dream few talk of traditional homelands. That myth has been all but debunked and makes absolutely no sense given demographic realities; forget the fact that history relevant to the exclusivity argument is absent. Tomorrow, as we begin the long overdue project of true nation-building, it is incumbent on all of us to take stock of things, cast our gaze over the by ways we’ve chosen our nation to wander and the dead ends that stalled us. And at this moment, which to me is a moment of opportunity, we need to ascertain the true dimensions of our ‘crisis’, wash out the eye-wash, clear out the frills that pollute reality, remove blinkers and look things straight in the eye.

In such an exercise we have to accept that the only possible logic for devolution of power to provinces is a non-ethnic one that underlines on the other hand better potential for representation, participation and citizenship. The key issue here is that lack of these is not a fault of the unitary state but the system of governance we have at present; the constitution, as it stands is not one which is focused on alienating minorities but one that alienates the citizen from the political and decision-making process in general. Furthermore, if self-determination is the logic and if the ‘ethnic’ dimensions of a territory-based ‘solution’ are untenable, then the argument should be for devolution to even smaller units - districts, in a word.

I have said before that the greatest danger at this point is triumphalism on the part of the Sinhalese and defeatism on the part of the Tamil. I have also argued that this is not the moment to abandon our respective nationalisms and opt for a ‘Sri Lankanness’ that is devoid of cultural reference and therefore open to prey by any number of vultures, including the ever watchful evangelical zealots. We can be one and need to be one, but in a way that doesn’t erase our respective sense of being.

What is the greatest anxiety among minorities today? I would venture that it is a sense, in the context of a resurgent Sinhala Buddhist nationalism, of being forced to accept some kind of second class citizenship. The 13th Amendment does not cure this. What we need are the structures that yield transparency, accountability and good governance and these alone will empower the ordinary citizen.

There is a project that our peace-building NGOs ignored because they were drunk on a heady cocktail made up of more than a dash of anti-Sinhala Buddhist sentiment, Eelam-wish, and ‘traditional homelands’. It is a project that has the potential to heal wounds, bring people together and move this nation forward. It is a project that concentrates on ‘citizenship’. This is the democratic project for a future that holds any promise.

The LTTE is finished, whatever its apologists may say in the capitals of the West - Britain, France, Canada, Switzerland and of course Norway. They are now reaping the fruits of naiveté. They purchased uncritically the Eelam story; opened doors to all manner of crooks. Now they are besieged. I don’t feel sorry for them. Here, in Sri Lanka, on the ground, the Tamil people have voted with their feet and by address. They’ve overwhelmingly said ‘no’ to Eelam and embraced a future with the Sinhala people and not separated from them.

It is incumbent, then, on the Sinhalese people to respond to this decision with an embrace that recognizes commonalities, celebrates difference and articulates the need for all citizens to unite in rectifying institutional flaws that inhibit our ability to determine or at least participate in processes that deliver a future we are ready to inhabit.

It is certainly not going to be easy, but if anyone is serious about correcting wrongs and creating conditions for a future we are ready to let our children inhabit, then this is, I believe, one of those things that come with the tag, ‘must’. Some may say it is too late now, but that is only if one has a limited understanding of history and short-term goals. Time is longer than life, longer than all our lives in fact. First steps have to be taken, sometimes again and again. This is as good a time as any, I am convinced.