Just a month since the end of the humanitarian operation against terrorism that continued for 30 years, both the electronic and print media were full of various views, theories and dialogues from some ministers and a diplomat appointed by the government, supported by notorious NGOs, in favour of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution and many more on ‘solutions’. The cry for ‘solutions via the 13th Amendment’ died down after President Mahinda Rajapaksa requested those ministers to refrain from making any statement on the political solution to the press, as he is to take up the issue of a political solution after the Presidential election.

Those NGOs who talked of solutions, while the fighting against the terrorists was going on, came up with various theories on interim self–governing, right to protect, internal self-determination, two armies, etc and attempted to justify those theories stating that Tiger terrorism could not be defeated. However, even after the elimination of Tiger terrorism, the old solution recipe is still being debated.

While answering questions on devolution of powers, at his inaugural press briefing, General (retired) Sarath Fonseka said that he is for ‘13th plus’. He also repeated "I’m for ‘13-plus’ because we need to move beyond the Indo-Lanka accord (1987)," when questioned by Outlook India, a weekly news magazine.

The JVP, which was very vociferous and very proactive against the implementation of the Indo-Lanka Accord and the resulting 13th Amendment to the Constitution in the past, have gone mum over this statement of Fonseka. Instead, its current leaders are challenging President Mahinda Rajapaksa to reveal to the country the official stand of the government regarding the 13th Amendment.

According to a news item which appeared in Asiantribune titled ‘Ranil Wickremesinghe – Noice Cut one more time’ dated December 19, Ranil Wickremasinghe’s latest mission to New Delhi on behalf of General (Rtd) Fonseka, was a failure, since Fonseka is an unknown quantity.

Fonseka too, according to some other reports, had visited India later with the intention of meeting its leaders, but failed. Although General Fonseka was known to many since he was appointed Army Commander, politician Fonseka is still an unknown quantity to many Sri Lankans as well.

On the other hand, it is reported that a three member delegation on behalf of the government travelled to India recently for what is called ‘bilateral’ talks.

Asiantribune has quoted Theepori, the official website of the Eelam National Democratic Liberation Front (according to Tamil Net, ENDLF is a Sri Lankan paramilitary group based in India) as its source of information. As per the said website, the Sri Lankan delegation had assured the Indian leaders that President Rajapaksa would present a proposal for the devolution of power to the Tamils after the election. Some reports suggested that the delegation had handed a draft proposal but that the Indian government would not divulge it, now.

According to Theepori, a delegation led by led by ENDLF President G. Gnanasekaran, accompanied by R. Anbarasu Ex-MP, ex-secretary Congress Parliamentary Party, met Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh at the Prime Minister’s Office in August 7, 2009 and urged the prime minister for India’s direct intervention in settling, among many other internal issues confined to Sri Lanka, the so-called ‘long standing grievances of the Tamils by finding an acceptable political solution."

The Indian premier, in return, as claimed by Theepori, had given an assurance to the ENDLF delegation, among many other matters, which are highly internal and to be addressed by the Sri Lankan Government, that the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord will be fully implemented.

Although the accuracy of the above report and its source are highly questionable, the statements made by some ministers that "the India-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 offers the best solution to the North-East crisis and the devolution of power envisaged in that accord offered the best solution to the conflict," etc., are still echoing and cannot be just ignored.

Those who promote the 13 Amendment and ‘13th A plus’ know very well that that implementation of the 13th Amendment is the beginning of implementation of the Thimpu demands (distinct nationality, traditional homelands, self-determination) as claimed in the following statement by former Indian Premier Rajiv Gandhi to the Indian Parliament on July 31, 1987.

"The agreement meets the basic aspirations which have animated the Tamils’ struggle, namely, the desire to be recognised as a distinct ethnic entity; political autonomy for managing their political future; and appropriate devolution of governmental power to meet this objective, the recognition of the Northern and Eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka as areas of historical habitation of the Tamils and the acknowledgment and designation of Tamil as an official language of Sri Lanka.

"The agreement constitutes the Eastern and Northern Provinces of Sri Lanka into one administrative unit with an elected Provincial Council; and a chief minister. Powers would be devolved...to ensure a full measure of autonomy to the provinces in Sri Lanka."

On August 2, 1987, Rajiv Gandhi told a public meeting in Chennai that "the agreement secures everything that the Sri Lankan Tamils had demanded, short of breaking Sri Lanka’s unity. In fact, it goes well beyond the initial demands of the Sri Lankan Tamils. Under the agreement, around one-third of Sri Lankan territory will be made into a single province where the Tamils will have a clear majority. They will have regional autonomy comparable to State governments in India..."(‘Thirteenth Amendment plus ... a look at probabilities’ by Foxwatch – Sunday Island dated 19/07/09)

The above declared reality of the treacherous accord and the resulting 13th Amendment to the Constitution would have been known better by Rajiv Gandhi than anyone else, since it was the Indian civil servants who were instrumental in drafting the agreement.

The Indo-Lanka Accord is a piece of fiction similar to the treacherous Ranil-Prabha CFA, since it fails to disarm the terrorists by the Indian forces as intended and did more harm than good towards a solution to terrorism.

It took more than two decades to achieve peace after the signing of the said accord and the path to achieve peace is not as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the failed accord. It is the Sri Lankan government, its security forces and its people who paved the way to achieve peace and not the dead accord. Talking about full implementation of the Indo-Lanka Accord after achieving peace by other means and realising all of a sudden that the said accord offers the best solution, just to please outside elements, ignoring the sacrifices made by the people of Sri Lanka, could aggravate the situation.

While addressing the ceremonial opening of the Fourth Session of the Sixth Parliament on May 19 this year, President Rajapaksa said that there are only two communities in this country. One is the people who love this country. The other comprises the small groups that have no love for the land of their birth.

The said two communities are now quite visible, once again, during the current Presidential election.

Although the statements made by Fonseka are highly detrimental to the image of our security forces and the country, what he is promising to do may not be taken seriously since the whole country (except dreaming Colombians) are aware of his fate after January 26.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa has stated on many occasions that he is for a home-grown political solution. What was proposed under Indo-Lanka Accord is certainly not home-grown, but was forced on us by an invader.

Let us hope that the candidate chosen by those who love the country will be committed to fulfilling the aspirations of those who support and elect him as the President and not to an undisclosed third party, due to the influence of some small groups that have no love for the land of their birth, to implement the concepts of traditional homeland, knowingly or unknowingly, paving the way for the gradual disintegration of the country on a racial basis.