World Reaction to Pakistan and Sri Lanka: A Comparison
TAMIL TRIBUNE, November 1999 (ID. 1999-11-04)
Click here for MAIN INDEX to archived articles (main page)
www.tamiltribune.com
There was a military coup in Pakistan in October 1999. Pakistan army chief General Pervaiz Musharraf overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and declared "temporary" military rule. The Prime Minister and a few others were put on house arrest. All in all, not a single shot was fired and no one was killed. The world reacted sharply to the coup. World leaders condemned the coup and asked the military to hand over power back to the democratically elected government. United States of America halted much of its aid to Pakistan. European Union threatened to freeze aid and lending. The International Monetary Fund will consider what action to take. Commonwealth Nations suspended Pakistan from membership. All of this because "democracy is sacred" to these nations. An admirable policy.
Compare this to what is going on in Sri Lanka and the world reaction to it. Yes, there is "democracy" in Sri Lanka--the majority Sinhala race rules the nation. But the minority Tamils were and are systematically discriminated and subjugated ever since the British colonial rule ended in 1948. Peaceful protests by the minority Tamils were brutally put down by the majority race. Systematic anti-Tamil programs, which rival the anti-Jewish programs in Nazi Germany, were carried out. Israeli Charge d' Affaires to Sri Lanka between 1958 and 1960, Mr. Natanel Lorch, said, "In Sri Lanka, programs were committed against Tamils, barely reported in the western media, but on a scale and with a brutality which compare to the worst in the annals of the Jewish people".
Tamil youths took up arms to fight the government because all peaceful efforts by their elders had failed. In the ensuing war between Tamil fighters and the Sinhalese army (yes, the Sri Lankan army is all Sinhalese), the democratically elected government of Sri Lanka conducted the war so brutally, showing no concern for Tamil civilian casualties, that some 50,000 Tamil civilians were killed, many more injured and many times that much live in refugee camps under sordid conditions. Bombing and shelling of civilian targets and the resulting carnage have been documented by unbiased international agencies. So the democratically elected Sri Lankan government censored the news, barred reporters from entering Tamil areas and threatened relief agencies with expulsion if they reported such events. In September 1999, when the United Nations commented on Tamil civilian casualties due to the Sri Lankan Air Force bombing a market, the democratically elected Sri Lankan government asked the United Nations Agencies to be "concerned with malaria and mosquitoes -- not domestic political issues" (this in an actual quote from Sri Lankan Foreign Minister's statement).
In spite of the 50,000 or so minority Tamil civilian casualties of the war and several thousand outright rape, torture and murder of minority Tamil civilians by Sri Lankan forces, Sri Lanka does have a government democratically elected by the majority of people. It seems that this magic word "democracy" matters more to the world than all the deaths and destruction visited on the minority Tamil community. United States aid to Sri Lanka continues. European Union aid to Sri Lanka continues. International Monetary Fund's help to Sri Lanka continues. Sri Lanka continues to be a Commonwealth member in spite of what the democratically elected government of Sri Lanka is doing to its Tamil minority-- the large number of civilian war casualties, rapes, tortures, murders, disappearances, etc.
As long as the government is elected by the majority, can that government do anything with the minority community and call itself a democracy and be respectful in the eyes of the world? Is "democracy" the key word that gives blanket permission for the majority race to do whatever it wants with the minority race, as it is happening in Sri Lanka? Don't we have to distinguish between a moral democratic rule and an immoral democratic rule, between a benevolent democratic rule and an oppressive democratic rule?
What is democracy, any way? Is it a government elected by a majority of voters? India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had a better definition for democracy. He said, "Democracy is the rule of the majority, with minority rights protected." This is a better and a more moral definition than defining democracy simply as the rule of the majority. "Tyranny of the majority" in a democracy is as condemnable as a military coup.
FT1: 030128 1999-a1d