The exact halfway point of the year 2024 was marked by the demise of Rajavarothayam Sampanthan, Member of Parliament (MP) for the Trincomalee District and Leader of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). He was a veteran of Tamil politics and an extraordinarily respected political icon in national politics.
Freshman Parliamentarian to mature leader
I met Sampanthan in 1978 when he was a freshman Parliamentarian from Trincomalee and I was a novice Government Agent of the Polonnaruwa District. As the two districts adjoined each other, there were border area issues related to land, agriculture, civil security, transportation, etc.
As a novice Parliamentarian, his interests were focused more on the common public-political demands of his electorate. However, his legal incisiveness directed him to be more reasonable and logical than the average parliamentarian. Of course, the demographic factor in engagement was more prominent, invariably due to the ethnic composition of the Trincomalee District.
As time passed, our friendly relationship grew and became a more frequent association when I was the Secretary of Rehabilitation despite Sampanthan not being a parliamentarian by then but rather on account of our prior association. The relationship was enhanced when I was the Secretary of the Ministry of Defence and he was the Leader of the TNA.
Interventions in the latter period were due to reports he received from fellow politicians on the implementation of the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) and due to difficulties experienced by the public in obtaining relief from the military establishment. I became a moderator.
Since it was a season for peacemaking, his demands became more intense because the communities and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) wished to gain quick peace dividends. I am unaware of the exact extent to which he was pressured by the LTTE, but knew by intuition it had happened. It was not unexpected but was a fact of life for politicians, public officers, and civil society organisations, especially in the north. This status blurred the political identity of Tamil politicians, considering their partiality to the LTTE.
Hence, even though some demands were minor to me, they were of major concerns to cattle farmers grazing in the Vendrasakulam Tank area or Jaffna fishermen fishing in shallow sea with low horsepower capacity boats, who were dictated to on departure and arrival times.
Sampanthan demanded relaxation. The military had security concerns. For instance, Rear Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda argued that the Vendrasakulam Tank was the water source for the military and citizens; Major General Sarath Fonseka argued that deep-sea fishermen could transfer military items to the LTTE and that high-speed boats threatened naval operations.
Successful negotiator
He had long lists of complaints regarding the difficulties faced by the public in the implementation of the CFA, which we looked at with security reservations. The comparative advantage I experienced was that negotiations with him were extremely peaceful, orderly, and logical when compared to negotiating with Thamilselvan, Soosai, Karuna Amman, or Pathuman, and those done with Velupillai Prabhakaran through the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission.
It was my conviction that negotiating with Tamil politicians like Sampanthan was preferable to the LTTE hierarchy in order to achieve peace and reconciliation because they respected legality, although occasionally they had hard demands tabled for political exhibitionism.
Amidst a peace process and the suspended war efforts of the LTTE, I observed in Sampanthan a vastly mature parliamentarian who was fighting for a larger political cause, within the laws of the country, whilst being under perpetual threat from the LTTE, who took valuable lives from among senior politicians from both sides of the divide and even those of bureaucrats. To him, balancing was tough.
Supporting an ‘undivided, united Sri Lanka’
Later, Sampanthan, as the political spokesperson for Tamils, was referred to in the following terms: “India’s Opposition Leader Sushma Swaraj hailed Sampanthan’s leadership, declaring at a press conference that he had assured her ‘not once, twice, but three times that he sought a political settlement in an undivided Sri Lanka’.”
This nullifies the often-quoted complaint about him that his intention was separation by political and military means and endorses what President Ranil Wickremesinghe stated about Sampanthan that he unwaveringly stood for the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. For unknown reasons, this stance of Sampanthan’s did not seep down to the majority community then. I wonder if it adequately seeps down even today, although they have excellent interlocutors such as MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam.
Unfortunately, Sampanthan is misread even today. I quote him as follows: “You can rest assured that within the framework of a united, undivided Sri Lanka, we will make our maximum possible contribution towards the bringing about of permanent peace, reconciliation, goodwill, and harmony amongst all our peoples because the peoples have lived together in this country for, indeed, a long period of time and through the greater part of history in this country, we have lived as a united people.” This later declaration is unheard of by critics, who quote old statements to prove him otherwise.
Commitment to devolution and reconciliation
Sampanthan was all for power sharing. I remember his visiting me at home with MP M.A. Sumanthiran when I was appointed Governor of the Eastern Province. Sampanthan and Rauff Hakeem had apparently requested that I be appointed as Governor, and, as TNA Chief, he had a right to discuss devolution and reconciliation issues in his territory with me. He forewarned me about returning the people to Sampur urgently and I am happy that I did it within about a year.
He was a tower of strength when I resettled the affected in Sampur, extending political support through his village-level cadres and Sumanthiran, notably working on legalities to release lands for resettlement. When the resettlement of Sampur happened, dignitaries including the incumbent President, the former President, and ministers graced the occasion. I believe it was a mark of respect for a committed politician and his true commitment to reconciliation.
Sampanthan’s honest view on devolution was well expressed to United Nations (UN) Under-Secretary-General Jeffrey Feltman: “There is a reluctance on the part of the Sinhala leaders in doing the right thing. We are seeking a genuine power-sharing arrangement within a united, undivided, and indivisible Sri Lanka.” With this statement, one does not need research to prove the absence of a vision of separation in him, as alleged by several southern political commentators.
The reason for his expressed frustration with the implementation of devolution can be proven by a casual glance at Appendix II of the 13th Amendment, relating to the establishment of the National Land Commission (NLC), which remains unimplemented to date. This was despite a bill to provide for the establishment of the NLC presented by the Minister of Lands, Irrigation, and Mahaweli Development on 21 July 1992. Intentionally, it was left to lapse on 24 June 1994 with the dissolution of Parliament.
He followed my contributions in the media about power-sharing and reconciliation. Once, having read an article by me on devolution, Sampanthan had it translated to Tamil and published it in a leading Tamil newspaper. His interest in power-sharing was such that he didn’t spare any president of his time, demanding the implementation of the 13th Amendment and even ‘13A-Plus’.
Sampanthan, who was for relief and rehabilitation during the lengthy conflict period, was for redevelopment, reconstruction, and reconciliation, especially after the Government’s victory over the LTTE in 2009. He considered the mechanisms to determine the fate of missing people in Sri Lanka and the promotion of reconciliation as fundamental rights issues that would give confidence to every citizen.
He hailed newly created institutions such as the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) and the Office for Reparations (OfR), and wished for an effective truth and reconciliation commission and an accountability mechanism, aiming for justice to the affected. I believe his voice on accountability was unheard due to expected political and legal bashing, while a semblance of a truth and reconciliation commission was heard recently.
Samanthan was outspoken with UN officers who questioned him about these mechanisms. However, he hoped that these new institutions “should be in constant contact with the people to ascertain the truth”. Of course, keeping to his mandate, he said the “affected were mostly from the north and east” and wished the affected people be given consolation and made to feel that the Government and other people were concerned about them.
This was the line of thinking in almost all Indian leaders from Rajiv Gandhi to Narendra Modi, who were concerned about dignity, justice, equality, Tamil aspirations, fundamental freedoms, and human rights. Sampanthan’s saying, “The Government and certain politicians are trying to make this a Sinhala-Tamil issue, but it isn’t. This is a fundamental human rights issue,” exhibited his humanitarian concerns.
The tribute paid to Sampanthan by Indian Prime Minister Modi – “He relentlessly pursued a life of peace, security, equality, justice, and dignity for the Tamil nationals of Sri Lanka” – echoed his shared stances on the Tamil cause with Indian leaders.
Constitutional remedies
Regarding constitutional remedies for Tamils, he always represented his viewpoints directly and through politicians like Sumanthiran. Of course, like many minority groups, he was unhappy that the progress toward drafting a new constitution was slow, with political leaders lacking the will to proceed, and he did not hide his feelings on it. I remember his saying so to Feltman of the UN when the latter met him.
He reasoned that the lack of commitment and political will was caused by the fear of becoming politically unpopular, especially among the majority community. He taught a management lesson when he took the constitution-making exercise to pontify: “Problems that need to be dealt with must be dealt with by leaders; that’s a duty of a leader.”
His voice gets sucked into thin air around us, and unfortunately, no echoes are heard. When personalised constitutionalism is rising, the absence of his piercing voice will be sadly felt.
On constitutional failures, Sampanthan was probably devastated and reportedly said: “Tamil people feel that they are always deceived. There is a reluctance on the part of the Sinhala leaders in doing the right thing. We are seeking a genuine power-sharing arrangement within a united, undivided, and indivisible Sri Lanka.”
This statement cannot simply be ignored when we reminisce negative historical events such as the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact, Dudley-Chelvanayakam Pact, draft constitution of 2000, ‘Yahapalana’ constitutional draft, and attempt by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Romesh de Silva experts’ committee, followed by a Cabinet sub-committee appointed recently.
Relevance in national politics
Sampanthan’s rise to the helm of Tamil politics made him the leader of an alliance comprising several parties, which had differences in approaches and reactions too. Sixty years ago, his predecessor leaders even considered joining the Cabinet of Ministers (i.e. M. Tiruchelvam from the Senate).
The approach of Indian Tamil-origin politician Savumiamoorthy Thondaman, son Ramanathan (a Minister in the Central Provincial Council), grandson Arumugam, great-grandson Jeevan, and other Ceylon Workers’ Congress (CWC) partymen have been to consistently join Sinhala power politics. Minister Douglas Devananda has been in the cabinets of several presidents.
Though not in the cabinets, Sampanthan and his alliance were decisive factors during elections and political crises, as shown during the constitutional crisis of October 2018. Another crucial intervention was how the TNA supported the election campaign of President Maithripala Sirisena, without whom he would not have had polling agents in the north and east.
Sampanthan handled competing Sinhala politicians, without being a spoiler, supporting governments at elections and in running the governments on astute principles, especially when the governments were at near-hung levels.
Nevertheless, he built up the image of a reasonable, legalistic, and moderate politician, and was considered a Tamil leader who was for a united Sri Lanka amidst a grave demand by Tamil youths for separatism. He was thus in dangerous terrain as this stance was provocative.
He must have always remembered how, for different reasons, several of their previous leaders had to pay the price with their lives. This was irrespective of criticisms that emanated from southern political narratives orchestrating the attachment of his ilk to terrorism.
Uniting Tamil forces
He always played a key role in uniting divided Tamil political groups, creating international awareness on the plight of Tamils, especially during a long-drawn conflict, and emphasising a just solution based on truth, dignity, equality, rights, justice, and reconciliation. Of course, he had to face adverse criticism, but he was not intimidated or discouraged by it and repeated the same concerns with more venom. He did not withdraw in the face of some Tamil groups not toeing his line.
The ideology of separatism was unacceptable to whichever government was in power. Therefore, Sampanthan as the Leader of the TNA was in a dilemma to honour the constitutional provisions hailed by all governments in power and deal with a terror group that was a law unto itself. While balancing strategically, he continued fighting for equality, justice, and freedom, specifically on accountability, against long-term Police custody under the pretext of terrorism, with the support received from international and diaspora groups.
Though his profession was that of a lawyer, he shone more in politics. It shaped his legacy and made him a ready man. His sharp thinking, eloquence, piercing voice, legal knowledge, and commitment to Tamil rights made him a steady politician and an achiever.
During the long-drawn conflict, he was tested as a reliable leader. The dignity of Tamils had been serviced under his guidance, although he could not see the end of some pertinent issues such as the custody of persons in the name of terrorism, accountability for missing persons, the anticipated level of devolution, etc., even though he was successful until midway. He would have been a happier man on the deathbed if more had been achieved.
Some of us thought that at least the peace-building and reconciliation frameworks should be finalised before his demise. To be frank, the uncertainty of a reasonable, unity-mindful personality of his calibre succeeding him caused it.
Hence, Sampanthan’s demise leaves a void in Sri Lankan Tamil politics, one reason being the time lag for the new Leader to gain all-round acceptance, political integrity, exemplary standing, unshaken determination, etc. These are not earned in weeks and are crucial in an election season. These will be the grave challenges faced by his successor.
I am not a politician. For me, Sampanthan was a true statesman with whom one could argue, and expect a bowing down to truth and reason, and an agreeing to disagree. His successor will find it extremely difficult to fit the versatile Sampanthan’s shoes.
It is not only friendly persons like me who lost him but also the Tamil community and the political hierarchies who would deal with peace-building, reconciliation, unity, amity, etc. Everyone will wish for adjustments from what they are now to what Sampanthan dreamt of achieving. It will be the highest tribute extended to him.
As a Buddhist, I end my tribute to Sampanthan wishing him the supreme bliss of Nibbana.
(The writer is a former Secretary to the President)