Tamil academic compares Pakistani-Sri Lankan ‘counterinsurgency’
“The genocidal oppression faced by the Baloch people and the Eelam Tamil people gains little if any attention in international media. Whatever is represented seems to be permeated by a tendency to absolve genocide and represent a state-centric, depoliticized and minority grounded narration of the plight of the oppressed nations. Such narrations effectively deny the Baloch and Eelam Tamils their inalienable right to self-determination or national liberation,” writes Norway-based Eezham Tamil anthropology academic Athithan Jayapalan, in a feature that appeared in a Balochistan website, Balochwarna News last month, urging solidarity between Baloch and Eezham Tamils.
“The international community and international corporate run media seems to black out the true nature of the violence perpetuated in Balochistan and Eelam. In both cases, geo-political interests and structural links with the perpetrator states renders international attention more or less favorable for the oppressor,” the academic said.
“International solidarity movements and the Left have generally been negligent towards the plight of Eelam and Balochistan. In such a context the future seems ambivalent, as the world displays apathy and appears to have abandoned the tribulation of these oppressed nations,” he observed.
“Despite the constraints presented by the above-mentioned factors the resilience of the oppressed in upholding the spirit of national resistance is remarkable.”
“The fortitude of the oppressed is displayed by the courageous mobilization of resistance by the Baloch and Eelam Tamils under military occupation.“
“It is thus even more of an imperative for the respective resistance struggles to integrate and conflate, raising awareness and exchanging perspectives and experiences amongst each other in a bid to advance both struggles.”
“An integration based on solidarity can front a transnational movement, which will advocate in a more equal and just manner the plights of oppressed peoples and nations everywhere,” the writer concluded.
* * *
Athithan’s analysis compares the ‘counterinsurgency’ of Pakistani and Sri Lankan States against the Baloch and Eezham Tamils respectively.
The Panjabi chauvinist Pakistani State and the Sinhala chauvinist Sri Lankan State were depending on the USA and China to balance India, he argues.
“The diplomatic art mastered by Pakistan is passed on to Sri Lanka as the latter milks both the West and China for funds while entrenching a genocidal military occupation in the Tamil homeland. For this purpose during the last two decades the Sri Lankan state has boosted its ties with China, facilitated Chinese interests in the island and received large-scale financial and military aid from China. Thus Chinese aid and Western support enabled the Sri Lankan state in fulfilling a genocidal military solution to the Tamil national liberation movement in 2009,” Athithan says.
Athithan’s analysis has to be supplemented with a detailed perusal of New Delhi’s direct role in the oppression of nations in India in general and complicity in the genocide of Eezham Tamils in particular, for a better enlightenment of peoples in South Asia to forge solidarity and wage a peoples’ struggle against all forces of imperialistic and geopolitical oppressions, commented Tamil activists for alternative politics in the island.