FOCUS ON THE GLOBAL SOUTH MUMBAI

Post War Scenario in Sri Lanka

An Analytical paper
Ashwini Kamble 3/31/2010

IntroductionSri Lankan ethnic crisis can be said that it has acquired a unique dimension of its own in the context of geographical scene of island state of Sri Lanka. Because, Sri Lankan protracted conflict between Sinhalese and Tamils not only affected the normal life and stability within Sri Lanka, but also spilled over beyond their national boundaries with its significant implication on neighbouring state i.e. India and the South Asia continent as a whole, involvement of external forces including extra powers into it added external dimension beyond any ones imagination. The literature of ethnic conflicts supports that the new age or modern state conflicts are the result of the colonization process of 18th and 19th century. The protracted conflicts in AfroAsian countries revolve around the ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities and self determination or freedom to decide their own destinies. Unlike others Sri Lankan conflict revolves around these dimensions too. Moreover, the conflict in Sri Lanka has dark shade of ethnicity. Generally, an ethnic conflict defined as a hostile interaction among individuals and groups of different ethnic community within a state1. The origin of ethnic conflict is mainly attributed to conflicting socio-cultural and ethnic relationship between different ethnic groups. Moreover, the ethnic conflicts are unique combination of all dynamics that constitute an individual identity, a group or national identity2. Similarly the Sri Lankan conflict has many socio-cultural, economic and political facets, which have directly or indirectly contributed to acceleration of the conflict in the state.

Historical Evolution of ConflictThe historical evidences show that the community has been segregated on ethnic line since the Buddhist period. There were three kingdoms, Tamil of Jaffna, low land Sinhalese in Kotte and the high Sinhalese in Kandy within the island. The history shows that these states never had any relations with each others. The island was invented by first Portuguese and then Dutch; they conquered different territories and continued their kingdom. Finally, the British invasion in 1815 resulted in the demise of the Kandyan Kingdom which was never been captured by either of the previous inventors. The entire Island for the first time was brought under western colonial power. In 1833, the British establish a centralised form of government
1

P.A. GHosh,1999, Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka and Role of Indian Peace Measures, A.P.H Publishing house, Delhi, pp 1 2 Ibid

in the Island and brought Sinhalese and Tamil nations together for the purpose of administration conveniences. For the first time the whole Island was under one umbrella along with the differences within the communities. The differences got severe along with the more interventions in terms of modern education systems and modern governance. The literature explaining this period shows two trends; one which it explains that the Britishors were not partial towards any community while other explains that the prejudicial policies of British widen the gap between the communities. Tamils got more benefits of the education and successfully acquired places in the administration in compare to Sinhalese, which later initiate the feeling of discrimination among the Sinhalese. Similarly, the introduction of territorial representation as the elective principle and segregated formation gave rise to the mobilization of the respective ethnic communities for political purposes. Gradually, with the constitutional reforms process since 1920s, the Tamils took on a self-image as national minority. Moreover, the growing appeal of the ethnic identity on language and communal lines as exposed by the Sinhalese revivalist served its political end for the Sinhalese elites. The ethnic conflict accelerated since independence of the country in 1948. This led to tension, ethnic violence and ethnic riots in 1956, 1958, 1977, 1982 and again in 1983. Among all these, the July 1983 riots and subsequent development in Sri Lanka had shaken the very foundation of stability in Sri Lanka. This was the trigger in the history of the conflict in Sri Lanka which has changed the future of the country, because a militant group was formed by the Tamil youths for a separate State. Further which resulted in continuous warfare between state and militia, there were peace agreements with the external intervention but never successfully followed and implemented, in terms which attributed to exponential growth of the conflict and instability in the country.

Dynamics of the Conflict in Sri LankaDemographic ConfigurationIn demographic terms, Sri Lanka has a heterogeneous population distinguished from one another on the ethnic, religious or linguistic grounds. The majority Sinhalese who constitute highest of the total population, are mainly concentrated in the wet zones of the Island. They are in a majority all over the Island except in the North and East of the Island, where Tamils are in majority. In recent years of ethnic conflict, these territorial elements have a strong

impact on the separatist movement3 in Sri Lanka. Because, Sri Lanka Tamils concentrated in these areas have developed strong historical association with the region, which has helped the militia during the guerrilla warfare. Further these areas are sensitive towards communal violence. Over the period of time, these areas are been strategically neglected from all kind of developmental activities and are became hub of the extensive military activities. Socio-Economic RivalriesThe occupational distribution of the country shows that majority of the population is engaged in agriculture and the economy of the country is based on the estate sectors under which the plantation crops like tea, rubber and coconut are extensively cultivated. During the colonial period Tamils were been brought as labours to work in plantation area, were they permanently settled. The settlement of Tamils in the plantation area was regarded with contempt and resentment by Sinhalese people. Gradually, with the development of colonial economy in the 19th century, the tension between the Tamils and the Sinhalese took a communal form over the ownership of the resources also. The modern education system has also contributed to the acceleration of the communal crisis among the communities. British government introduced education system and education in English was made essential to get entry in the government services. During this period the minority of Tamils were more in numbers in the civil services and also they were more in number in university. Also the less opportunities and the growing population in the North and East region of Island encouraged the Tamils to enter in the civil services. This process is supported and helped due to the fact that British established more missionary schools in relation to the population ratio in Tamil areas than in the Sinhalese area. This partial polices and favourism among the communities had affected the communal tension. On the other hand the South Sinhalese areas are more fertile and abundant in natural resources. Almost all industrial and economic activities are been introduced in these areas compare to the North and East region of the Island. Thats why there was less representation of Sinhalese in the civil services compare to Tamils. This shows the complete divide between the communities. In the economic terms Sinhalese of the fertile land are more progressive while in terms of the educational background Tamils of the North seems to be progressive.

The LTTE was formed in these areas and due to a strong connection with the area and the geographical understanding for long period of time they used guerilla warfare.

However, in the post-independence period, majority of Sinhalese started complaining about that they had been discriminated in their own country as against the minority Tamils. Such socio-economic disparities became a principle source of Sinhala-Tamil antagonism, as a result all successive Sinhalese dominated government since 1956 have initiated policies to reverse the situation and discriminated Tamils against Sinhalese. Political Segregation and DiscontentApart from historical and cultural cleavages, political segregation and discontent between Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka developed in the post independence period due to several reasons. The prominent of these areas are (i) Discriminatory Citizenship Acts of 1948 and 1949- were deigned to deny citizenship and voting rights to Indian Tamils in order to divide the Tamils in Island, (ii) Colonisation Policy and Tamils Fears- were the population from the south is been shifted to the North region of the island, the Sinhalese call it simply a policy of land distribution and settlement, on the other land Tamils always regarded government policy of colonisation with Sinhalese settler as an attempt to reduce them ultimately into a minority group in their tradition homeland, (iii) Official Language Act- in 1956 the government enacted Official Language Act declaring that the Sinhala would be the only official language of Sri Lanka. The historical discrimination and long discontent with the subsequent Sinhalese government created discontent among the people especially among the youth of Tamils. This continuous discrimination and deprivation of Tamils in all sphere of life in the society by the Sinhalese dominated government compelled the Tamil United Front (TUF) to demand for a federal state from the then Sri Lanka government. But the subsequent failure of the TUF had increased the dissatisfaction among the youth, they questioned the traditional tactics of non violence and the dissatisfaction and the anger compelled to form New Tamil Tiger (NTT) which later converted into Liberation Tiger of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In order to tackle to the emerging militia in the North and East region the government deployed security forces in the various parts, which considered as unwanted occupation of Tamil areas without any support from the locals Tamils. The situation became sever with the enactment of Emergency regulation and Prevention of Terrorism Act, were the security forces got the right to arrest any civilian and to commit violence against civilians. Finally, in July 1983 ethnic riots shook the entire fabric of Sri Lankan society which gave rise to a permanent antagonism between the Sinhalese and Tamils. In the latter years, the

monopoly of political power by the Sinhalese-Buddhist dominated elite and hegemonic framework that they created to deny the Tamils their legitimate share of control in the management of national life slowly destroyed Sri Lanka as a united entity and widen the gap between the Tamils and Sinhalese. The historical analysis and the different evolutionary stages of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka clear that in the post independence period, the process of socio-economic development brought Sinhalese and Tamil ethnic differences into open conflict as they sought to consolidate their ethnic identity. As a result the increase in ethnic consciousness and identity accelerated communal divide in the Sri Lankan society. In the historical perspective, the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka has got serious dimensions with Sinhalese chauvinism reaching peak.

No War and No Peace SituationThe history of Sri Lankan conflict have characterised with the various attempts of peace accords, between Sri Lankan government and LTTE. But simultaneously these peace accords are of great failure and with ultimately escalated the violence and war between the two parties. The chronology of the peace accords are given below-

Sr. No.

Date peace accords

of Parties involved

Demands

Result

1.

July 1985

Government of Sri LTTE Lanka (GoSL), right

demand of

the GoSL rejected the self demands for

LTTE and Tamil determination Political parties

North and East region of Sri Lanka.

2.

July 1987

GoSL Government India (GoI)

and Disarmament on both Withdrawal of side, demobilization troupes death soldiers. in of

of 1990, 1500

of the militant groups

3.

January 1995

Government LTTE

and Cessation of hostilities Both as primary steps

the

parties

agreed on it. And

government launched military

intervention against LTTE and captured the area of Jaffna 4. December 2001 GoSL and LTTE Declare unilateral Both the parties

ceasefire on both the agreed on it sides

5.

February 2002

GoSL, LTTE and Ceasefire Norwegian mediator

agreement The

peace

talks

among both the parties were held for three and peace talks rounds after it on 21 April 2003, LTTE announced disagreement peace talks of

6.

June 2005

GoSL and LTTE

Help of LTTE for Formation of Post Tsunami relief and Tsunami Operational Structure, but many political withdraw support to parties the the

rehabilitation

government. 7. November 2005 8. February 2006 GoSL and LTTE GoSL and LTTE Unconditional talks Peace talks in Geneva LTTE first peace Rejected by LTTE

postponed the peace talks and later on 20th LTTE April 2006

officially

quite peace talks 9. October 2006 GoSL and LTTE Despite continuous Bothe parties agreed the peace

violent attacks by both upon

the parties they agreed talks, but there were for unconditionally disagreements about

peace talks in Geneva, the reopening of A9 Withdrawal government of highway which

security connect north region south. GoSL

forces from north and to east region

decided to withdraw from the east region and free 35,000

civilians

But unfortunately none of the peace accords sussed to lower down the violence and hostilities in general and specifically against civilians. The peace accords in Sri Lanka shows two main characters first, the attempts of conflict termination have reproduced the conflict with greater intensity and capacity to be long lasting4. Second, the root causes never been addressed during the peace accords. Both of these characters of self sustaining conflict and neglecting the root causes have been further escalated the violence in the ethnic conflict. Role of India The historical analysis of the peace accords and the conflict in Sri Lanka explicitly recognise the strategic and significant role of India and Indian Peace Keeping Forces (IPKF). The accord between Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lanka President Jayewardene was signed on 29th July 1987 at Galle Face Green in the city of Colombo. India intervened as a mediator between the LTTE and the government of Sri Lanka, but it turn out with very serious implications. It further hastened the violence, because the intervention was partial as at a very early stage disposed its favour to one party, while playing the role of mediator5. The literature argues that India completely neglected the legal aspects of the accords because there was less recognition of the Indian as well as Sri Lankan Constitutions. Besides, there was no recognition to another party in dispute that is LTTE, which is completely been neglected in the accord. The accords is criticised for its provision as well, because the

4 5

J. Uyangoda, 2007, Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka: Changing Dynamics, East-West Center Washington, page 2

S. Vanniasinghan, 1998, Sri Lanka: the conflict within, Lancer Books Delhi, pp 4.

provisions except disarmament all other were vague and give rise to greater discord 6 (S. Vanniasingham, 1988). The main step taking during this accord was the set up Provincial Council for north and east, duplicated like the Centre- state relation or function in India. But, the whole idea of Provincial Council being set up to resolve ethnic conflict has of late taken on the flavour of fundamentalism. It is been argued that India imposing Provincial Council model made worse by President Jayewardenes constraints made situation severe and hostile. After this accord all other agreements or accords were nullified and all failed to bring some amount of peace to the civilians in the north and east. The failure of Indo-Sri Lanka accord is noted with the assassination of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and finally in 1990 it is got terminated. But the failure of this accord forecast the violence in Sri Lanka and further deepens of the conflict through more violence and hostilities. The time period of 2000-2007 was crucial which eventually turned into war with LTTE. The withdrawal of the LTTE from the peace accord and the 2005 election are the milestones during this period. Suddenly there was an exponential increase in the violence and violent acts like hostilities and assassination of government officials resulted in the breakdown of the government and a war was initiated. Many people opposed the war due its violence and it was not the solution to the political-ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, while many argues that it was another golden chance to the government to resolve the conflict and restore the peace. During this period there were many Human Rights violation on both side; the government attacked on the hospitals and orphanage under the suspicion that these are the area under the control of LTTE, which is largely criticised by international community. On the other hand the LTTE targeted the Sinhalese civilians in and around Colombo which neither combatant or not involved in war. Both the parties in war have been criticised for their violent nature as well as for gross violation of the Human rights. But in May, 2009 the war came to the end with the death of the leader of LTTE, Prabhakaran. Sri Lanka celebrated the military victory over the LTTE, and government promised a peaceful nation with democracy to its civilian, but the post war politics and the policies of the government seem to be opposing the statement of the government; in the sense that the peace has not yet established after a year and the immediate needs of the war affected is been continuously neglected.
6

Ibid

Post War ScenarioSecurity State Syndrome: Militarization of the victory Sri Lanka has been characterised by the highest defence budget country7 and sate-security oriented country8 before and after the war with LTTE. The successive 30 per cent increase in the defence expenditure in 2006 explicitly demonstrated the military solution to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka9. Nevertheless the expenditure and the process of militarization have not been slower down since then. It was assumed that the process of militarization would de facto decrease after the war, under the developmental and democratic activities, but today the hopes have been dashed. Sri Lankan state is becoming more of a security state were the military has large extend of intervention in the development procedures. It is increasingly evident that the status of Sri Lanka is perhaps is a result of thirty years of war and a success lead by the military after a long period, both has left an institutional legacy of security mindset. The state of militarization could be understood through two major process- one, there is exponentially increase in the defence budget of the government and the continuous increasing and long military deployment in the north and east region of the island. Perhaps most strangely, despite the war ending with the unambiguous defeat of LTTE, plan was drawn up to enlarge the military10. Colombo officials are till legitimising militarization by invoking vague security threats about LTTE survivors and the Tamil diaspora though there is absence of the any militia group in the country. This mind set of military driven state or security driven state was further reflected when there was structural reforms been implemented in the military, were Gen Fonseka had taken up a new position of Chief of Defence Staff and more. Sri Lanka has the largest armed forces per capita in south Asia11, since after the high expenditure on the war the government is facing troubles in paying salaries of the officials and also managing the logistics for the personnel. In this background it is been argued that
7 8

Sri Lanka has highest military expenditure in south Asia The State for which national security becomes main concern and accordingly the polices are formed and implemented is known as security oriented state- J. Uyangoda 9 Sri Lanka: Recharting U.S. Strategy after the War, 2009, Committee on Foreign Relation United State Senate, page 17. 10 D. R. Senanayake, August 2009, Discrediting Peace: In Post-Conflict Sri Lanka, governance is militarized, Himal South Asia, Vol 22 No. 8, page 40 11 D. R. Senanayake, August 2009, Discrediting Peace: In Post-Conflict Sri Lanka, governance is militarized, Himal South Asia, Vol 22 No. 8, page 39

the various allocated humanitarian and developmental aid would be illegitimately used for such purposes. The culture of militarization and impunity that the conflict had enabled need to be rolled back to gain the trust and faith of the minorities12. Although some contact of military equipments have been cancelled13, but there are explicit evidences of the militarization under the fear and pressure of war-crime investigation sought by some international organizations. Because the government has implemented the military reform and there are continuous efforts for militarizing the governance and also restoring substantive democracy, such efforts made it clear that the government in fact plans to continue on the course of militarization and in post conflict context which is the result of the anxiety of the investigation of the war crimes. The country need to prioritize the human security centric approach instead of militarization and state- centric national-security paradigm. The government need to prioritise the human needs, development activities, transparency and good governance in order to regain the good and highest social indicators as it has, only in this way the govern[ment can actually take a chance of the military victory and restore the peace in the country. Democracy Vs AnarchyAs Sri Lanka moves from a situation of war to no-war with the silencing of the big guns, the question of a peace with justice and democracy looms large14. The fast and sever erosion of democratic space, institutions and freedom of speech has been observed in last 30years of conflict, especially in last few years of tension in Sri Lanka. It was assumed that the end of the military warfare would restore genuine democracy and governance structure in place so that peace would be sustainable in the country. But, on contrary the expectation were replaced with militarization and anarchical structures in the country. The war ended with the note of new beginning for the peace but the government has yet failed to restore and bound to its promises. The arm conflict in Sri Lanka and its attendant repression have determined and indeed constituted politics in Sri Lanka over the three decades. The question of minority is always
12

A. Kadirgamar, June 2009, Sri Lankas Post war Political Economy and the question of Minorities, Economics and Political Weekly, Vol XLIV No.24, pp 74 13 D. R. Senanayake, 2009, Discrediting Peace: In Post-Conflict Sri Lanka, governance is militarized, Himal South Asia, Vol 22 No. 8, page 40 14 A. Kadirgamar, June 2009, Sri Lankas Post war Political Economy and the question of Minorities, Economics and Political Weekly, Vol XLIV No.24, pp 72

been presented as the important national concern though it was the majoritarian politics emerged during the colonial period and restrain in the country forever. The stresses of this can be seen during the presidential elections of 2010, in which there were electoral compulsions in north and east region of country. This act of electoral compulsion showed the negation and non recognition f democratic processes. In the context of the majoritarian democracy and with insufficient checks on the centralized structures of the State, electoral democracy15 has in fact been more a problem than a solution in Sri Lankan context. The presidential elections are characterised by its time and the procedures. The elections were called before two years were the President sacrificed his two years of term in order to get the long term benefits by getting re-elected. The eminent writers and academicians argued that the election was not the need of the country after the war but the greed of power and the notion of popularity influenced President to call election before the scheduled term. In the election both the parties proposed the agenda of executive presidency. The first of the Fonsekas ten-point manifesto was winning over peace by establishing democracy were he highlighted the war crimes the most. On the other side Rajapakse responded in more guarded way by promising to reduce unnecessary power. But at the end Rajapakse won the election and Fonseka faced the advert implication of being an opposition candidate. He has been arrested soon towards the end of the month of the election under the charges of military scandal. He has been charged for scandal in the arm treading for the military purposes, were the government is trying to project the process abided to the law of the land. It seems that the government is trying to damage the hero status of Fonseka by charging him in military scandals. After his arrest, it is been continuously argued that his was the biggest thread to the government because he tried to address the question of war crime, due to which government taken this step. The case of the Fonseka resembles the gambling under the rule of law, but the academicians argue that in Sri Lanka the rule of laws is been replaced by law of rulers. Soon after the defeat of the LTTE, new laws were formed, first were the Election Commissioner was empower to derecognise the political parties that bear the name of the religion and race. This strategically safeguard all the existing Sinhalese parties as their parties bear no reference

15

The government decided that each person in the country will vote which was compulsory imposition of voting rights.

to any race or religion in compare to the Tamil parties16 (T. Gunasekara, 2009). Such legislation, disallowing parties with ethnic or religious identities belong to the ear of 1987, were the Sinhalese government was blatantly unjust and undemocratic, and also indicates the inclination of government towards Sinhalese Chauvinism. Second, the attacks on the journalist and the human rights activist in the shadow of the war on the terror, most of the attacks excused by labelling the victims Tiger or Tiger supporter or war against the underworld. The government legitimating these acts and supporting through government missionaries like police and military highlights the disturbing trend that gaining momentumthe replacement of rule of law by law of rulers. Besides, the sever deteriorating democracy there has bens tip increase in the soft anarchical structure in Sri Lanka, because of the positioning of the various family members of the president Rajapakse on the strategic post, which either decision making positioning or representing power. Economy after the warThe war bares the huge cost according to World Bank the estimates are 2 million USD. A war economy, based on terror and taxation or extortion by those who wielded guns had grown strongly and many of the rural or marginalized forced to change their occupation (D. R. Senanayake, 2009). Many of those who fought and died or are disable were from poor, rural communities and marginalized castes they were left with no option but to accept the opportunity under the growing pressure of the war and tax. Similarly the women meanwhile were increasingly forced to go abroad, often to try to find work as housemaids in West Asia. After the war the government lifted the navy-imposed restrictions on the fishing, in conflict affected areas. But significant tension and discrimination remained: Tamil fisherman have been reportedly beaten up and harassed by the navy, when Sinhalese fisherman brought to the areas traditionally belong to Tamils and Muslims fishing community. It seems that the old resource conflict and state sponsor discrimination which was at the root of the thirty years of the conflict is returning back. The cost of the war was huge to the government both in terms of the monetary and human lives; this has resulted in the high rates of unemployment and consequently poverty. Under
16

T. Gunasekara, Sept. 2009, Soft Anarchy: In Sri Lanka the rule of law has been replaced by law of ruler, Himal South Asia, Vol 22 No.9, pp 50

such circumstances the international community has starched their hands to help Sri Lanka. International Monetary Fund was first to announce a developmental loan worth US dollar 2.5 billion to Sri Lanka for post war reconstruction and rehabilitation. This was the highest ever loan to Sri Lanka, the investment of IMF implies its confidence in the capabilities of the government for economic development. Before the war Sri Lankan government and Asian Development Bank were agreed upon three point poverty reduction long term plan; which was firstly aimed at North and East region of the island for the poverty reduction and development. This has been the main activities after the war as well. Besides, Indian government sanctioned Rs.500 corer and Tamil Nadu government sanctioned Rs.25 corer for the post war development in Sri Lanka. The economic intervention in Sri Lanka is perceived as liberalizing the economy of the country and severely criticised because of the ignorance of the discriminating policies of the government towards the Tamil minority after the war and also negation of the war crimes by the government. A Tamil commentator saysThe West has to consider the long history of betrayal and the explicit ways in which the Sinhala state has embarked upon the structural genocide of Eelam Tamils. The long legacy of international failure, spanning over half a century, in not recognising the genocidal oppression in the island and the nationalist dimensions of the struggle of Eelam Tamils have immensely contributed to the present mess.(After IMF sanctioned the loan to Sri Lanka) .The economic stability and growth is critical for Sri Lanka to meet the need of the war affected population in specific and development of the country in general. But the increasing scandals, less or no accountability and transparency, and absence of good governance are hampering the economic activities in the North and East region of the Island. Besides, the resource discrimination based on the race should be addressed in order to boom the economy and meet the sustainable peace.

Reconciliation and rehabilitationSince the war ended, the government has published plans to build a war museum- rather than one devoted to peace and reconciliation. Reconciliation is integral part of post war peace development. It can be achieved through various ways like truth finding procedures, legal procedures and through post war reconstruction and development, any of these are meant to address the grievances of the people. In case of Sri Lanka, assumption were made that the war will provide an opportunity to find a political answer to the ethnic conflict and restore the peace, though the war was the solution for it. The State of Sri Lanka has already been criticised for war on terror, there were many socioeconomic processes at the root of the ethnic conflict which got proliferated due to political agendas. Thus the political solution would have been an answer to the question to the ethnic conflict rather than a war. But still hopes were made after the war, as it would be new opportunity for the country to address its problem. In the due time of 30yrs of ethnic conflict LTTE and the government failed to meet actual demands of the minorities in the country. The LTTE approach to the separate state was more of a power oriented aspiration rather than a true concern to the discrimination against minority Tamils. It could be understood through the feeling of detachment among the villagers which were controlled by LTTE. Under such circumstances it becomes mandatory to address the grievances of the people affected by protracted conflict. The Sri Lankan government failed to address the either of the above mentioned reconciliation procedures, as it rejected the UN investigation of war crimes, there were no legal procedures against the parties in the war and most important the delay in the rehabilitation and reconstruction. The government had promised to rehabilitate the IDPs in duration of six month but after the year after the end of the war there are no changes in the situation of the IDPs. Many of the IDPs are stilled held in internment camps in north, under conditions made infinitely more abysmal by the one of the monsoons. They have been under the continuous screening procedures and under military watch which violates the right of mobility of IDPs. Besides, the government has completely denied any investigatory action against war, hence proved that the government is not concern about the reconciliation and there are no steps been taken for it, which may further deteriorate the situation of IDPs in the country.

ConclusionHaving won the three decade-long war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Sri Lankan government faces a historic opportunity and challenge to win the peace in Sri Lanka. The end of the armed conflict in the small Indian Ocean isle in May 2009 gave rise to a sense of euphoria and optimism that life would return to normal, that the barriers and check-points would be removed, and that the economy would finally take off. The defeat of the LTTE was accomplished at great cost, in terms of lives lost and maimed, as well as damage to property and the countrys international reputation. The last three years of war also saw a serious erosion of governance structures, democratic institutions, and traditions of multiculturalism and co-existence among diverse ethnic and religious communities. To ensure a sustainable peace, the government would need to win the confidence of the minority cultural groups, work toward reconciliation and address the root causes of the conflict. LTTE was nothing but the outbreak against the ethnic conflict and the result of discrimination against minorities, over a period there were changes in it. But the end of the LTTE doesnt mean the end of the ethnic conflict, because the historic analysis shows that there are socio-economic, cultural and political dimensions to ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka without addressing them the ethnic conflict cannot be brought under the umbrella of peace. Simultaneously, it would be necessary to repair a dysfunctional democracy whose institutions were significantly eroded in the course of decades of war-induced Emergency Rule, which the government still has not lifted. After the war the deteriorating democracy and increasing militarization is the main concern, because after the war also the regions of north and east are filled with military activities and the personnel has not been decreased rather there is more deployment of the military forces. The challenge now is to reach out to the minorities and move beyond a highly militarised, state-centric national security paradigm and prioritise human security and development and welfare state principles which have enabled the island to achieve the highest social indicators in South Asia. It is thus that the military victory over the LTTE may be translated into a stable and sustainable peace. The political scenario has brought the attention of the world to the country. The presidential election of 2010 brought has attention of the world. President called the election before the scheduled time and successfully got re-elected, but after that consciously tried to end all the opposition to him the law against the parties names based on the ethnic identity and the arrest of Gen. Foneska explains it. The democracy is changing to the anarchy; it is clearly evident

from the presences of the different family members of President in the government or at the post of power. Now it is been forecasted that the president will try to achieve 2/3rd majority in the parliamentary election and will try to eliminate the 13th amendment or will make any changes in the 13th amendment which provides political power to the minority regions of Sri Lanka. The regrouping of the LTTE is not till the time is possible after the extensive military operations by the government, but the end of the LTTE doesnt mean end of the ethnic conflict. In order to retain peace the government extensively need to follow the democratic values and implement development projects. At the end it can be said that. For the victors, at least for part of them, the war will have been politically profitable. And the responsibility for this rests on the behaviour of all that made resistance impossible. Now, as a result of the ethics of absolutism, when the period of exhaustion will have passed, the peace will be discredited, not the war. Max Weber, Essays in Sociology

Bibliography Ahamed, Z. (January 2010). Sri Lanka reflections on the elections. South Asia articles . Atkinson, A. (April, 2009). COUNTRY REVIEW, Shri Lanka. Euler Hermes . Cooperation, S. S. (2009). Swiss Medium Term Plan for Human Security (SMTP), in Shri Lanka. SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation . DeVotta, N. (January 2002). ILLIBERALISM AND ETHNIC CONFLICT IN SRI LANKA. Journal of Democracy , Volume 13. Fernando, N. (May 2009.). Sri Lanka: Rising to the challenges after the war. Sri Lanka Articles . Hariharan, R. (July 2009). Defeat of the LTTE and the future of Tamil Militancy. World Focus . Hariharan, R. (August 2009). Revisiting India's Sri Lanka policy options. South Asia Articles . Hariharan, R. (March 2010). Sri Lanka: no actions on the core issues. South Asia articles . Jon Lunn, e. a. (June 2009). War and peace in Sri Lanka. House of Commons . Kadirgamar, A. (June 2009). Sri Lankas Post-War Political Economy and the Question of Minorities. Economic & P 72 olitical Weekly . Manoharan, N. (February 2009). Sri Lanka Challenges Ahead. IPCS ISSUE BRIEF , No. 22. Manoharan, N. (February 2009.). Sri Lanka: cease the fire and catch the peace. Sri lanka Articles. Manoharan, N. (February 2007). Sri Lanka: Five year of the cease fire agreement. Sri Lanka articles . manoharan, N. (February 2006). Sri Lanka: Significance of geneva talks. Sri Lanka Articles . Oxford, W. P. (January 2010). Civilian protection in Sri Lanka under. Refugee Studies centre, University of Oxford . Rajasingham, S. K. (January 2009). Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka: Challenges of Political and Constitutional Settlement. Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka: .

RELATIONS, C. O. (December 2009). SRI LANKA: RECHARTING U.S. STRATEGY AFTER THE WAR. COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE . report, A. (February 2010). THE SRI LANKAN TAMIL DIASPORA AFTER THE LTTE. International Crisis Group . report, C. g. (January, 2010). Sri Lanka: A Bitter Peace. International Crisis Group . report, L. c. (January 2010). The current situation. Sri Lanka a bitter peace . Sebastian, R. (n.d.). Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka,Its Ecological and Political Consequences. Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka . Senanayake, D. R. (9th July 2009). From National Security State to Human Security:. ISAS Working paper . Sri Lanka prospective trade and economic prospects. (Octomber 2009). Dialogue quaterly journel . The Terrorists' War against Sri Lanka. (2005). United Nations General Assembly . T. Gunasekara, Sept. 2009, Soft Anarchy: In Sri Lanka the rule of law has been replaced by law of ruler, Himal South Asia, Vol 22 No.9, pp 48-51.

Uyangoda, J. (2007). Ethnic Conflict in shrilanka Changing Dynamics. East- West centre Washington .