In Pursuit of a Mythical State of Tamil Eelam

What is it about?

This is a rejoinder to an article written by Kristian Stokke and published in the TamilNet in February 2006 and subsequently in the Third World Quarterly (TWQ) in September 2006 which is euphorically titled “Building the Tamil Eelam State: Emerging State Institutions and Forms of Governance in LTTE-controlled Areas in Sri Lanka”. This author’s critique of Kristian Stokke’s article is two fold: one is on the process of undertaking research for his article and the second is on glaring factual inaccuracies on which his article is tenuously based. This paper presents statistical, factual and anecdotal evidence to refute the claims made by Kristian Stokke that the LTTE is a liberation movement with mass support, performing state functions in areas under its control. There is also a postscript replying to Kristian Stokke’s response to my rejoinder published in the TWQ in September 2007, and detailing the ordeal underwent by this author in getting the rejoinder published in the TWQ.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

My criticism of Kristian Stokke’s article of political bias is because of his flawed research methodology and glaring factual inaccuracies. That is, his flawed research methodology and contentious factual evidences have led to partisan analysis and conclusions and not vice versa. Kristian Stokke has defended his original article and has charged my critique as politically motivated and claims it is written “…being located in a context where polarised militant politics over-determines academic discourse…” instead of responding to statistical, factual and anecdotal evidence presented in my article. Anyone who is interested in finding the validity of Kristian Stokke’s charge is welcome to do a google search of my full name and find out whether I have any political affiliation or not. The readers could also check my academic credentials on the inside back cover this publication. It is true that academic discourses in Sri Lank are very much polarised. However, not everyone and every discourse can be regarded as such. There are several other blatant misrepresentations of my article as well (see Stokke, 2007). I would leave it to the readers to judge who is right and who is wrong by reading Kristian Stokke’s two articles and my one in the TWQ and this updated version. Although the TWQ claims that it is a peer reviewed journal, I seriously doubt that Kristian Stokke’s article has gone through the peer reviewing process. Kristian Stokke is part of an international circle of academics and activists (both Sri Lankan origin and foreign) who are sympathetic and/or supportive of the LTTE who have been meeting in Europe annually in the past two years (2006 & 2007) under the auspices of the Centre for Just Peace and Democracy (CJPD) - a LTTE front NGO registered in Switzerland (I believe). According to my knowledge about the Tamil diaspora persons involved with the CPJD, its objective is not ‘just peace’ or ‘democracy’ but condoning the practice of fascism by the LTTE in areas under its control and beyond, and supporting the establishment of a totalitarian state in the North&East part of Sri Lanka. It is lamentable that Kristian Stokke has “…received a series of hateful emails and have also been refused entry into Sri Lanka” since his article first appeared in the TamilNet (Stokke, 2007: 1197). On the other hand, critics of the LTTE receive death threats and often their right to life is denied. Besides, I would also like to bring to the attention of the readers the ordeal underwent by this author in getting the rejoinder published in the TWQ. A full version of the rejoinder was mailed to TWQ in June 2006. On receipt, the Editorial Assistant (EA) of the journal requested the electronic version, which was promptly sent in late-June 2006. The EA acknowledged receipt and assured to contact in due course of time. However, I did not hear anything from the EA for three months. When I sent a reminder to the EA in September 2006 the email bounced. And since then I was unable to get in touch with the EA because my email address was blocked. Then I tried to contact the Editor of the TWQ by email several times, which were not responded to. Then I sent an online message to the publisher of the TWQ (i.e. Routledge, UK) regarding the non-responsiveness of the Editor regarding my submission. Eventually the Editor responded by saying that the article needs to be reduced in length and it could be considered for publication in early-2007. I complied and sent a shorter version in October 2006, which was acknowledged by the Editor, who promised to get back to me by December 2006. Again I did not receive any news from the Editor and my emails were not replied. In late-December 2006 I had to again contact the publisher through their website about the non-responsiveness of the Editor. By mid-January 2007 I received an email from the Editor telling me that my rejoinder and Kristian Stokke’s reply to it will be published in the September 2007 issue of the TWQ. I cannot still understand why it should take one year to publish my rejoinder because TWQ is published eight times a year. I am even more intrigued by the blocking of my emails by the EA of the journal and the Editor’s non-responsiveness. I do not know whether the readers are aware of the origin of the TWQ journal. This journal was started by Third World Foundation, which was set up by the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), which was a Pakistan headquartered multinational bank with branches in the UK, USA and many developing and developed countries. It collapsed in the late-1980s after being found to be involved in money laundering, primarily narcotic drug trade related money from Afghanistan and Colombia. After the collapse of the BCCI, the TWQ journal was also about to be closed. Then the Taylor Francis Group rescued and re-launched it in the early-1990s as a journal of ‘emerging economies’, not only focusing on the Third World but also the former Eastern Europe.

Perspectives