Following his re-election as member of parliament for Batticaloa, the Tamil Guardian spoke to Shanakiyan Rasamanickam to discuss the path ahead for Tamil politics and the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK), as well as accountability for genocide and a political solution for the Tamil people.

What do you think the 2024 Parliamentary election results say about the Tamil people and Tamil nation’s aspirations?

Well, I think this is a good wake-up call for Tamil parties as well. We need to really face the fact that the NPP [National People’s Power] has done well. For a party that historically took responsibility for dividing the North and the East by going to court—it was a JVP [Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna] MP at the time who went to court, although he later switched sides and joined the Rajapakse government—it’s significant. He was a member of Parliament from the JVP when he went to court. They even opposed the 13th Amendment, which, whatever reservations we may have about it or the Provincial Council system, is still the only form of power-sharing within the system. They were opposed to that. Maybe their political ideology has changed to some extent to accommodate Tamil power-sharing aspirations, but fundamentally, for Tamil people to have voted for the NPP, there’s something there we can’t ignore.

But more than that, I think the most serious thing is that in Batticaloa, for instance, the reason we were able to win was because we had a good structure within the party. After I got elected, we reorganized the party branches from the wards all the way up to the district level. We restructured the youth wing and, for the first time, formed a women’s wing in Batticaloa. All of that work made a difference.

Another factor is that there are no corruption charges against me. Many Tamil politicians in the North face allegations of corruption. MPs from the Ninth Parliament, across all parties, have been accused of taking bar permits, and some even admitted to it. Even some MPs within our own party admitted to taking bar permits. Corruption was one of the main issues voters wanted to eradicate, regardless of whether they were Tamil, Sinhalese, or Muslim.

One good example is that doctor from Jaffna [Dr Archchuna Ramanathan]. People supported him because he purely for his stance on exposing corruption in hospitals. This shows voters want to eradicate corruption, regardless of ethnicity. In the East, people could relate to the change the country was expecting while still voting for us.

I wouldn’t agree if people said Tamil nationalism or Tamil power-sharing aspirations are over, because ITAK [Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi] has won eight seats across five electoral districts. Our manifesto and our party’s election campaign had four main things. Number one was a political solution. Number two was accountability and number three was land related issued to be resolved in the interim period until the political solution is achieved. And the fourth thing was development. So, we didn’t just say development only. We even proposed creating a Northeast Development Fund.

Other parties promised things like houses, jobs, or roads, like Pillayan’s party or Douglas Devananda’s party. But voters still supported us. People didn’t completely reject Tamil political power-sharing or dialogue. However, we need to be more sensitive to the mood of the people. They want politicians who are not corrupt and who can deliver development. For instance, in Jaffna, the votes that Douglas Devananda and Angajan Ramanathan got, shifted to the NPP and the ruling party. Jaffna has always had an MP from the government party because of proportional representation. We had Vijayakala Maheswaran, then Douglas Devananda then Angajan Ramanathan. This time, there was a shift.

This was partly because of internal divisions within parties and attacks on Sumanthiran. Attacking Sumanthiran may have reduced the party’s support. When you attack the lead candidate in the Jaffna Peninsula or administrative district, people obviously vote for other parties.

Overall, it’s a good wake-up call for ITAK. I don’t think this trend will continue. For example, in Batticaloa, we went from one seat to three. People who voted for other parties last time, like Pillayan’s party, are now back with ITAK. In the next election, I think things will change further, but it’s clear that we need to get our house in order. Otherwise, we risk facing similar results again.

The issue of this Tamil candidate is also a problem

You mean the common candidate for the presidential election?

I don’t see how it is a “common candidate”. They’re Tamil candidates, but many of them are backed by businesspeople - not Sri Lankan businesspeople, but global players. They have vested interests. Some of these businesspeople allegedly have backhand deals with the NPP and Ranil Wickremesinghe, playing both sides and splitting the vote because it’s a win-win for both. That reduces the chances of Sajith Premadasa winning. The parties that took the conch symbol, they were very clear – it was to create an alternative to the TNA or the ITAK or the house symbol. That was the primary objective of the TELO and PLOTE.

^{Rasamanickam garlanding a statue of S J V Chelvanakayam following his election victory.}

When you talk about a wake-up call, do you mean specifically for ITAK or Tamil politicians across the spectrum?

I think it’s mostly for ITAK, because people have rejected other parties completely.

Countrywide, the conch symbol got only 65,300 votes. That’s 200 votes less than my individual preferential votes in Batticaloa. They contested five districts, fielded almost 50 candidates, and still got fewer votes than me in just one district. This shows that people have written them off. Selvam Adaikalanathan won just 5,000 votes.

So yes, this is a wake-up call for ITAK.

What is next for ITAK, given the internal turmoil within the party?

ITAK’s internal turmoil is primarily due to the party leader not adhering to the party constitution during the leadership election. On the day of the election to elect a new president for the party, he allowed ineligible individuals to participate and vote. I was one of the few people who got on stage and told him he was violating the constitution. That mistake has caused so many problems for the party. The first step now would be to resolve the ongoing judicial case. Once that’s settled, we need to hold a proper convention.

Beyond that, like we did in Batticaloa, we need to get the party reorganized at the grassroots level in every district. I’ve been told that, in the North, some party branches haven’t been renewed in decades. This has to change.

Is this all going to happen under the leadership of Shritharan, or how does the leadership issue stand?

Shritharan is not the leader right now. He never actually assumed leadership because the leader only formally takes over at the convention.

Would one of the main priorities be to sort that out then?

Well, the matter is currently with the judiciary, so there’s very little that we can do. Since the case is in court, we have to resolve it through legal proceedings. The court order has stopped Shritharan from carrying out any leadership functions.

However, to resolve the case, the petitioners and respondents within the party will have to come together. There are eight respondents in total, and they each have different lawyers. Three respondents are represented by one lawyer, two by another lawyer, and Sumanthiran is representing himself, I think. This division complicates the resolution process. If the case were only against the general secretary, the Central Committee could step in and resolve it. But since it involves multiple people, we have to wait for the judiciary to decide.

It sounds very much like the structure and the hierarchy of the party is still a little bit up in the air. Is that right?

Well, no, it's just this case. Our Central Committee from before the election is still functioning. There is no leadership crisis. The general secretary is functioning, and the Central Committee is still operational.

How significant is it for the party to have the leader unable to function at the moment? Do you think it impacted the election results?

The leader not being able to function isn’t a significant issue. Mavai Senathirajah was the leader until he resigned. As per the constitution once he resigned, the senior vice president automatically takes over as acting leader.

This issue could have played a role in the Jaffna district. Both candidates who competed for leadership were from Jaffna, which might have created divisions and discouraged some people from voting. The low voter turnout in the area reflects this. People may have decided not to vote at all because of the internal turmoil within the party.

^{ITAK members meeting with the Indian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka earlier this month.}

Let’s move on to the two main issues you mentioned earlier: a political solution and accountability. Could you reiterate the party’s stance on these and where you see progress?

On a political solution, even in 2019, when Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s government came to power, it was a similar situation where they had a two-thirds majority. While they didn’t win two-thirds outright, they were able to secure it through alliances. Gotabaya seemed invincible at the time, and people thought he’d be in power for the next 25 years. But that wasn’t the case—things changed within two years.

Similarly, with the current AKD government, just because they have a two-thirds majority and appear powerful, it doesn’t mean our stance on political solutions should change. We will continue to push for a negotiated political solution for the North and East, including a merged North-East with a federal structure and federal features. Our position on this has not changed.

On accountability, the transitional justice process needs to happen. Just because the government has changed doesn’t mean this issue can be ignored. Truth and justice mechanisms remain essential, along with an independent judicial mechanism involving foreign participation. Both political solutions and accountability must be pursued simultaneously. Even in our initial discussions with the Indian High Commission, we made it clear that these are our priorities.

With regards to a political solution, do you think the 13th Amendment goes far enough, or do you believe we need to go beyond it?

The 13th Amendment is a starting point. We’ve always said that removing the 13th Amendment is not the smartest thing to do. We need to build on it. The problem with the unitary system is that the centre can take back devolved powers, and federal features are crucial to prevent that. It’s too early to get into specifics about structuring a new solution, but with this government’s two-thirds majority I am very sure they will push for constitutional changes. When they do, we must ensure our concerns are addressed.

On accountability, there’s been a push for referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or another international mechanism. Is that something ITAK supports?

We’re not opposed to an ICC referral. However, as everyone knows, Sri Lanka is not a party to the Rome Statute. The only way to achieve this is for another country to bring the case forward, like Gambia did with Myanmar. Many parties have raised this issue on election platforms from 2020, but four years later, they don’t seem to have made any tangible progress.

How do you envisage working with international mechanisms, especially given the Dissanayake’s comments opposing such involvement? Particularly remarks on opposing the prosecution of soldiers involved in war crimes?

I clarified this with the Prime Minister before she took office. She explained that what was meant was that prosecutions cannot happen in a haphazard manner and need to follow an acceptable process. They didn’t rule out accountability or justice entirely.

Does that mean they are rejecting international involvement in accountability mechanisms?

I can’t comment definitively because we haven’t had formal discussions with the NPP since they came into power. Regardless of their stance, our position remains the same.

I think we need to work closely with the UN Human Rights Council to keep Sri Lanka on the agenda. With international dynamics shifting—such as the U.S. pulling out of the UNHRC during Trump’s presidency—we will have to wait and see. But for us, justice and foreign involvement is important.

Will you also push for an ICC referral?

ITAK has never officially called for an ICC referral, considering the challenges involved. However, some members of our party or other groups may have raised this issue during election platforms. That said, we’re not opposed to it. If someone manages to secure an ICC referral, we would support it. We haven’t seen anything beyond words from these people who have said those sort of things.

When it comes to the crimes that were committed, do you feel that the term genocide should be used more?

As a party, we’ve always referred to them as crimes against humanity. Genocide is a legally specific term, and it’s not something we use loosely. However, from the perspective of Tamil people, it is clearly seen as genocide. Legally, it could be classified as structural genocide, based on intent and systemic actions. As a Tamil representative for sure, that is what it looks like for the Tamil people.

What do events like Maaveerar Naal and the election results say about Tamil nationalism?

I think Maaveerar Naal must not be politicised at all. It is a day to remember heroes and it is something that people commemorate regardless of political involvement. I’ve always been at the event or on prior days to ensure that civilians are able to participate without military interference. However, some politicians use Maaveerar Naal for political mileage.

That said, the ITAK winning a seat in every electoral district is a clear message that there is an appetite for a political solution.