Plantation Tamils – The Oppressed People of Sri Lanka By S. Makenthiran, B.A., FCCA

mmigration in the nineteenth century

In Sri Lanka live one of the most oppressed communities in the world. They are the plantation Tamils living in the central hill country. This unfortunate community has been treated like sub-humans by the successive Sinhalese governments that have been in power since independence in 1948.

In Sri Lanka, formerly called Ceylon, there are three major communities – the majority Sinhalese and the minority Tamils and Muslims. At the time of independence, there was a population of about 8 million, of which the Sinhalese composed of 66%, the Tamils 26% and Muslims 7%.

The Tamils of Ceylon are of two categories – the Eelam Tamils of the coastal NorthEast Province, and the Upcountry Tamils of the central highlands of Central, Uva and Sabaragamuwa Provinces. The Eelam Tamils have lived on the island for milennia.

The Upcountry Tamils were brought by the British at the beginning of the 19th century from South India to work on the British plantations. The first batch of Tamil labourers came around 1823 from Tamil Nadu, then called the Madras Presidency. In two more decades, the Indian Tamils will complete two centuries of habitation in Sri Lanka.. They have toiled on the Tea, rubber and coconut plantations to make Ceylon prosperous under grueling, and inhuman conditions.

When Ceylon was unilaterally granted independence by the British in 1948, there were about one million Eelam Tamils and a little more that one million Upcountry Tamils, out of a total population of about eight million. The Eelam Tamils were in general well off, but the Upcountry Tamils lived in poverty and squalor.

As a school boy, teacher, accountancy student, and accountant, I had the experience of seeing the Tamils in the estates and possess intimate knowledge of the terrible conditions in which they lived.

Appalling living conditions

These Tamils from Tamil Nadu were brought to Ceylon as indentured labourers.  ‘Indenture’ is a sealed agreement binding servant to master.  The poverty-stricken, ignorant and illiterate Tamils of South India were subjected to the terms of indenture and brought to Ceylon to work on plantations.  These unfortunate Tamils were condemned to virtual slavery under the British, and, after independence, to the Sinhalese masters.

The gangs of estate labourers are supervised by Kanganies, who come under the overall supervision of a Head Kangany.  The manager in charge of the estate is called an Estate Superintendent.  Under him, the administration comes under an Assistant Superintendent, Head Clerk and clerks.  The tea factory is supervised by a Tea Maker and his staff.  The Tamil women do the tea plucking and are paid according to the weight of tea plucked.  Other labourers are paid at an hourly rate.

The living conditions of the plantation Tamils is appalling.  They live in labour lines like the slave rows in the United States.  Each family is given a room and large families of ten or twelve children are crammed up in a room.  They have to use common toilets, and a common tap.  Men and women have to bathe from the common tap in the open.  After independence, while the Sinhala-dominated government went all out to improve the quality of life of the Sinhalese, the Tamils were neglected. The plantation Tamils were the worst off.

The health and educational facilities made available to this unfortunate community have been deplorable.  There are dispensaries in the estates but no doctors.  Unqualified dispensers attend to the sick.  Schools are only up to 4th or 5thstandard.  The objective is to discourage Tamils from improving in education to make sure that they remained labourers.

Among the plantation Tamils, there were a handful who are economically better off as clerks, tea makers, and head kanganies.  The sons of these few plantation Tamils, who are better off do get some chance to progress, but the vast majority live in abject poverty and ignorance.

These Upcountry or Plantation Tamils are wrongly referred to as Indian Tamils.  Sinhalese who claim to have come from India are not referred to as Indian Sinhalese.  In fact, many Indians, who immigrated after the Upcountry Tamils, merged with the Sinhalese and conveniently call themselves Sinhalese.

Conditions under colonialism

Under the British rule, though the Plantation Tamils were suffering under atrocious living conditions, as British subjects they were equal in the eyes of the law.  In the nineteen twenties Tamils of recent Indian origin were nominated to the legislative council.  In 1931 under the Donoughmore constitution, when universal adult franchise was introduced, the Plantation Tamils were granted the right to vote like all other Ceylonese.

In the thirties, the Sinhalese, spearheaded by D.S. Senanayake, agitated in the Legislative Council to send back some Indians and to discontinue and deport Indians in government service.  In 1939 Jawaharlal Nehru (who later became the first Prime Minister of independent India) arrived to look into the problems faced by people of Indian origin.  Soon after, the Ceylon Indian Congress was formed to lead the Upcountry Tamils.  It was later to emerge as a powerful political party and trade union.

Saumiyamoorthy Thondaman, the Upcountry Tamil leader

It was about this time that Saumiyamoorthy Thondaman entered politics and ultimately became the uncrowned king of the Upcountry Tamils.  He led his people through thick and thin for six decades.  Born in Tamil Nadu in 1913, he came to Ceylon in 1924 at the age of 11.  His father had migrated to Ceylon as a kangany and by hard work and enterprise become the owner of an estate.  Young Thondaman became a planter and so did many members of his extended family later.  In 1940 he entered politics as Chairman of the Reception Committee of the Gampola Branch of the Ceylon Indian Congress.

Saumiyamoorthy Thondaman

Developments after independence

The granting of independence to Ceylon was a tragedy for the Tamils. The Ceylon government dominated by the Sinhalese gave them step-motherly treatment.  The Upcountry Tamils were living in extremely difficult conditions, but the Sinhala-dominated government completely neglected them.

The Ceylon Indian Congress led by Thondaman secured 8 seats in the first Parliament out of a total of 101.  Thondaman was elected to the Nuwara Eliya seat.  The block Upcountry Tamil votes influenced 12 other electorates in favour of leftist parties.

Then, like a bolt from the blue, came the terrible betrayal of the Tamils by Prime Minister D.S. Senanayake and the U.N.P.  In the very year of independence, the Upcountry Tamils, who numbered over a million, were rendered stateless.  In a blatant act of perfidy, D.S. Senanayake passed the Ceylon Citizenship Act ,depriving citizenship to the Upcountry Tamils (over half the Tamil population) who had lived in Ceylon for several generations.  This loss of citizenship was followed in the next year by the Ceylon Elections Amendment Act depriving voting rights to those Estate Tamils, who constituted about 13% of the population.  As a result, in the next elections in 1952, not a single Tamil member was elected from the Upcountry, where half the Tamils in Ceylon lived.

Ceylon Tamils fail to support Upcountry Tamil brethren

This was the first blow to the Tamils in Ceylon, and was to be followed by numerous serious acts of discrimination by the Sinhalese majority against the Tamils by successive governments creating a permanent division between the two communities.  D.S. Senanayake who started these anti-Tamil policies can be called the father of Sinhala racism.  The Tamils, even in this time of peril, failed to take united action.  To the dismay of the Tamils, G.G. Ponnambalam who posed as the champion of the Tamils and minorities, voted in support of these discriminatory acts against fellow Tamils to enable him to continue in the cabinet.  The Plantation Tamils, who were already living in sub-human conditions, were left without any political voice.

The honour of the Tamils was partly salvaged by S.J.V. Chelvanayagam, who voted against those despicable Acts of discrimination and broke away from the Tamil Congress Party of G.G. Ponnambalam over this issue.  In 1949 S.J.V. Chelvanayagam formed the Federal Party to agitate for a federal constitution to safeguard Tamil rights.  He was the first Tamil leader to alert the Tamils to the dangers of unitarianism and Sinhalese hegemony.  At that stage he only agitated for a federal form of government and did not ask for a separate state for the Tamil minority.

The Upcountry Tamil leader S. Thondaiman, and his party, the Ceylon Workers Congress, carried on a hopeless and ineffective Satyagraha against the unjust laws.  It was our misfortune that the Tamils failed to unite at this desperate hour for the Upcountry Tamils, who were suffering under the Sinhalese government and thugs.  Having seen the conditions in which these poor Tamils lived in Ceylon’s hill country and how the Tamils lived in Apartheid South Africa, I can say that the Tamils in the Ceylon estates were treated very much worse.  The Tamils in Apartheid South Africa were also denied political rights, but they were economically prosperous and much better off than the Estate Tamils of Ceylon‘s Hill Country.

The Upcountry Tamils were not only handicapped economically, socially, and in education.  Now they were without any political leverage and no seat in Parliament.  It was infuriating to hear the Sinhalese refer disparagingly to the Upcountry Tamils as ‘kallathonis’ (illicit boat people) and the NorthEast Tamils as ‘para damalos’.  The Sinhalese were under the illusion that they could perpetually continue any injustices against the Tamils with impunity, as the latter were a powerless minority.

Renaming the Ceylon Indian Congress

In 1950, the name of the Ceylon Indian Congress was changed to Ceylon Workers Congress, and it became a powerful force as it controlled a large and strong trade union.  The word ‘Indian’ is misleading and should not be used in referring to Upcountry Tamils.

Sirimavo-Shastri Pact

In a glaring case of betrayal, the Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri agreed to the repatriation of 600,000 of the one million Upcountry Tamils to India.  This was done against the wishes of the Tamils of Ceylon by signing the Sirimavo-Shastri Pact in October 1964.  The NorthEast and Upcountry Tamils had by then been alerted to the danger of Sinhalese racism and were against the mass deportation.  Under the agreement, 375,000 Upcountry Tamils were to be given Ceylon citizenship.  However, this was done at a slow pace by the Sinhalese administration.

The worm turns

Thondaman became the champion of the orphaned and oppressed estate underdogs.  It is a sad fact that the Sinhalese thugs treated them like sub-human beings.  It was depressing to see the Tamil estate labourers manhandled by the Sinhalese when they had to go to town.  The Upcountry Tamil leaders gradually roused their alertness and they began to assert themselves.  The estate Tamils began to defend themselves and give it back when provoked.  This oppressed Tamil community was gradually becoming a powerful force.

Tamil Women Tea Pluckers of Upcountry Sri Lanka

Eviction of estate Tamils

The Srimavo government was severely racist and evicted the estate Tamils by various ruses.  They nationalised the estates and uprooted the Tamils to settle Sinhalese.  During the repeated anti-Tamil riots by the Sinhalese, estate Tamils like the NorthEast Tamils were chased out of their homes.  Consequently, some of them sought refuge in the NorthEast.  The Tamil refugees from the estates were trying to make a living in the remote areas of the NorthEast, but many were again mercilessly attacked and uprooted by the Sinhalese army.

Common suffering of NorthEast and Upcountry Tamils

The Tamils of both the NorthEast and the Upcountry were bound by the common suffering at the hands of the Sinhala state and mob terror.  They were all made refugees, victimised and uprooted from their homes.  In the sixties and seventies 600,000 Upcountry Tamils were forcibly deported.  In the eighties and nineties 600,000 or more NorthEast Tamils were forced to flee the country as a result of Sinhalese terror.  The common suffering united the Tamils of all communities.  The ethnic cleansing of Tamils was effectively executed by the Sinhalese state and mob terror.

Triumvirate of TULF leaders

When the Tamil United Liberation Front was formed in 1976, Thondaman was elected to the triumvirate of leaders along with G.G. Ponnambalam and Chelvanayagam.  The Tamil United Liberation Front was formed by uniting the Federal Party, the Ceylon Tamil Congress and the Ceylon Workers Congress.  The TULF, at a convention held in Vaddukkoddai presided over by Thanthai Chelva, passed a historic resolution calling for the formation of a separate state of Tamil Eelam covering the Northern and Eastern provinces.  When the TULF decided to agitate for separation, Thondaman chose a different path that he thought would help his own estate community.

Re-entry into Parliament

In 1960 and 1965 Thondaman was made an appointed Member of Parliament to represent the stateless Tamils.  When the number of Tamils registered as citizens increased, their influence in elections began to be felt.  In 1971, after 30 years of working for his people, Thondaman won an election based on the Tamil votes in Nuwara Eliya.  In 1978 he was appointed to the cabinet as Minister of Rural Industries.  From then on, he almost continuously held a ministerial post under different governments till his death.  He used his ministerial position to uplift the economic position of the estate people and to regain part of the lost rights.  In 1994 the CWC secured nine seats in Parliament and became a force to be reckoned with in Sri Lankan politics.

Anti-Tamil hostility

In the ethnic violence of 1977 and 1980, the plantation Tamils were the worst affected.  As a result of the recurring ethnic violence against Tamils, many plantation Tamils took refuge in the NorthEast and settled down there as farm hands.  In the 1983 massacre of the Tamils by the Sinhalese, the estate Tamils also suffered and many fled to India and the Tamil homeland of NorthEast Sri Lanka.  The Sinhalese politicians used the armed forces to uproot them.  They were forcibly put into buses and taken back to the plantations and dumped there.  The Gandhiyam Movement which was looking after their welfare in NorthEast settlements was crushed and the organizers, Dr. Rajasundaram and architect David, were arrested and treated like common criminals.

Thondaman extracts concessions

Thondaman used his political and ministerial position to win back some of the rights of his oppressed people.  Most of the Tamil Upcountry peope fought and regained their civic rights.  Wages also were increased due to trade union action.  Thondaman succeeded due to various factors.  He was a master strategist and used his cabinet position to obtain concessions.  He used the strength of the CWC trade unions to pressurise the government and estate employers.  He used the block Tamil vote in parliamentary, local and presidential elections.  He used the voting power of the CWC in Parliament to influence the formation of governments.  He came to be regarded as king-maker, much to the resentment of Sinhala racists.

In 1988 the UNP government of Premadasa passed an Act to grant citizenship to the Tamils of the Upcountry, who had been made stateless, but still remained after the mass deportation under the infamous Srimavo-Shastri Pact.  The Bill was opposed by the SLFP.

NorthEast rebellion helps Upcountry Tamils

Most of all, Thondaman was greatly helped by the fear the Sinhalese government had of the armed resistance in NorthEast.  As the estate Tamils were isolated in the central highlands, the Sinhalese would have suppressed them without that armed resistance.  With the LTTE hammering the SL armed forces in the NorthEast, the government did not want a revolt in the Highlands.  Thondaman used his influence with his people to prevent the Upcountry Tamil youth from joining the armed rebellion.  Such a revolt would have had far reaching consequences.  Nevertheless, the estate youth settled in the NorthEast could not be prevented from throwing in their lot with their bothers and sisters of the NorthEast.  Many fought and died, shoulder to shoulder with the brave youth of the NorthEast against the Sinhalese forces.  The truth is that, despite all the strategies of Thondaman and the strength of the Upcountry Tamils, they would have been kept down by the Sinhalese, if the NorthEast Tamils had not posed a serious armed threat.

Death and succession.

When Thondaman died at the age of 86 in 1999, he was still active as a cabinet minister.  He was given a well-attended state funeral, and he was the only Tamil ever to be given that honour.  Over 100,000 people attended his funeral.  His people cried.  Saumiyamoorthy Thondaman can be considered the greatest of all Upcountry Tamils and his contributions were unique.  He was regarded as the uncrowned king of the Upcountry Tamils and a king-maker in Sri Lankan politics..

So great was his influence with his people, that his grandson Arumugam Thondaman was recognized as his successor even before his death.  Arumugam Thondaman became the President of the CWC and now leads the Upcountry Tamils.  Periyasamy Chandrasekeran is the leader of the Upcountry Peoples Front, another party representing the oppressed Plantation Tamils.  He is in favour of forging a united front of the Tamils of the Upcountry and the NorthEast to secure their rights.  Both Arumugam Thondaman and Chandrsekeran have held posts in the Sri Lankan government.

Upcountry Tamils dissipated

As part of the Sinhalese policy of ethnic cleansing, the Sri Lankan state carried out forced strerilisation of Plantation Tamils to reduce their numbers.  Half of them have been expatriated to India.  Many were killed in the series of anti-Tamil pogroms and many fled to the Tamil homeland in the NorthEast.  Their death rate is high due to lack of facilities.  Because of abject poverty, 230,000 Tamil children are estimated to be employed in Sinhalese homes as domestic servants and exposed to abuse.  The rate of unemployment and/or underemployment among Estate Tamils is high.

Remnants of Upcountry Tamils granted citizenship

In 2003, the Parliament unanimously decided to grant citizenship to the remnants of the Tamils left in the Upcountry numbering 168,141.  It was a long and protracted, but finally successful struggle against Sinhalese oppression for Upcountry Tamil rights.

The struggle for economic survival of this battered community continues, however. The frustrated Tamil youth are restless, and resent the miserable conditions that their parents and ancestors endured.

No Peace Without Justice by Arundhati Roy

Speech on accepting the 2004 Sydney Peace Prize

Sometimes there’s truth in old cliches. There can be no real peace without justice. And without resistance there will be no justice.

Today, it is not merely justice itself, but the idea of justice that is under attack. The assault on vulnerable, fragile sections of society is at once so complete, so cruel and so clever – all encompassing and yet specifically targeted, blatantly brutal and yet unbelievably insidious – that its sheer audacity has eroded our definition of justice. It has forced us to lower our sights, and curtail our expectations. Even among the well-intentioned, the expansive, magnificent concept of justice is gradually being substituted with the reduced, far more fragile discourse of ‘human rights’.


It’s official now. The Sydney Peace Foundation is neck deep in the business of gambling and calculated risk. Last year, very courageously, it chose Dr Hanan Ashrawi of Palestine for the Sydney Peace Prize. And, as if that were not enough, this year – of all the people in the world – it goes and chooses me!However I’d like to make a complaint. My sources inform me that Dr Ashrawi had a picket all to herself. This is discriminatory. I demand equal treatment for all Peace Prizes. May I formally request the Foundation to organize a picket against me after the lecture? From what I’ve heard, it shouldn’t be hard to organize. If this is insufficient notice, then tomorrow will suit me just as well.

When this year’s Sydney Peace Prize was announced, I was subjected to some pretty arch remarks from those who know me well: Why did they give it to the biggest trouble-maker we know? Didn’t anybody tell them that you don’t have a peaceful bone in your body? And, memorably, Arundhati didi what’s the Sydney Peace Prize? Was there a war in Sydney that you helped to stop?

Speaking for myself, I am utterly delighted to receive the Sydney Peace Prize. But I must accept it as a literary prize that honors a writer for her writing, because contrary to the many virtues that are falsely attributed to me, I’m not an activist, nor the leader of any mass movement, and I’m certainly not the “voice of the voiceless”. (We know of course there’s really no such thing as the ‘voiceless’. There are only the deliberately silenced, or the preferably unheard.) I am a writer who cannot claim to represent anybody but herself. So even though I would like to, it would be presumptuous of me to say that I accept this prize on behalf of those who are involved in the struggle of the powerless and the disenfranchised against the powerful. However, may I say I accept it as the Sydney Peace Foundation’s expression of solidarity with a kind of politics, a kind of world-view, that millions of us around the world subscribe to?

It might seem ironic that a person who spends most of her time thinking of strategies of resistance and plotting to disrupt the putative peace, is given a peace prize. You must remember that I come from an essentially feudal country – and there are few things more disquieting than a feudal peace. Sometimes there’s truth in old cliches. There can be no real peace without justice. And without resistance there will be no justice.

Today, it is not merely justice itself, but the idea of justice that is under attack. The assault on vulnerable, fragile sections of society is at once so complete, so cruel and so clever – all encompassing and yet specifically targeted, blatantly brutal and yet unbelievably insidious – that its sheer audacity has eroded our definition of justice. It has forced us to lower our sights, and curtail our expectations. Even among the well-intentioned, the expansive, magnificent concept of justice is gradually being substituted with the reduced, far more fragile discourse of ‘human rights’.

If you think about it, this is an alarming shift of paradigm. The difference is that notions of equality, of parity have been pried loose and eased out of the equation. It’s a process of attrition. Almost unconsciously, we begin to think of justice for the rich and human rights for the poor. Justice for the corporate world, human rights for its victims. Justice for Americans, human rights for Afghans and Iraqis. Justice for the Indian upper castes, human rights for Dalits and Adivasis (if that.) Justice for white Australians, human rights for Aboriginals and immigrants (most times, not even that.)

It is becoming more than clear that violating human rights is an inherent and necessary part of the process of implementing a coercive and unjust political and economic structure on the world. Without the violation of human rights on an enormous scale, the neo-liberal project would remain in the dreamy realm of policy. But increasingly Human Rights violations are being portrayed as the unfortunate, almost accidental fallout of an otherwise acceptable political and economic system. As though they’re a small problem that can be mopped up with a little extra attention from some NGOs. This is why in areas of heightened conflict – in Kashmir and in Iraq for example – Human Rights Professionals are regarded with a degree of suspicion. Many resistance movements in poor countries which are fighting huge injustice and questioning the underlying principles of what constitutes “liberation” and “development”, view Human Rights NGOs as modern day missionaries who’ve come to take the ugly edge off Imperialism. To defuse political anger and to maintain the status quo.

It has been only a few weeks since a majority of Australians voted to re-elect Prime Minister John Howard who, among other things, led Australia to participate in the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq will surely go down in history as one of the most cowardly wars ever fought. It was a war in which a band of rich nations, armed with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over, rounded on a poor nation, falsely accused it of having nuclear weapons, used the United Nations to force it to disarm, then invaded it, occupied it and are now in the process of selling it.

I speak of Iraq, not because everybody is talking about it, (sadly at the cost of leaving other horrors in other places to unfurl in the dark), but because it is a sign of things to come. Iraq marks the beginning of a new cycle. It offers us an opportunity to watch the Corporate-Military cabal that has come to be known as ‘Empire’ at work. In the new Iraq the gloves are off.

As the battle to control the world’s resources intensifies, economic colonialism through formal military aggression is staging a comeback. Iraq is the logical culmination of the process of corporate globalization in which neo-colonialism and neo-liberalism have fused. If we can find it in ourselves to peep behind the curtain of blood, we would glimpse the pitiless transactions taking place backstage. But first, briefly, the stage itself.

In 1991 US President George Bush senior mounted Operation Desert Storm. Tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed in the war. Iraq’s fields were bombed with more than 300 tonnes of depleted uranium, causing a fourfold increase in cancer among children. For more than 13 years, twenty four million Iraqi people have lived in a war zone and been denied food and medicine and clean water. In the frenzy around the US elections, let’s remember that the levels of cruelty did not fluctuate whether the Democrats or the Republicans were in the White House. Half a million Iraqi children died because of the regime of economic sanctions in the run up to Operation Shock and Awe.

Until recently, while there was a careful record of how many US soldiers had lost their lives, we had no idea of how many Iraqis had been killed. US General Tommy Franks said “We don’t do body counts” (meaning Iraqi body counts). He could have added “We don’t do the Geneva Convention either.” A new, detailed study, fast-tracked by the Lancet medical journal and extensively peer reviewed, estimates that 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives since the 2003 invasion. That’s one hundred halls full of people – like this one. That’s one hundred halls full of friends, parents, siblings, colleagues, you. The difference is that there aren’t many children here today–let’s not forget Iraq’s children. Technically that bloodbath is called precision bombing. In ordinary language, it’s called butchering,

Most of this is common knowledge now. Those who support the invasion and vote for the invaders cannot take refuge in ignorance. They must truly believe that this epic brutality is right and just or, at the very least, acceptable because it’s in their interest.

So the ‘civilized’ ‘modern’ world – built painstakingly on a legacy of genocide, slavery and colonialism – now controls most of the world’s oil. And most of the world’s weapons, most of the world’s money, and most of the world’s media. The embedded, corporate media in which the doctrine of Free Speech has been substituted by the doctrine of Free If You Agree Speech.

The UN’s Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said he found no evidence of nuclear weapons in Iraq. Every scrap of evidence produced by the US and British governments was found to be false – whether it was reports of Saddam Hussein buying uranium from Niger, or the report produced by British Intelligence which was discovered to have been plagiarized from an old student dissertation. And yet, in the prelude to the war, day after day the most ‘respectable’ newspapers and TV channels in the US , headlined the ‘evidence’ of Iraq’s arsenal of weapons of nuclear weapons. It now turns out that the source of the manufactured ‘evidence’ of Iraq’s arsenal of nuclear weapons was Ahmed Chalabi who, (like General Suharto of Indonesia, General Pinochet of Chile, the Shah of Iran, the Taliban and of course, Saddam Hussein himself) – was bankrolled with millions of dollars from the good old CIA.

And so, a country was bombed into oblivion. It’s true there have been some murmurs of apology. Sorry ’bout that folks, but we have really have to move on. Fresh rumours are coming in about nuclear weapons in Eye-ran and Syria. And guess who is reporting on these fresh rumours? The same reporters who ran the bogus ‘scoops’ on Iraq. The seriously embedded A Team.

The head of Britain’s BBC had to step down and one man committed suicide because a BBC reporter accused the Blair administration of ‘sexing up’ intelligence reports about Iraq’s WMD programme. But the head of Britain retains his job even though his government did much more than ‘sex up’ intelligence reports. It is responsible for the illegal invasion of a country and the mass murder of its people.

Visitors to Australia like myself, are expected to answer the following question when they fill in the visa form: Have you ever committed or been involved in the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity or human rights? Would George Bush and Tony Blair get visas to Australia? Under the tenets of International Law they must surely qualify as war criminals.

However, to imagine that the world would change if they were removed from office is naive. The tragedy is that their political rivals have no real dispute with their policies. The fire and brimstone of the US election campaign was about who would make a better ‘Commander-in-Chief’ and a more effective manager of the American Empire. Democracy no longer offers voters real choice. Only specious choice.

Even though no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq – stunning new evidence has revealed that Saddam Hussein was planning a weapons programme. (Like I was planning to win an Olympic Gold in synchronized swimming.) Thank goodness for the doctrine of pre-emptive strike. God knows what other evil thoughts he harbored – sending Tampax in the mail to American senators, or releasing female rabbits in burqas into the London underground. No doubt all will be revealed in the free and fair trial of Saddam Hussein that’s coming up soon in the New Iraq.

All except the chapter in which we would learn of how the US and Britain plied him with money and material assistance at the time he was carrying out murderous attacks on Iraqi Kurds and Shias. All except the chapter in which we would learn that a 12,000 page report submitted by the Saddam Hussein government to the UN, was censored by the United States because it lists twenty-four US corporations that participated in Iraq’s pre-Gulf War nuclear and conventional weapons programme. (They include Bechtel, DuPont, , Eastman Kodak, Hewlett Packard, International Computer Systems and Unisys.)

So Iraq has been ‘liberated.’ Its people have been subjugated and its markets have been ‘freed’. That’s the anthem of neo-liberalism. Free the markets. Screw the people.

The US government has privatized and sold entire sectors of Iraq’s economy. Economic policies and tax laws have been re-written. Foreign companies can now buy 100% of Iraqi firms and expatriate the profits. This is an outright violation of international laws that govern an occupying force, and is among the main reasons for the stealthy, hurried charade in which power was ‘handed over’ to an ‘interim Iraqi government’. Once handing over of Iraq to the Multi-nationals is complete, a mild dose of genuine democracy won’t do any harm. In fact it might be good PR for the Corporate version of Liberation Theology, otherwise known as New Democracy.

Not surprisingly, the auctioning of Iraq caused a stampede at the feeding trough. Corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, the company that US Vice-president Dick Cheney once headed, have won huge contracts for ‘reconstruction’ work. A brief c.v of any one of these corporations would give us a lay person’s grasp of how it all works. – not just in Iraq, but all over the world. Say we pick Bechtel – only because poor little Halliburton is under investigation on charges of overpricing fuel deliveries to Iraq and for its contracts to ‘restore’ Iraq’s oil industry which came with a pretty serious price-tag – 2.5 billion dollars.

The Bechtel Group and Saddam Hussein are old business acquaintances. Many of their dealings were negotiated by none other than Donald Rumsfeld. In 1988, after Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds, Bechtel signed contracts with his government to build a dual-use chemical plant in Baghdad.

Historically, the Bechtel Group has had and continues to have inextricably close links to the Republican establishment. You could call Bechtel and the Reagan Bush administration a team. Former Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger was a Bechtel general counsel. Former Deputy Secretary of Energy, W. Kenneth Davis was Bechtel’s vice president. Riley Bechtel, the company chairman, is on the President’s Export Council. Jack Sheehan, a retired marine corps general, is a senior vice president at Bechtel and a member of the US Defense Policy Board. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, who is on the Board of Directors of the Bechtel Group, was the chairman of the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

When he was asked by the New York Times whether he was concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest between his two ‘jobs’, he said, “I don’t know that Bechtel would particularly benefit from it [The invasion of Iraq]. But if there’s work to be done, Bechtel is the type of company that could do it.” Bechtel has been awarded reconstruction contracts in Iraq worth over a billion dollars, which include contracts to re-build power generation plants, electrical grids, water supply, sewage systems, and airport facilities. Never mind revolving doors, this -if it weren’t so drenched in blood- would be a bedroom farce.

Between 2001 and 2002, nine out of thirty members of the US Defense Policy Group were connected to companies that were awarded Defense contracts worth 76 billion dollars. Time was when weapons were manufactured in order to fight wars. Now wars are manufactured in order to sell weapons.

Between 1990 and 2002 the Bechtel group has contributed $3.3 million to campaign funds, both Republican and Democrat. Since 1990 it has won more than 2000 government contracts worth more than 11 billion dollars. That’s an incredible return on investment, wouldn’t you say?

And Bechtel has footprints around the world. That’s what being a multi-national means.

The Bechtel Group first attracted international attention when it signed a contract with Hugo Banzer, the former Bolivian dictator, to privatize the water supply in the city of Cochabamba. The first thing Bechtel did was to raise the price of water. Hundreds of thousands of people who simply couldn’t afford to pay Bechtel’s bills came out onto the streets. A huge strike paralyzed the city. Martial law was declared. Although eventually Bechtel was forced to flee its offices, it is currently negotiating an exit payment of millions of dollars from the Bolivian government for the loss of potential profits. Which, as we’ll see, is growing into a popular corporate sport.

In India, Bechtel along with General Electric are the new owners of the notorious and currently defunct Enron power project. The Enron contract, which legally binds the Government of the State of Maharashtra to pay Enron a sum of 30 billion dollars, was the largest contract ever signed in India. Enron was not shy to boast about the millions of dollars it had spent to “educate” Indian politicians and bureaucrats. The Enron contract in Maharashtra, which was India’s first ‘fast-track’ private power project, has come to be known as the most massive fraud in the country’s history. (Enron was another of the Republican Party’s major campaign contributors). The electricity that Enron produced was so exorbitant that the government decided it was cheaper not to buy electricity and pay Enron the mandatory fixed charges specified in the contract. This means that the government of one of the poorest countries in the world was paying Enron 220 million US dollars a year not to produce electricity!

Now that Enron has ceased to exist, Bechtel and GE are suing the Indian Government for 5.6 billion US dollars. This is not even a minute fraction of the sum of money that they (or Enron) actually invested in the project. Once more, it’s a projection of profit they would have made had the project materialized. To give you an idea of scale 5.6 billion dollars a little more than the amount that the Government of India would need annually, for a rural employment guarantee scheme that would provide a subsistence wage to millions of people currently living in abject poverty, crushed by debt, displacement, chronic malnutrition and the WTO. This in a country where farmers steeped in debt are being driven to suicide, not in their hundreds, but in their thousands. The proposal for a Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme is being mocked by India’s corporate class as an unreasonable, utopian demand being floated by the ‘lunatic’ and newly powerful left. Where will the money come from? they ask derisively. And yet, any talk of reneging on a bad contract with a notoriously corrupt corporation like Enron, has the same cynics hyperventilating about capital flight and the terrible risks of ‘creating a bad investment climate’. The arbitration between Bechtel, GE and the Government of India is taking place right now in London. Bechtel and GE have reason for hope. The Indian Finance Secretary who was instrumental in approving the disastrous Enron contract has come home after a few years with the IMF. Not just home, home with a promotion. He is now Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission.

Think about it: The notional profits of a single corporate project would be enough to provide a hundred days of employment a year at minimum wages (calculated at a weighted average across different states) for 25 million people. That’s five million more than the population of Australia. That is the scale of the horror of neo-liberalism.

The Bechtel story gets worse. In what can only be called unconscionable, Naomi Klein writes that Bechtel has successfully sued war-torn Iraq for ‘war reparations’ and ‘lost profits’. It has been awarded 7 million dollars.

So, all you young management graduates don’t bother with Harvard and Wharton – here’s the Lazy Manager’s Guide to Corporate Success: First, stock your Board with senior government servants. Next, stock the government with members of your board. Add oil and stir. When no one can tell where the government ends and your company begins, collude with your government to equip and arm a cold-blooded dictator in an oil-rich country. Look away while he kills his own people. Simmer gently. Use the time collect to collect a few billion dollars in government contracts. Then collude with your government once again while it topples the dictator and bombs his subjects, taking to specifically target essential infrastructure, killing a hundred thousand people on the side. Pick up another billion dollars or so worth of contracts to ‘reconstruct’ the infrastructure. To cover travel and incidentals, sue for reparations for lost profits from the devastated country. Finally, diversify. Buy a TV station, so that next war around you can showcase your hardware and weapons technology masquerading as coverage of the war. And finally finally, institute a Human Rights Prize in your company’s name. You could give the first one posthumously to Mother Teresa. She won’t be able to turn it down or argue back.

Invaded and occupied Iraq has been made to pay out 200 million dollars in “reparations” for lost profits to corporations like Halliburton, Shell, Mobil, Nestle, Pepsi, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Toys R Us. That’s apart from its 125 billion dollar sovereign debt forcing it to turn to the IMF, waiting in the wings like the angel of death, with its Structural Adjustment program. (Though in Iraq there don’t seem to be many structures left to adjust. Except the shadowy Al Qaeda.)

In New Iraq, privatization has broken new ground. The US Army is increasingly recruiting private mercenaries to help in the occupation. The advantage with mercenaries is that when they’re killed they’re not included in the US soldiers’ body count. It helps to manage public opinion, which is particularly important in an election year. Prisons have been privatized. Torture has been privatized. We have seen what that leads to. Other attractions in New Iraq include newspapers being shut down. Television stations bombed. Reporters killed. US soldiers have opened fire on crowds of unarmed protestors killing scores of people. The only kind of resistance that has managed to survive is as crazed and brutal as the occupation itself. Is there space for a secular, democratic, feminist, non-violent resistance in Iraq? There isn’t really.

That is why it falls to those of us living outside Iraq to create that mass-based, secular and non-violent resistance to the US occupation. If we fail to do that, then we run the risk of allowing the idea of resistance to be hi-jacked and conflated with terrorism and that will be a pity because they are not the same thing.

So what does peace mean in this savage, corporatized, militarized world? What does it mean in a world where an entrenched system of appropriation has created a situation in which poor countries which have been plundered by colonizing regimes for centuries are steeped in debt to the very same countries that plundered them, and have to repay that debt at the rate of 382 billion dollars a year? What does peace mean in a world in which the combined wealth of the world’s 587 billionaires exceeds the combined gross domestic product of the world’s 135 poorest countries? Or when rich countries that pay farm subsidies of a billion dollars a day, try and force poor countries to drop their subsidies? What does peace mean to people in occupied Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, Tibet and Chechnya? Or to the aboriginal people of Australia? Or the Ogoni of Nigeria? Or the Kurds in Turkey? Or the Dalits and Adivasis of India? What does peace mean to non-muslims in Islamic countries, or to women in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? What does it mean to the millions who are being uprooted from their lands by dams and development projects? What does peace mean to the poor who are being actively robbed of their resources and for whom everyday life is a grim battle for water, shelter, survival and, above all, some semblance of dignity? For them, peace is war.

We know very well who benefits from war in the age of Empire. But we must also ask ourselves honestly who benefits from peace in the age of Empire? War mongering is criminal. But talking of peace without talking of justice could easily become advocacy for a kind of capitulation. And talking of justice without unmasking the institutions and the systems that perpetrate injustice, is beyond hypocritical.

It’s easy to blame the poor for being poor. It’s easy to believe that the world is being caught up in an escalating spiral of terrorism and war. That’s what allows the American President to say “You’re either with us or with the terrorists.” But we know that that’s a spurious choice. We know that terrorism is only the privatization of war. That terrorists are the free marketers of war. They believe that the legitimate use of violence is not the sole prerogative of the State.

It is mendacious to make moral distinction between the unspeakable brutality of terrorism and the indiscriminate carnage of war and occupation. Both kinds of violence are unacceptable. We cannot support one and condemn the other.

The real tragedy is that most people in the world are trapped between the horror of a putative peace and the terror of war. Those are the two sheer cliffs we’re hemmed in by. The question is: How do we climb out of this crevasse?

For those who are materially well-off, but morally uncomfortable, the first question you must ask yourself is do you really want to climb out of it? How far are you prepared to go? Has the crevasse become too comfortable?

If you really want to climb out, there’s good news and bad news.

The good news is that the advance party began the climb some time ago. They’re already half way up. Thousands of activists across the world have been hard at work preparing footholds and securing the ropes to make it easier for the rest of us. There isn’t only one path up. There are hundreds of ways of doing it. There are hundreds of battles being fought around the world that need your skills, your minds, your resources. No battle is irrelevant. No victory is too small.

The bad news is that colorful demonstrations, weekend marches and annual trips to the World Social Forum are not enough. There have to be targeted acts of real civil disobedience with real consequences. Maybe we can’t flip a switch and conjure up a revolution. But there are several things we could do. For example, you could make a list of those corporations who have profited from the invasion of Iraq and have offices here in Australia. You could name them, boycott them, occupy their offices and force them out of business. If it can happen in Bolivia, it can happen in India. It can happen in Australia. Why not?

That’s only a small suggestion. But remember that if the struggle were to resort to violence, it will lose vision, beauty and imagination. Most dangerous of all, it will marginalize and eventually victimize women. And a political struggle that does not have women at the heart of it, above it, below it, and within it is no struggle at all.

The point is that the battle must be joined. As the wonderful American historian Howard Zinn put it: You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train.

Arundhati Roy