WIGNESWARAN,SENATHIRAJAH ANDTHE FACADE OFTNA UNITY

tives each from all five constituents. Initially the four TNA representatives on the committee were Jaffna district MP’s Senathirajah and Shritharan, Batticaloa district MP Selvarajah and National district MP Sumanthiran. However all five parties requested that Sampanthan be the committee chair. Thus the coordinating committe had 21 members inclusive of Sampanthan.

The interlude between Wigneswaran’s refusal and acceptance had been utilised to mount a campaign in Senathirajah’s favour. Senathirajah who maintained silence as the campaign gathered momentum announced after a while that he was prepared to contest to serve the people if the people wanted it. However he qualified his willingness by saying it depended on approval from the party.

After Wigneswaran consented to contest, Sampanthan expected Senathirajah to bow out from the race gracefully and wind up his candidacy campaign. Senathirajah kept a discreet silence on this without committing himself either way. While not asserting his claim to Sampanthan, “Maavai” also did not announce a withdrawal. been averted. Had both leaders met in private beforehand and engaged in an honest discussion the potential crisis may have been resolved through a mutually acceptable compromise. This did not happen. So here was Sampanthan expecting Senathirajah to bow out from a race that had not begun and also convince his backers to back out and there was Senathirajah determined to stake what he regarded as his rightful claim to be the first chief minister of t he Northern Provincial council.

The differences between Sampanthan and Senathirajah were not serious enough to be described as a rift. It did however provide an opening for other elements in both the ITAK and the TNA to move in and exploit. The exercise was mutually reinforcing where Senathirajah sought to utilise these sections as his instruments while they attempted to manipulate events in their favour and extract greater concessions. In the process some I TAK elements wanted to isolate Sampanthan while non-ITAK parties aimed to drive a wedge between Sampanthan and Senathirajah and weaken the ITAK.

It was against this backdrop that the TNA Coordinating committee first met on July 11th at the ITAK office in Bambalapitiya to select the chief ministerial candidate. Representatives of the five parties in TNA began talking. Sampanthan chairing the meeting let the others talk first. In a complicated reversal of roles the non – ITAK parties namely the EPRLF, TELO, PLOTE and TULF proposed the name of the ITAK’s “Mavai” Senathirajah, and spoke in support of his candidacy. Surprisingly even the TULF that was expected to nominate its leader Veerasingham Aanandasangaree as a prospective candidate advocated his bête noir Senathirajah’s

name instead. one point of time the I TAK’s Sumanthiran appealed to Senathirajah directly and appraised the senior MP of the problems likely to be faced by the new chief minister. Sumanthiran explained in detail as to why Wigneswaran was better equipped than Senathirajah to face such challenges in the present context.

TULF Jaffna Municipal councillor Sangiah surprised the gathering by making a fierce yet illogical speech supportive of Senathirajah. TULF secretarygeneral Ve e r a s i n g h a m Aanandasangaree did not attend the coordinating committee and was in the Eastern province. According to sources close to Sangaree, the TULF leader had expected his name to be proposed and had felt it would be inappropriate for him to be present while his candidature was discussed. But Sangaree’s deputy Sangiah did a minor somersault and opted to support Senathirajah whose political differences with the former Kilinochchi MP are well-known. Anandasangaree whose name was to be proposed by the TULF and supported by the PLOTE never fared in the contest as Sangiah abandoned his leader in favour of Maavai.

The discussions at the TNA office in Bambalapitiya established a clear demarcation of battle lines. The EPRLF, TELO, TULF and PLOTE were on one side espousing the name of Senathirajah. While Senathirajah remained silent his colleagues from the ITAK were supportive of Justice Wigneswaran. Despite Sampanthan and Sumanthiran making powerful, intellectually convincing arguments in favour of Wigneswaran, the supporters of Senathirajah would not budge. They were adamant that Senathirajah should be the choice regardless of merit.

It was blatantly obvious that the Senathirajah lobby was working according to a well-set plan. They had not entered discussions with an open mind prepared to select the best candidate possible for the task lying ahead. They were rooting for Senathirajah regardless of his suitability or otherwise. While being supportive of Maavai they were in no way critical of Wigneswaran. They spoke of him respectfully and praised his track record on the bench.