Sri Lanka is at present faced with a threat, on an unprecendented scale, to its continued existence as a nation. This threat is posed by Tamil nationalism, the most extreme manifestation of which is the terrorism unleashed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

A brief review of history

Tamil nationalism, and its ultimate goal of a separate Tamil nation carved out of the Sri Lankan entity, was originally articulated as far back as 1947. On November 26^th of that year, Mr. S.J.V. Chelvanayakam, speaking in the House of Representatives, said, "If Ceylon is fighting to secede from the British Empire, why should not the Tamil people, if they feel like it, secede from the rest of the country?"

The Tamils, having been generally more sympathetic towards British colonialism than the Sinhalese, enjoyed a favoured position throughout that era. They were represented in the Civil Service and other branches of the administration in numbers vastly in excess of the percentage they constituted of the population. This was not an accident. The British policy of divide-and-rule was very simple – favour the minority so that they have a vested interest in the continuation of colonial rule, and keep the majority out of positions of power and influence so that they are unable to do anything about it. Upon India being granted independence in August 1947, however, it became apparent that Ceylon would soon follow. The impending loss of the advantages they enjoyed under British rule prompted Chelvanayakam to raise, three months later, the call for a separate state for the Tamils.

From that beginning in 1947, the campaign for a separate state was led in succession by the All Ceylon Tamil Congress, the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchchi (rather strangely known as the Federal Party in English), the Tamil United Front (later becoming the Tamil United Liberation Front), a plethora of militant organisations such as PLOTE, TELO, EROS, EPRLF, ENDLF etc, all of them being finally wiped out or swallowed up by the LTTE. Today, the only organisation which can function or even exist in those areas of the Northern and Eastern provinces which are not under the control of the country’s security forces, is the LTTE. Even in other areas of the country, no Tamil political party or organisation dares to express a view different to that of the LTTE. The list of those murdered by the LTTE for doing just that, including the leaders of PLOTE, TELO and the TULF, is long and impressive.

The remnants of these groups are at present reduced to hiding in Colombo under the protection of the security forces. They have to depend on the the Sinhala people, with whom they say they cannot live, to protect them from their fellow Tamils who demand a separate Tamil homeland. The irony of this situation seems to be lost on them. Nevertheless, they do not hesitate to deride the country’s security forces, which keep them alive, as the ‘Sinhala army’, which they regularly accuse of committing all sorts of atrocities against the Tamils. Nor do they refrain from maintaining the myth that the Tamil people are discriminated against and treated unjustly by the Sinhalese. They use the freedom available within the Sri Lankan polity for the purpose of destroying the nation. These are the people whom the government, the opposition and even foreign organisations such as the U.N. and the Commonwealth refer to as ‘moderate’ or ‘mainstream’.

When President D.B. Wijetunge said, "There is no ethnic problem in Sri Lanka; there is only a terrorist problem", he was howled down, and labelled a ‘Sinhala Buddhist chauvinist’ by both the People’s Alliance and his own United National Party. Neither could afford to be seen as unsympathetic to the demands of Tamil nationalist sentiment, in view of their competition for the votes of the Tamil minority.

The problem could be considered an ‘ethnic’ one if the Tamils were legally or constitutionally discriminated against by virtue of their ethnicity. However, there is not a single law or constitutional provision which does this. There is also no mutual animosity between the vast majority of the Sinhala and Tamil communities, which is obvious from the fact that Tamils live in every area of the country and are represented in every sphere of national activity. Under these circumstances, to call this problem an ‘ethnic’ one is manifestly absurd.

Another common myth perpetrated by the separatist campaign is that the call for a separate state for the Tamils is the result of ‘injustices’ committed against them by the Sinhalese. Examples of these alleged injustices are the communal riots (in 1958, 1977, 1981 and 1983), the adoption of Sinhalese as the official language (in 1956), the standardisation of marks for university entrance (from 1974 to 1978) and the burning of the Jaffna library (in 1981).

It is not the intention here to examine the reasons or rationale behind any of these, nor to discuss the actions of some Tamil leaders which led to the outbreak of riots on several occasions, but to point out that these can hardly be offered as reasons for demanding a separate state when they took place long AFTER the call for a separate state had been made. What they did achieve was to provide the separatist cause with some propaganda and pseudo moral justification, particularly among people who have only a superficial understanding of this issue.

The ultimate goal of Tamil nationalists is an autonomous state covering those areas of the country in which

Tamils form the majority of the population. There has never been any change in this demand. It is based on an assertion

that these areas were, in the past, a self-governing ‘Tamil homeland’. Historians disagree, and this contention becomes even more tenuous in the light of the fact that less than half the Tamils live in their ‘homeland’. The majority live with the other ethnic groups in other areas of the country.

On examining the statements made and ‘resolutions’ adopted by various Tamil ‘intellectuals’ and political parties over the past several decades, the cause of their discontent becomes apparent. A resolution adopted by the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchchi at its first annual convention at Trincomalee in 1951 is particularly worth mentioning, as it embodies the thinking that has persisted amongst Tamil nationalists to this day. A part of this resolution reads as follows –

".........and inasmuchas the Tamil-speaking people in Ceylon constitute a nation distinct from that of the Sinhalese by every fundamental test of nationhood, firstly that of a separate historical past at least as ancient and as glorious as that of the Sinhalese, secondly by the fact of there being a linguistic entity entirely different from that of the Sinhalese, with an unsurpassed classical heritage and a modern development of language which makes Tamil fully adequate for all present day needs and finally by reason of their territorial habitation of definite areas which constitute over one third of this island, this first National Convention of the ITAK demands for the Tamil speaking people their inalienable right to political autonomy.........in consonance with the fundamental and unchallengeable principle of self-determination."

The reason for the demand for a separate state, then, is not discrimination against them by the Sinhalese. It is simply the fact that the "Tamil-speaking people" are too good to live in the same country as the Sinhalese. By 1976, the "Tamil-speaking people" have been replaced with the "Tamil Nation", as per the Vaddukodai Resolution adopted by the TULF. Apparently the Tamil-speaking Muslims are not good enough either.

Obviously, this line of reasoning would not find credence with anyone who has even a semblance of intelligence. Thus it became necessary to create the myth of ‘discrimination’ against the Tamils by the majority Sinhalese. This process was initiated by the instigation of communal riots by Tamil parties and groups on several occasions, and assisted by the political ineptness of successive governments. When asked what exactly the Tamils’ grievences are, the Tamil separatists and their Sinhalese lackeys never provide an answer, but pretend outrage that the question is asked. Most people are too embarassed to pursue the point. Suffice it to say that this propaganda has been so effective that, at present, even many Sinhalese have a vague sense of guilt that they have somehow treated the Tamils badly, to the extent that they are reluctant to acknowledge their Sinhalese Buddhist identity. It is hardly surprising that foreign countries and organisations have accepted this propaganda without question.

A fundamental principle of democracy is that the majority view must prevail over the minority. In practice,

this means that the majority will be appropriately represented in all freely elected bodies, including the legislature. It

follows that, in the formulation of legislation and other functions, the interests of the majority will prevail. It is the

Constitution that safeguards minority interests by preventing the adoption of legislation that discriminates against them,

and in this respect, the Constitution of 1978 is entirely adequate.

It is the refusal of Tamil leaders to accept this inherent characteristic of democracy that has led to the present problem. Their attempts at distorting the democratic process to obtain a position of advantage for the Tamils began as far back as 1945, when they presented to the Soulbury Commission on Constitutional Reform a demand which, through an amazing interpretation of the English language, was called ‘Balanced Representation’. When this and other similar efforts proved futile, the demand for a separate state was made, and continues to be made to this day.

While this demand was made within the political framework of the country until the 1970s, the advent of the LTTE during that decade changed the situation completely. It began a campaign of terrorism in the pursuit of this goal, which continues at present. The fact that this terrorism is aimed at dividing the country along ethnic lines, and the fact that the members of the organisation carrying out this terrorism belong to a particular ethnic group, do not make the problem an ‘ethnic’ one. The problem, as President D.B. Wijetunge pointed out, is terrorism.

A fashionable concept at the moment is that what is required is ‘a political solution to the ethnic problem’, and that the way to achieve this is through ‘devolution of power’.

It is not a matter of choice whether the solution to problems such as this should be ‘political’ or something else. That is determined by the nature of the problem itself. The belief that this problem could be solved through ‘political’ means would be valid only if the problem is ‘political’ in nature. In a very broad sense, it obviously is. The demand for a separate state is, of course, a political one. However, in that sense, almost every conflict in the history of mankind could be defined in political terms, and thus should have been amenable to a ‘political’ solution. Unfortunately, history is full of instances where attempts at ‘political’ solutions under inappropriate circumstances have led to disaster. The Second World War is as good an example as any.

It has already been shown that the problem is not ‘ethnic’, but rather that it is greed for power, coupled with delusions of grandeur, on the part of Tamil political leaders. The accusation made by them that there is discrimination against Tamils is blatantly untrue, and designed only to justify a claim which has no moral or legal validity. In fact, to

quote Prime Minister Mrs. Sirimavo Dias Bandaranaike, in a letter to the leader of the TULF in 1987, "......the facts and statistics of national performance will show that the Tamil people in the country must have always been among the most privileged minorities in the world."

‘Devolution of power’ is being touted as the way to bring this whole sad episode in our history to a close.

This is, of course, what Tamil nationalists have always demanded, i.e. devolution of power, up to the extent of an independent state, to the areas they claim as theirs. Attempts have already been made in this direction, first through District Development Councils and then through the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution which set up Provincial Councils. Needless to say, terrorism only escalated. The reasoning of the LTTE is very simple. If they gained some concessions through terrorism, why not continue until they get everything, i.e. an independent state. The government’s proposed new Constitution, known to the country as the ‘package’, grants this in all but name. The basic infrastructure of an independent state such as ownership of state land, control over the maintenance of law and order, judicial powers and every other aspect of governance closest to the lives of the people are to be devolved, without the retention of any authority whatsoever by the central government.

When terrorism is used in support of unjustified political demands, it is futile to make political concessions as a way of ending the terrorism. If the Tamil people are not legally or constitutionally discriminated against, there is nothing ‘political’ to discuss or implement. Devolution of power to different areas of the country have nothing to do with the problem. Terrorism has to be dealt with in the only way possible, and that is through military means.

Those who advocate a ‘military solution’ are ridiculed as ‘fascists’, ‘warmongers’, ‘demagogues’, ‘rabble-rousers’ etc., by the government media and a species of people known as ‘intellectuals’. This is nothing new. History is full of examples of well-meaning pacifists who have opposed the use of military force and thus allowed problems such as this to assume much greater proportions than would otherwise have been the case. As for Sri Lankan pacifists, many of whom are Sinhalese, there is some doubt as to whether they are ‘well-meaning’. Available evidence suggests that at least some of them are paid very well by LTTE front organisations which masquerade as groups ‘safeguarding human rights’ , ‘performing social service’ etc.

There have been several attempts in the past to conduct ‘peace talks’ with the LTTE, for the purpose of arriving at something called ‘a negotiated settlement’. On each occasion, the LTTE used the ceasefire that was enforced during the ‘peace talks’ to build up its military strength, and unilaterally broke the ceasefire when it was again ready for war. The resulting death and destruction needs no elaboration here. Having learnt nothing from this, or more probably through cynical calculation of the political advantages that would accrue, the government and the opposition are again preparing for yet more ‘peace talks’ with the LTTE.

Terrorism will continue in Sri Lanka until the major political parties stop trying to take advantage of it. At

present, both the PA government and the UNP opposition play along with the Tamil nationalists, content to propagate the myth that there is an ‘ethnic’ problem in the country due to ‘discrimination against the Tamils’, and that the way to

solve this is through ‘devolution of power’. As mentioned earlier, the reason for this is very simple. The minority vote in general and the Tamil vote in particular holds the balance of power, and neither side can afford to alienate this by opposing Tamil nationalism.

Disillusioned with a corrupt and incompetent political establishment which seeks only to perpetuate itself, the Sinhala people appear to have abdicated responsibility for the future of their race. While the media and the intelligentsia maintain the official line in favour of dismembering the country, the vast majority of the Sinhalese, concerned only with the things that affect them on a personal level, seem to have disassociated themselves from this issue. It is left to a few organisations of concerned individuals and the Buddhist clergy to confront this threat. The eventual outcome will be apparent only when the history of this period comes to be written.

Aruna Batuvanthudave