tamilweek.com/news-features

By Dr. Rajasingham Narendran

“ Marathil Marainthathu Maa Matha Yaanai- Parathil Marainthathu Paar Muthat Pootham—-” – Thirumoolar ( in Tamil)

The Universal Spirit (God) is similarly lost sight of in the details of this universe.
(Translation)

In Saivite Hindu philosophy (Sithantham), Mayai/ Maya (Where the appearance belies the facts or truth- an illusion of sorts), is a central theme. A child given a wooden toy in the form of an elephant and asked what it is will definitely answer that it is an elephant. The same answer could be expected of most adults. It is very unlikely that anyone would describe the toy as a piece of wood. Any one who would say it is a piece of wood is a rare individual and is likely to be a critical thinker and a possible philosopher. The uncritical and reflex acceptance of a deception or illusion is Mayai. The inability to see beyond superficialities and seek the core or underlying facts- the truth, is also Mayai. It is akin to a person within a forest who sees the individual trees, shrubs, creepers and animals, but is unable to perceive the whole as a forest or a person flying in a helicopter, who sees the forest but is unable to visualize the details that make up the forest. While the Mayai in Saiva philosophy refers to matters spiritual, the concept equally applies to our mundane life. The word for God in Tamil is ‘Kadawul’, meaning that which is beyond (Kada) and within (Ul) one self. We have to learn to seek the truth in all its many facets, both within and beyond us, if we are solve our problems as a cultured, intelligent and wise people. Seeking the truth is seeking God.

The Tamils of Sri Lanka are either Hindus or Christian by religion. The Tamil Christians have been described as Hindu Christians by some of their thoughtful leaders. There are several Hindus and Christians of Hindu –Christian parentage. The original Christians were Hindu converts and though devout Christians now, yet carry the essence of Hinduism (Saivaism) within them. We the Tamils of Sri Lanka, whether Hindu or Christian have been entrapped in a Mayai, expertly spun by the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam). An independent state of Tamil Ealam is this Mayai. The desire to escape from the indignities, insults, pain, suffering and death heaped on the Tamils by the GOSL (Government of Sri Lanka), in the three decades post-independence, gave birth to the Tamil militancy. This militancy has been personified by the LTTE today and is set on achieving an independent state of Tamil Ealam carved out of Sri Lanka for the Tamils. This anti-GOSL militancy has become a discernible burden for the Tamil people over time. The story of the ‘Maya Maan (Magic Deer)’ in the Ramayana is relevant to us today. Ravana, who wants to make Sitha his own, sends his uncle Maarisan in the form of a beautiful deer to frolic in front of her. Enchanted by the beauty and antics of the deer, Sitha demands that Rama capture it to be her pet. Rama, suspicious that this may be a ploy of the Asuras- his enemies versed in magic, tries to dissuade her. Her stubborn insistence on having the deer forces a reluctant Rama to leave her in the care of Luxshmanan and give chase to the deer. Having run deep into the forest, the Magic Deer utters a loud cry of anguish and pain mimicking Rama’s voice. On hearing this Sitha becomes distraught and insists that Luxshmanan go in search of Rama. The wise brother-in- law, Luxshmanan, refuses and explains that this is a trick by some one. An angry Sitha accuses Luxshmanan of coveting her and wanting Rama- his older brother, dead. The insulted Luxshmanan leaves Sitha alone, after drawing a line on the ground that he forbids her to cross (the Luxshmanan rekai/reka) and seeks Rama. This opens the way for Ravana to kidnap Sitha to Lanka.

Are there parallels for us Tamils in this sub-story in the Ramayana? Tamil Ealam is the beautiful magic deer frolicking in front of us. Sitha is our manifold rights as a people. Rama personifies us- the Tamils, while Luxshmanan is our conscience. Everyone knows that at this point in our history, the LTTE is the Ravana, while the GOSL may be called Surpanahai- Ravana’s sister, who had harassed Rama and Luxshmanan in the past. The utopia of an independent Tamil Ealam is being used to distract us from the evils that have come to personify the LTTE. Propaganda through a captive and pliant media, strong-arm tactics (thuggery, murder, kidnap, torture, character assassinations, etc.,), Hero’s day and Pongu Thamil events and the associated drama, and cyber terrorism ( Spy ware intrusions, criminal misuse of the web and internet), are the tools that the LTTE deploys to deny us our rights as a people. It is this Sitha- our rights as a people- that our Ravana wants to take away. We (The Ramas) with the help of our conscience (Luxshmanan), and the assistance of Hanuman’s tribe – the other peoples of Sri Lanka and the international community- should fight the menace that the LTTE has become now, while pursuing solutions to our problems vis-à-vis the GOSL. The antics of the LTTE have become patently hysterical and obscene in the past few months, and a major embarrassment to Tamils. If the LTTE is yet sensitive to voices of reasons and the present plight of the Tamils, it should reform and we need not throw it out with the dirty bath water. If the LTTE is unwilling to reform, it should be thrown along with the dirty bath water and the bathtub!

While the grievances of the Tamils are genuine and unforgettable, the perpetrators are forgivable, if there is a genuine desire for reform in the GOSL and there are indications pointing to this. Forgiveness is the essence of love, which is at the core of our religions and culture. To the Hindus, “Anbey Sivam “(Love is God) is an important philosophical concept, as much as love, compassion and forgiveness are the themes of Christianity. The Buddhism practiced by the majority of the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka also emphasizes kindness, compassion, meditation- deep, concentrated and focused thinking, and rational thought to a great extent. The concept of ‘Anbey Sivam’ has wide implications in Saivaism as the ‘Sivam’ is supposed to be found within us, every life around us and everything around us. The following true story based in Jaffna, I heard as a child illustrates this. ‘Kadai Swamy’ was one of the Saivaite savants of Jaffna, of the generation before Yoga Swamy of Kolumbuthurai. If I remember correctly, Yoga Swamy was a disciple of Kadai Swamy. Kadai Swamy while visiting Jaffna town happened to witness a fight between two individuals and was later called upon to relate what he saw to the Magistrate, who was presiding over the case in Court. In his evidence he said, “This Sivam Siva that Sivam, that Sivam Siva – Siva this Sivam, this Sivam Siva- Siva- Siva that Sivam”. To Kadai Swamy, both individuals involved were Sivams and even the physical violence and assaulting was Sivam. One Siva was a single punch, the Siva- Siva were two punches and the Siva- Siva- Siva were three punches. I am sure the magistrate and other court officials were bewildered and thought he was mad and his evidence maddening. What ever their thoughts and perceptions were, what Kadai Swamy was expounding was the essence of Saivaism- the form of Hinduism practiced by the Tamils of the North and East from times immemorial. It is also the essence of all religions, although it may be expressed differently. It is sad that we have lost this essence in our life to a very large extent and have been engulfed by a Mayai that is destroying us as individuals, our society and a land of culture, philosophy and substance bequeathed by our predecessors. The destruction has been both spiritual and mundane – matters pertaining to the physical realities of human life. It is essential that we retrieve our humanity and recover our capacity to forgive, if we are to regain our rationality and sanity as a people.

We as a people, who are largely Hindus, believe in the concept of Karma. Karma is a theory of action and reaction/ cause and effect that governs several life spans and involves an evolutionary process based on one’s actions, in Hindu beliefs. The Buddhists too believe in Karma. “Pullaahi, Poondaahi, Puluvaahi, Maramaahi, pal Miruhamaahi, Paravaiyaai, Paampaahi—- (We were grass, weeds, worms, animals, birds, snakes etc., etc— )”, the hymn in Tamil taught to every Tamil-Hindu child, emphasizes this concept. It is our Karma that we have to undergo, what we have and are now, as a people. What others have inflicted on us is their karma. What we have inflicted on the other peoples in Sri Lanka is also our Karma and their Karma. Karma is not a concept of fatalism or passivity. It is dynamic and has its own dynamics. Karma literally means work. It is a concept to overcome our present limitations to seek a higher plane of thinking and action. The seagull Jonathan, in the book ‘Jonathan Livingston Seagull (By: Richard Bach) beautifully and very concisely, illustrated this concept of striving to evolve, seek perfection and make Karma a life force. Richard Bach dedicates his story, “To the real Jonathan Seagull, who lives within us all”. In this story, Jonathan, the seagull in his quest to overcome the limitations to flight imposed by nature on him as a seagull says,” Instead of our drab slogging, forth and back to fishing boats, there is a reason to live! We can lift ourselves out of ignorance, we can find ourselves as creatures of excellence and intelligence and skill. We can be free! We can learn to fly”! Jonathan Seagull, instead of fighting and screeching and diving for fish like other sea gulls, spends his time practicing to improve his flying skills. He refuses to live like an ordinary sea gull engaged in monotonous practicality of day- to- day life. Eventually he becomes the first sea gull to fly higher and faster than the others. We have to emulate Jonathan Livingston Sea Gull as a people.

If we strive to become a better people in word, deed and thought, we will over come our present problems. We need righteousness (Dharma) and goodness to be on our side. When Dharman (Yudhishtran) and Dhuriyodanan were asked to choose between Lord Krishna and his army, Dharman chose Krishna while Dhuryodhanan chose the army (Mahabharatha). In the Kurukshetra war, Lord Krishna, was on the Pandava side while his Yadava army was with the Khourawas. Truth, dharma and moral superiority were with the Pandavas. Dhuriyodhanan only had the armies and weapons, but did not have truth, dharma and morality on his side. The victory at Kurukshetra was with the Pandavas, despite the mistreatment and misfortunes that were their lot in the past. If the GOSL was wrong and is wrong, we have to fight it with every means and tactic at our disposal. This is our undeniable right and there can be no dispute about this. But, two wrongs do not make a right. We have to be right, if the GOSL is wrong. We cannot do wrong, if our complaint is that the GOSL is wrong. There is a deep logic in this. Dharma, truth and moral superiority have to be our major weapons. These must be our weapons as a people and that of our leaders. Guns, bombs, war ships, war planes, spies, suicide bombers, assassinations, murders and other tactics will not win us the war, if we do not cultivate and value the above attributes. These attributes have to assume primacy in our struggle for justice and rights. The Tamil militancy has crushed the above attributes in our cause and has come to rely only on material weapons of war, violence, guile and deception. These weapons and tactics have been deployed against the Tamil people themselves now. War is a necessary evil and it should be recognized as such. It should be a phenomenon of last resort and should not be something we should fall in love with. It is only a means to an end and cannot be pursued ad-infinitum. War should be resorted when necessary and discarded as fast as possible, lest it becomes a bad habit. The IRA and ETA have foreclosed war as an option in Europe and the liberation movement in Aceh has done so in Indonesia. If we fail to do this soon, it will consume us faster than it does the enemy, and destroy us. This is what is happening to the Tamils now in every plane of life- both spiritual and mundane. What is worse is that profanity is fast replacing the spiritual values that have been our hallmark as a people, under the prevailing conditions and the lumpen leadership we are tolerating. This would be a damage that will be very hard to correct, even if peace returns to our land.

Ill educated and half educated, unwise, short sighted, power hungry, money hungry, merciless and trigger happy men have been permitted to become our leaders. These men may have been idealistic and honest in their youth. But these traits have been long lost in the decadence that has overwhelmed them, since. They are destroying us from within, both as individuals and as a society. This insidious process has been at work for a long time and the results are beginning to surface now. This has to be recognized and dealt with by the Tamil people, as a matter of urgency. All Tamils –you, he, she- and I are responsible for the present state of affairs and we have to bow our heads in shame. Are we capable of facing the truth at least now or are we going to be lost in the Mayai of an independent Tamil Ealam, until doomsday? [TamilWeek, Mar 26, 2006]

By Dr Victor Ragunathan

In 1948, with the anticipation of independence which was to be declared on February 04, 1948, a motion was tabled in January 1948 calling for the adoption of Lion Flag of the last Sinhala King of Kandy, Sri Wickrama Rajasinghe as the National Flag. Senator S. Nadesan who was part of the Parliamentary Select Committee has to say this

“I regret that I am unable to agree with the majority decision of the National Flag Committee. In my view a national flag apart from giving an honored place to all communities, must also be a symbol of national unity. From the point of view of giving an honored place to all communities irrespective of their numerical strength, I would have preferred a Tricolor of yellow, red and white or of saffron, red and green. But as objection was taken to a Tricolor by several members of the Committee on the ground that the Lion Emblem will be considerably reduced in size and that it will not be acceptable to majority community, this proposal had to be abandoned”.

He further stated that” As the Lion Flag has been used a distinctive flag; anyone viewing the design that has been agreed to by the rest of the committee cannot be blamed if he thinks that the minorities are given a place outside the Lion Flag. The minorities themselves will feel that they have been given a subordinate position in the flag. Besides the yellow border which runs round the Lion Flag effectively separates the two strips that have been devised to satisfy the sentiments of the minorities thereby effectively creating a division in the flag itself – a division which we are endeavoring, I hope, to eradicate in our national life. After all a flag is a symbol and the symbol must at least effectively show the unity and strength of the nation”.

“Accordingly I suggested to the committee the minimum modification which while not disturbing the proportions of the strips which had been agreed to by the members will ensure the incorporation of the saffron and green strips in the Lion Flag, so that the flag may embody the ideal of national unity which I consider most important in the conception of a national flag. The suggestion that I made was that the yellow border which according to the proposed flag separates the saffron strip from the red strip should be completely eliminated. In the result the flag would have been comprised of green, saffron and red strips in the proportion of 1:1:5 with the Lion on the red strip with the yellow border surrounding the entirety of the flag and encompassing the two strips. This would have meant only the sacrifice of a yellow border from one side of the Lion Flag to enable the saffron and green strips to be closely integrated with the Lion Flag. This I thought was the barest minimum concession that should have been made to minority sentiment if one desired a national flag which would symbolize the ideal of unity”.

“It is hardly necessary for me to refer to other countries like Great Britain where national flags have been designed not by superficially adding a strip to another flag and outside it, but by making the strips part and parcel of the flag. In our national life we do not want to create water tight compartments. Neither do we desire that one community should be segregated from another. Why then do we want to segregate the saffron and green strips which are provided to satisfy minority sentiments outside the borders of the Lion Flag? In my view, the suggestion that I have made does not entail the sacrifice of any vital part of the Lion Flag and thus cannot offend Sinhalese sentiments. At the same time it provides a method of evolving a flag which may be called ‘national’.” 

Question 1: From the inception of independence and national flag, who segregate the minorities? Is Tamils themselves or Ruling Majority Sinhalese?

Since you raise the question of history, I would like to bring some light to some of the darkest and notable moments in the Island’s history.

1915

Ms. Kumari Jayewardena wrote in the Journal of Asian Studies, (Economic and Political Factors in the 1915 riots. Feb.1970, vol.29, no.2, pp.223-233) “The Buddhist-Muslim riots of 1915 are often depicted as an eruption of religious animosity and friction between Sinhalese Buddhists and a section of the Muslim population. According to this viewpoint, the riots were sparked by religious fanaticism as the Buddhists saw in the ‘intolerance and aggressiveness of the Muslims, a permanent danger to their religious practices and celebration of their national festivals.

Charles Blackton in the same journal noted “From a communal clash up-country, disorders spread into six of Ceylon’s nine provinces, causing the deaths of 140 people, the arrests of 8736, and imprisonment of 4497 and at a cost of Rupees 7,000,000. British-Ceylonese relations were severely impaired and Sinhalese nationalism suddenly came of age. It happened, but why? Of a population of 4,106,350 in 1911, the Sinhalese made up 66.13% (24.32% Kandyans and 41.81% low-country people), 23.79% were Tamils and 6.45% were Muslim Moors of which 1/7 were Indian Moors. The remaining 3.5% included Burghers and British. The early years of the twentieth century recorded a few anti-Western riots, some aimed against the Roman Catholic Church (in Anuradhapura, a Buddhist shrine city) and other demonstrations reflecting Asian pride in the victory of Buddhist Japan over the Russian giant in 1905. Anti-Muslim violence directed against the Moors (the term is a survival of Portuguese rule) was, however, not unknown.

Question 2: Since the early 20^th century, who initiated the violence against minority (Muslims) based on either religion or language?

Here is some quote from the early history of Ceylon “From the 1911, the legislative council was enlarged to include “unofficial” Ceylonese members and with its new platform came to be provided for the articulation of demands for further participation. With this political advance, the Sinhalese and Tamil elite came together and intra Sinhalese caste rivalry at that time was so great that national leadership roles fell to the Tamils. They came together as equal partners on a vague platform of proto nationalism engendered by class interest, not on the basis of anti colonialism or a desire for political liberation. Their separate ethnic loyalties and identities were nevertheless held intact but were temporarily subsumed by the desire for political consolidation. At the time, inter caste rivalry among the Sinhalese was of political importance, as the Karava Sinhalese were economically and politically dominant and the Goigama Sinhalese were bent on ending Karava dominance, at least politically. So in the 1912 election to the legislative council, the Goigama elite supported Sir P. Ramanathan, against Sir Marcus Fernando, a Karava Sinhalese, and the former got elected.

Question 3: Who were the pioneers of sectarian politics in the Island as early as 20^th century?

With the constitutional reform process gathering momentum after 1920, the Tamils took on a new self image as a national minority, vocal and articulate, on the lines of the Scots and the Welsh (but not the Irish) in British politics. They did, in fact, compare themselves to the Scots in their political struggles and bargains with the Sinhalese. The Tamil political leadership then resorted to demanding communally weighted representation and constitutional and legal safeguards, and sought to bargain with the Sinhalese leadership. By now the Ceylon National Council had passed into the domination of the low country Sinhalese, and reforming Congress politicians such as E.W. Perera, Paul E. Peiris, C.E. Corea, D.S. Senanayake and George E. de Silva advocated united nation state and a secular nationalism embracing the various ethnic, linguistic and religious communities. Many attempts were made to patch up differences and bring back the Tamils into the Congress. In 1924, C.E. Corea, a moderate Congress politician, was elected president in order to show “proof of Congress’s desire to secure unity and co operation with the Tamils and Kandyans”. At the time, there was no monolithic Sinhalese entity, but deep divisions within the Sinhalese on the basis of low country/Kandyan, Goigama/Karava, Buddhist/Christian rivalry and mistrust. In this context the Tamils were quite a major force. The centrifugal forces among the Sinhalese were so great that, in order to appease the Kandyan Sinhalese, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, in 1926, wrote in favor of a federal state structure for Sri Lanka.

Eranthi Premaratne in a paper presented at the Euro Regions Summer University, Institute of Federalism, University of Fribourg, Switzerland. 25^th August – 12^th September 2003 titled “Srilanka a unitary to federal state” noted that “A federal Sri Lanka even though envisaged as far back as the 1920s, remained a distant reality until the above declaration was made in December 2002(Oslo). Until then the word federal was regarded a bad word and those who advocated it traitors.

Question 4: Who first proposed the Federal state structure prior to independence and under what circumstances?

Nationality: In 1920, the Kandyan Sinhalese, suspicious of the low country Sinhalese and the Congress formed the Kandyan Association and asserted the distinctiveness of “the Kandyan nationality”. This association described the reform proposed by the Congress in 1920 as one that “threatens to destroy the present position of the Kandyans”. It accused the Congress politicians of seeking to keep “the whole of the administrative power in their hands to dominate the weaker minorities”. By 1925, most of the Kandyan notables had left the Congress and founded their own political organization, the Kandyan National Assembly. While the Kandyan Sinhalese, with much weaker claims to nationhood, asserted a separate nationality and were soon to demand a federal form of government, the Tamil leadership failed to perceive the Tamil ethnic community as a nation, although it possessed all the attributes of nationhood in full measure and was historically a separate nation state. This was because of their denationalized and deracine outlook and their bourgeois interests, which made them allies of the dominant low country Sinhalese. Their conceptual view of the state was derived from British history, thought and institutions, their model was multi ethnic Britain; and their perception of themselves was that of the Scots. Hence they were content to demand “minority rights” rather than define themselves as a nation, with rights of autonomy and self determination. The division between low country and Kandyan Sinhalese also made them believe they could strike favorable bargains within a united political structure. It was only in 1951 that, for the first time, Tamil politicians defined the Tamils as a distinct nation. The first annual convention of the Tamil Federal Party declared: “the Tamil speaking people in Ceylon constitute a nation distinct from that of the Sinhalese by every fundamental test of nationhood”.

In 1927 The Kandyan National Assembly requested a federal system of government. Its memorandum stated: Ours is . . . a claim of a nation to live its own life and realize its own destiny…. we suggest the creation of a Federal State as in the United States of America…. A Federal system … will enable the respective nationals of the several states to prevent further inroads into their territories and to build up their own nationality

Question 5: Who claimed the first nationhood and nationality?

The 1931 election shifted the political focus, for a time, to Jaffna. The Youth Congress, an amorphous grouping of progressive minded young men in Jaffna, being inspired by the Indian freedom movement and following Mahatma Gandhi’s ideals, had by 1929 resolved to seek complete independence for Sri Lanka. The Youth Congress stood for a free united Srilanka and was resolutely opposed to the communal politics of both the Sinhalese and Tamil leadership of the time. It welcomed the Donoughmore reforms abolishing communal representation and extending the franchise, but condemned the failure to grant responsible government. Hence, when the 1931 election was announced, the Congress, without due deliberation, called for a national boycott of the election, emulating the call of the Indian National Congress for a boycott of the Simon commission in 1928. The Youth Congress expected organizations among the Sinhalese to follow their lead. Although a number of Tamil leaders, who were members of the dissolved legislative council, had earlier announced their candidature and had reservations about a boycott, they did not want to defy the call and decided not to contest the election. Hence there was no election for four Tamil seats in the Northern Province.

The Jaffna election boycott was hailed in the Sinhalese areas as a great act of protest. The Ceylon Daily News wrote: “Public opinion in Jaffna is a potent thing. Those who defy it do so at their peril. Ever the home of virile politics, Jaffna is determined to see that the public spirit of her citizens is equal to any crisis.” The All Ceylon Liberal League expressed support for the boycott. A joint telegram from Francis de Zoysa. E.W. Perera and T.B. Jayah to the Congress read: “Congratulate Jaffna heartily on her brilliant achievement and deplore failure to act likewise here for want of unity and a sufficiently strong public opinion, endeavoring to mobilize public opinion to attain the common object by best means available.”

Question 6: What difference did you find between boycotting election under British Colony which was praised by many and under Sinhala Colony which was granted as un-democratic?

By the Ceylon Citizenship Act No.18 of 1948, all Indian Tamils, even those born or domiciled in Sri Lanka, were denied Sri Lankan citizenship. The Citizenship Act laid down the law governing citizenship of Sri Lanka and prescribed qualifications necessary for a person born before or after 15 November 1948 to become a citizen of Sri Lanka. The qualifications deliberately aimed at excluding the Indian Tamils from Sri Lankan citizenship. The Sri Lanka Citizenship Act is unique in that it denies citizenship to a person born in the country before or after 1948 unless, at least, his father was born in or was a citizen of Srilanka. Citizenship is not related to one’s birth in the country but to the birth of one’s ancestors.

As early as 1940, DS Senanayake is on record as saying “It is unthinkable that we should give . . . full rights of citizenship to people who have not made Ceylon their permanent home. The vast majority of the Indians in Ceylon consider India to be their home and Ceylon their place of occupation . . . They are here only to earn and to make money and to take it away to India . . . Unless we stem the tide of the growing domination of Indians in Ceylon in our economic and social life, our extinction as a Ceylonese nation is inevitable. Senanayake also had no thought for one of the worst forms of human degradation—statelessness—that he was inflicting on one million people. The Indian Tamils had voted in 1931 and 1936, and in the 1947 elections they elected eight Tamil MPs, all belonging to the left oriented Ceylon Indian Congress (CIC). The Indian Tamils elsewhere voted for the Marxist parties and helped the election of LSSP and CP MPs.

Question 7: Who made the Upcountry Tamils (referred to as Indian Tamils) stateless third class people and for what purpose?

Solomon West Ridgeway (named after British Governor Sir Joseph West Ridgeway) Dias Bandaranaike, who, on his return from Oxford in 1925, apologized to a delegation of his Walauwa (manor) for not being able to speak to them in Sinhalese and coming from a Westernized family which had converted to Christianity, soon learnt Sinhalese, re embraced Buddhism and adopted local dress.

In 1932 G.K.W. Perera moved two resolutions in the state council calling for the use of Sinhalese and Tamil in the judicial and civil administration. Two years later, at the annual meeting of the CNC, he said: “One of the greatest handicaps the people suffer from is the language of government. It is most absurd for us to fight for rights on behalf of the large majority, when we deny ourselves the right of conducting our government in the people’s languages.” In 1937 Philip Gunawardena of the LSSP moved a resolution in the state council calling for the use of the Sinhalese and Tamil languages in recording entries at police stations and in lower court proceedings. In 1939, the CNC demanded that Sinhalese and Tamil be introduced as the official languages. This emphasis on the national languages was carried into the educational field. In the 1930s many central schools were established in the Sinhalese rural areas with Sinhalese as the medium of instruction. In October 1945 the state council resolved to introduce “free education” and accepted, in principle that education should be in one’s mother tongue. In May 1944, a resolution moved by J.R. Jayewardene was passed in the state council that Sinhalese and Tamil should be the official languages. This was followed up by S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, who on 20 September 1945 proposed that steps should be taken to effect the transition from English to Sinhalese and Tamil. A select committee of the state council made its report in 1946, entitled “Sinhalese and Tamil as Official Languages” Munidasa Cumaratunga (1887-1944) In place of the earlier slogan, “Country, Race, Religion”, substituted a new slogan in a new trinity: “Basa, Rasa, Desa” (“Language, Nation, Country”). He was a member of Bandaranaike’s Sinhala Maha Saba, but left and founded his Hela Havula (“The Pure Sinhalese Fraternity”)

After independence, this accepted policy continued until the Sinhalese Buddhist lobby became active in 1953-54. In 1954, a commission on higher education was appointed under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Wijewardene (a retired Chief Justice). Sinhalese Buddhist propagandists such as L.H. Medananda went about collecting figures of Sinhalese and Tamil students entering the university and presented evidence to the commission that the proportion of Tamil students was considerably greater than their proportion in the population. The commission produced a majority report, written by Sinhalese, recommending that “in the interests of equal opportunity” provision for higher education should be available to at least six Sinhalese students for every one Tamil student. The commission was also pressured by the Sinhalese Buddhist lobby to go beyond its terms of reference and question the desirability of having two official languages. The commission accordingly questioned the need for two official languages. This provoked the governor general, Sir Oliver Goonetilleke, to write to the commission as follows: “You are no doubt aware that it is the accepted policy of the Government that Sinhalese and Tamil should be the official languages of the country, and any examination of this policy would be contrary to the terms of reference.”

For the May 1956 general elections, an electoral front called the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) (Peoples’ United Front) was formed between Bandaranaike’s SLFP, Philip Gunawardena’s VLSSP and W. Dahanayake’s newly formed Sinhala Basa Peramuna (Sinhala Language Front). Bandaranaike was the leader of the MEP. MEP election manifesto included “Sinhala only” with ‘ reasonable use of Tamil”, during the campaign Bandaranaike made no mention of the “reasonable use of Tamil”. Bhikkhus formed the Eksath Bhikkhu Peramuna (“United Bhikkhu Front”) with Buddharakita, the High Priest of the famed Kelani Raja Maha Vihare (the greatest of the great temple), as secretary to support the SLFP for “Sinhala only”.

The Bhikkhu Front presented a ten point program to Bandaranaike at a massive rally in Colombo. The program called for an SLFP government to be elected to practice non violence, oppose injustice, implement the Buddhist Commission Report, make Sinhala the only official language, defend democracy against fascism and communism and acts of UNP government, give Buddhism its rightful place, promote ayurvedic (indigenous) medicine and withhold state assistance from institutions not promoting communal harmony or peace and equality among peoples. During the election campaign MEP polled 39.5% of the votes and won 51 of the 95 seats and so formed the government. The first important legislative act of the new government concerned is “Sinhala only” promise on which it had campaigned and got elected. On 5 June 1956, Prime Minister Bandaranaike introduced in the House of Representatives a bill to make the Sinhala language the only official language of Sri Lanka. From the day the bill was introduced to the day it was passed, the precincts and approaches to the House were barricaded and armed police and army personnel stood guard outside. The galleries were closed to the public. It was a short bill, with just three clauses, but it gave rise to the longest debate in the annals of Sri Lanka’s legislature. The bill was supported by the MEP and the UNP and opposed by the LSSP, CP, FP and TC. The “Sinhala only” bill was passed entirely by the MEP and UNP Sinhalese MPs.

Question 8: Who decided that the people’s language is only Sinhala when in state council a resolution was passed Sinhala and Tamil as official language?

December 1957, a bill in parliament to put the Sinhalese letters “SRI” (i.e. the prefix “Sri” in “Sri Lanka”) in place of the English letters that had hitherto been used on motor vehicle number plates. According to the Motor Traffic Act, the use of any unauthorized letters was an offence liable to punishment. Accordingly, when the Tamil letters “SRI” was used several FP MPs, including Chelvanayagam, were prosecuted in the courts. Chelvanayagam was convicted and served a sentence of two weeks imprisonment at Batticaloa jail. Thereafter the Tamils defied the law prescribing the Sinhala letters “SRI” and used the Tamil equivalent on their motor vehicles The Buddhist Bhikkhus retaliated by leading a campaign to deface Tamil writings on the name boards in government buildings in Colombo and throughout the Sinhalese areas. They also incited the ordinary Sinhalese people against the Tamils. There were sporadic acts of violence against the Tamils in Colombo and other suburban areas. Tamil owned shops were looted and Tamil homes stoned.

Towards the end of May 1958, the Federal Party held its annual convention at Vavuniya, in the Northern Province, and resolved to “launch direct action by non violent Satyagraha as the ‘Banda Chelva Pact’ had been abandoned”. Tamil FP supporters from Batticaloa district, returning by train after the convention, were stopped at Polonnaruwa railway junction and assaulted. Some were knifed and killed. Violence against the small number of Tamils in Polonnaruwa became the order of the day. On 25 May 1958, a Jaffna bound train from Colombo was derailed near Polonnaruwa and Tamil passengers were beaten and their baggage stolen. On the same day, one Senaratne, a Sinhalese ex Mayor of Nuwara-Eliya, was shot dead at Kalawanchikudi, in Batticaloa district, as a result of personal rivalry. This was announced over the radio several times to show that a Sinhalese had been killed by Tamils.

Sinhalese mobs went on the rampage, stopping trains and buses, dragging out Tamil passengers and butchering them. Houses were burnt with people inside, and there occurred widespread looting in all areas where Sinhalese and Tamils lived together. Tamil women were raped and pregnant women slaughtered. A Hindu priest performing pooja ceremonies at Kandasamy temple at Panandura, near Colombo, was dragged away and burnt alive. After two days of rioting, on the 27 May, the Indian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka contacted Prime Minister Bandaranaike and asked him to declare a state of emergency. But Bandaranaike vacillated. During the next two days the rioting intensified. Hundreds of people were killed, homes burnt and shops looted. The police stood by, not know how to control the Sinhalese mobs. Even then Bandaranaike did not want to proclaim an emergency. On the fourth day of rioting, instead of waiting for the prime minister’s advice, the Governor General, Sir Oliver Goonetilleke, with the consent of the prime minister (and therefore technically on “advice”), proclaimed an emergences called in the army and restored order. Before order was restored, however several hundreds of Tamil people had lost their lives and thousands their homes. About 150 Tamils, including the 10 FP MPs, were arrested and detained About 10,000 Tamil people assembled as refugees in Colombo refugee camps, set up by the government, and were sent to Jaffna by commandeered cargo ships berthed in the Colombo harbor. A de facto division of the country and the people, into the Sinhalese south and the Tamil north, had taken place. Sinhalese and the Tamils reached the parting of the ways. But Tamil political leaders were confined in detention until September; hence there was no leadership to decide whether May 1958 represented the parting of the ways.

Question 9: Who created the de-facto division, violence against the un-armed, violence against the democratically elected leaders in the first place? Who first slaughtered the un-armed eastern Tamils?

In 1959, internal fissures within the MEP government led to a “cabinet strike” when 10 rightwing ministers demanded that Bandaranaike expel Philip Gunawardena from the cabinet. Bandaranaike duly sacked Gunawardena from the MEP government in May 1959. At this, the LSSP and CP withdrew their “critical support” and moved into open confrontation with Bandaranaike’s government. The CP’s statement on that occasion said: “Now that the right wing has taken command of the Government and set a course that can only lead to an increasing repudiation of the progressive policies of 1956, the CP will not extend to such a Government the critical support it gave the MEP Government in the past.”

In this deteriorating situation, on 25 September 1959 a Bhikkhu named Somarama shot and killed Bandaranaike on the veranda of his residence when he was paying obeisance to the visiting monk. This resulted in Bhikkhus being chased and stoned on the streets, and for a time they confined themselves to their monasteries. Involved in the conspiracy to murder Bandaranaike were Buddharakita, the Kelani temple high priest and secretary of the Eksath Bhikkhu Peramuna, and another. At the trial, the former was convicted of murder and the latter of conspiracy to murder. The assassination of Bandaranaike was not a simple act carried out by a murderous Bhikkhu, at the instigation of Buddharakita. It had wider political ramifications. During the trial two ministers, Stanley de Zoysa and Mrs. Wimala Wijewardene, and a number of others were mentioned as possible accomplices. Bandaranaike’s murder was the culmination of a running struggle by extreme right-wing reactionaries and Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinists against his eclectic middle-of-the-road policies and his lack of resolve to stand up against the Marxist politicians and their trade-union agitators.

Question 10: Who committed the first assassination of any kind in the history of Srilanka?

Since I have limited time with my professional activities, I would like to halt my questions at the 60’s. I hope the history after 60’s will be much fluent to you than me as you were in the Journalism field. Let me ask you about few other relevant matters as you may be able to provide answers.

What sins the seven Tamil youths committed for attending a Tamil conference to be slaughtered by the state arm when violence was not the language they spoke? Have any Sinhala thug who committed the violence in 1958, 1977 or 1983 been prosecuted? What has happen to the child soldiers who were slaughtered in Bindunuwara camp? Is Justice System in Srilanka blind? I may suggest you to look what Dr. Devanesan Nesiah wrote titled “What is terrorism, and who is a terrorist?” on January 31, 2006 in Daily Mirror.

I have been a victim of both state terrorism and separatist terror activities and I survived. However, if LTTE is not strong enough to create a bulwark, there would have been many island wide pogroms after 1983, besides all the selective massacres by its armed forces and I wouldn’t be here to write this. There is no justification for violence of any kind but history tells me that state sponsored massacres created the vicious cycle of massacres as you may check the dates.

There is no question that LTTE is committing, committed and will commit grave violation of human rights. Does it mean the state has every right to create more homelessness in the name of war for peace? What have you, your WAPS, or the Government of Srilanka tabled so far to justify that they are talking peace? At the least, LTTE has tabled an Interim Self Governing Authority? How can anyone claim that this is a stepping stone for separation without even discussing or the least countering with a proposal acceptable to the majority Tamil speaking people? Is it an excuse not to find any meaningful solution in the name of LTTE terrorism or simply fox is crying for goat is in the rain? What have you done to the Tamil speaking people in the Island to isolate them from LTTE if you are so worried about their terror tactics and the Sun God? [TamilWeek, Mar 26, 2006]

[The writer is a full time medical practitioner in USA. He had been a victim of state and separatist violence and currently a medical NGO activist in the welfare of Northeastern war affected people.]

by KT Kumaran

Spring is in the air. However, ‘The shock and awe’ of HRW report on LTTE fundraising in Canada is adding to the winter chill feel, as if something of a lesser ‘no war’ situation is at the door steps of the Sri Lankan diaspora.

Online, print and on air mediums since then are filled with fingers being pointed at Tamil ‘quislings’ and Sri Lankan government having a hand in the HRW report about LTTE fundraising in the West. Researcher Jo Becker is being charged as an ‘agent’ of the Sri Lankan government by LTTE supporters while others give a nod to the researcher and report.

The bombastic nature of how events unfolded – HRW’s pre announcement that the report being released later in the day on Tuesday last week and globally coordinated press coverage seemed startling. And a headline glance of the evening news seemed to drive home the message it intended. It was a message for entire Canada. And Toronto’s primary newspapers, called for action against ‘LTTE’ and ‘extortion’ in their editorials the next day.

CTC denial and HRW response

Canadian Tamil Congress (CTC), described in the Canadian media as “leaders” of the Tamil community said the report’s allegations are unfounded and they denied there are fundraising drives to support LTTE.

“The report is painful,”, “It is hurtful for the entire community,”; the Canadian media persons were told at the CTC press brief.

HRW, to its credit, replied to concerns about its report, clarifying, among other things, which “we do not suggest that significant numbers of Tamils are engaging in extortion or other unlawful activity. We also note that many Tamils actively and willingly support the LTTE.”

Also it noted the fact that the report itself is based on qualitative rather than quantitative research.

Newspaper Editorials

The editorials and reporting of HRW release and aftermath should cause concern for the “leaders” in the Tamil community to remain status quo. Prime media set aside, moderated comments in the new media posted by readers in the Globe and Mail points that, a plain rejection and claims of “retraction by HRW” to fend off the HRW report by “leaders” of Canada’s Tamil community will not resolve the matter anytime soon.

Air India disaster

A comment posted in the Globe and Mail by Satya Das of Edmonton, sheds light to this; “This is terrorism at our doorstep, in our home, and it cannot stand. This is not a ‘problem’ for the ‘Tamil community’ or some other form of ‘let’s put it in a box and hope it goes away.’ This is an affront to Canada and to all Canadians. We made the mistake of considering the Air India bombing an ‘indo-Canadian’ issue and look at the tears and grief left by the largest mass murder in our nation’s history. The Tamil Tiger extortion campaign is a direct threat to Canadian values and it must be confronted and d crushed with the full weight of the rule of law. There can be no place in Canada for organized crime”.

This may be one of the core issues at the heart of the driving force behind the HRW report, rather than a Sri Lankan driven. LTTE in Canada and the Khalistan movement of the 80’s – The two cases are very different but posses the same current.

In Canada the Air India matter comes back to haunt every time there is an issue involving extreme political activity concerning the departed lands.

“All Politics is Local”

In the words of Tip O Neill Jr, the jowly, affable Speaker of the US Congress from 1977 to 1987, “All politics is local”, should speak volumes to what is at stake here in “Tamil” Toronto.

In a post 9-11 world where groups such as “Minute Men Civil Defense Corps” patrol the US borders and other ultra nationalisms, forces are at work to find the tipping point of their politicians walking the high wire of ethnic politics in Canada too.

Quantitative complains were lacking but a qualitative review – just like what HRW did in its report, simple internal revelations may have prompted related sectors in the Canadian government to be vigilant as well, without a public pronouncement.

Being in denial and LTTE media reports to appease core LTTE sympathizers that “HRW Backtracks on Extortion Charge” will only spell trouble for all Tamil Canadians in the long run, in the largest “Tamil” city of the diaspora as well as Canada.

“Labels” for “Tamil” Canadians

Merriam-Webster online dictionary’s definition of “extort” is “to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power”.

Many Tamil Canadians of all sides of this debate traveled to Sri Lanka since the cease-fire and a small number of them have told their experiences to HRW. More than a hand full of “Tamil Canadians” are here to attest to their travel experiences which will very well be falling under Merriam-Webster’s definition. Unlike the CTC, to Canadian government and even HRW, all are “Tamils”, “Canadians” without any “quisling” labels. Or more than ever, Canada sees them even without their “visible” and “ethnic” identities for the good of the country.

However, “this report makes it seem like they (HRW) are ignoring the facts,” was CTC’s pronouncement at last week’s presser. “But there are no facts because no charges in Canada have ever been laid regarding extortion of Tamils,” a spokesperson said at the Canadian Tamil Congress press conference on Wednesday.

CTC making a ban call easy for Toronto Star

The Canadian Tamil Congress denied categorically that no fund raising exists, prompting Toronto Star editorial’s call; “Because Tamil leaders are adamant that no legitimate community group is raising funds for the Tigers, they should not object. (a ban) A get-tough policy will provide better protection from predators for law-abiding citizens in Tamil communities in the Toronto area and across Canada.”

CTC in being so adamant and denying no fund raising exists, has made it easier for ‘Toronto Star’ to make its call for ban!

Rapport with elected representatives

The progress and contribution of Tamil Canadians, especially in the Greater Toronto Area as Canadians, is well recognized in the civil society. The elected representatives attend numerous business, cultural, and educational Tamil functions in the GTA. They have a strong rapport with many Tamil Canadians. Tamil Canadians too may become elected representatives in the near future.

[Jim Karygiannis MP, the Member of Parliament for Scarborough-Agincourt at a recent Tamil community event]

However, elected Tamil representatives from Sri Lanka are continuing to be refused visa to visit Toronto. Its’ been reported that even the TNA MP ‘Mamanithar’ Joseph Pararajasingham, brutally murdered during the Christmas day mass in the Batticaloa Cathedral, was refused entry to Canada.

Its well known that the Tamil “leaders” of Canada are unable to pedal their “influence” to bring elected MPs to Canada. They are well aware that its’ not an all clear signal here. And they do understand that if there is any hiccup with regards to Canadian Tamil-Sri Lanka policy, it’s these “allegations” – that are not proven yet in a court of law, do nevertheless hang over as a dark cloud.

So why this “hiding a whole pumpkin in the cooked rice”?

Tamils and Sri Lanka have been in the ‘news’ coast to coast in Canada in a big way twice in the past two decades.

Arrival in Newfoundland

Firstly, the arrival of 155 Tamils via boat to Newfoundland in 1986, which resulted in Tamil Canadians’ best loved Prime Minister of Canada, Hon. Brian Mulroney remarking, ” We don’t want people jumping to the head of the line . . . (but) if we err, we will always err on the side of justice and on the side of compassion “. Its’ under this Tory PM that ground work for vast migration of Tamils to Canada got accelerated.

Now under another Tory PM, the “compassion of Canadians” is touted to be respected by all Canadians here at home.

Tsunami Aid

Secondly, the tsunami. Under the same dark cloud, propelled by charges of Prime Minister Paul Martin attending dinner hosted by FACT, the predecessor of Canadian Tamils Congress, primary aid – Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to Sri Lanka in the aftermath of the tsunami was stationed in Ampara considering the local political under currents.

The third big ‘news’ is here. Will the “leaders” recognize and take corrective measures within the community to begin a new day for ALL Tamil Canadians or are they willing to risk further?

A new Toronto “Tamil leadership?”

“Search” for word “Tamil” in the “Toronto Star”, reveal the following headline matches since the release of HRW report: “Ottawa urged to probe Tamil threats”, “Tamil leaders deny extortion claim”, “Something fishy about research”, “Editorial: Ban Tamil Tigers and halt extortion”, “New Tamil group backs allegations against Tigers”, “Place Sri Lanka on terrorist list”.

Toronto Star reiterated this in its editorial – “Human Rights Watch is a credible international organization. And this report is plausible.”

The bitter medicine of these for Canadian Tamil Congress is the headline “New Tamil group backs allegations against Tigers”. This is like pulling a “Karuna” on CTC, by Toronto’s primary newspaper that has been generally supportive of if not opposed, in its editorial stands regarding Tamil-Sri Lanka matters.

Toronto Star’s message

The Liberal leaning ‘Toronto Star’ exerts tremendous influence across GTA area and Ottawa. Its editorial weighing heavily on the HRW report should be writing on the wall to the Tamil “leadership” and others To Whom It May Concern. It’s just not all about Sri Lanka and “quislings”. Let there be a new day for all (“Tamil”) Canadians just so to join Celine Dion, the Grammy and Oscar wining Canadian pop star in singing, “Let the rain come down and wash away my tears…Let it fill my soul and drown my fears…Let it shatter the walls for a new sun..A new day has… come….,” because the HRW report is all about Canada. [TamilWeek, Mar 26, 2006]

by D.B.S. Jeyaraj

Gamini Fonseka, if among us still, would have reached the biblical life span of three score and ten on March 21st. This however was not to be as the uncrowned monarch of Sinhala moviedom passed away in 2004. Though Gamini has passed away most of his fans like this writer have not forgotten him. This article coinciding with Gamini’s 70th birthday is a humble tribute to to the memory of a man who lives in the hearts of many.

Gamini Fonseka: Monarch of the Sinhala Movieland

Sembuge Gamini Shelton Fonseka was born in Dehiwela on March 21st 1936 as the third child of William and Daisy Fonseka; After initial schooling at a Presbyterian institution he went to St. Thomas’s College, Mt.Lavinia. He made his mark there not as a Thespian but as an artist of repute. He was capable of caricaturing school masters mercilessly.

Apart from art young Gamini also excelled in Sinhala language and literature while at college. One of his proudest moments was when he won the Sinhala literature prize when he was in the upper fourth. He received his prize from old Thomian and first prime minister of Independent “Ceylon” DS Senanayake. He was also a good cricketer.

Involved in many a schoolboy skirmish Gamini had to cut short his secondary education early.He then entered the wonderful world of films in a technical capacity. He worked under the legendary David Lean for “Bridge on the river Kwai” and our own Lester James Peiris on “Rekawa”. His association with Lester as an assistant director on Rekawa changed Gamini’s line of destiny forever. Gamini’s first screen appearance was “Rekawa” as part of a crowd. The same man went on to become a crowd puller in later life.

Gamini then acted in an English television series about the antics of an “elephant boy” filmed in Sri Lanka. He was also production assistant.

His first big break in acting came with “Daiwa Yogaya” in 1959 where he played a secondary role. Senadheera Kuruppu and Rukmani Devi were in the lead roles. Then came Lester’s ” Sandesaya” where nominally Gamini played second fiddle to Ananda Jayaratna but stole the show from him with a stellar performance.

It was around this time films like “Adata wediya Heta Hondai” Ranmuthuduwa” “Getawarayo” and “Dheevarayo” exploded on the screen and established Gamini as a box office draw . He proved however that he was not a melodramatic actor singing, dancing and fighting alone by making his mark as a character actor in Lester’s “Gamperaliya” that won the Golden Peacock in New Delhi. Once again Gamini was the “third” to Henry Jayasena and Punya Heendeniya but gave a performance par excellence as Jinadasa.

Titus Totawatte’s “Chandiya” was a milestone. This was perhaps the first anti – hero role of Sinhala cinema. Gamini breathed and lived the part of a tough guy. Titus had a sequel “Chutte”. It was in a way art imitating life because Gamini was in every way a “Chandiya” in real life. Thomians of yesteryear speak volumes about his martial prowess. The benchmark of his fighting prowess was the “historic” encounter with Dehiwela’s “strongman” Karthelis the brother of S de S Jayasinghe.

A major reason for the naturalism in Gamini’s fighting scenes was the man himself. He was a fighter both orthodox and unorthodox. He often got into brawls always or a good cause. One such incident was at Embilipitiya Circuit bungalow when the caretaker and his cronies in an intoxicated state picked a fight with the film crew on location there. Gamini pitched in with flying fists and proved that his macho image was not confined to celluloid alone. He then moved the entire crew at his expense to Tissamaharama.

There was a time when film artistes and technicians were treated rather shabbily by the film makers. Gamini changed all that to a great extent. He fought for their rights and dignity with the film makers, distributors, media , film corporation and government. Yet he was not complacent and remained concerned about their plight.

He was unhappy about the way the various regimes treated and continue to treat the film industry. At his “Rajadakma” Gamini advised artistes to spurn politics and went on to observe “I have worked for both parties but no one has done any good for the film industry or artistes”.

Gamini reached the peak of his popularity in the late sixties and early seventies as romantic action hero. When Sean Connery won over the western world as Ian Fleming’s James Bond in “Dr. No” and “from Russia With Love” Mike Wilson cashed in on the “OO7″craze with a Sri Lankan version. Enter our own man with a license to kill – Jamis Banda. Who else other than Gamini could do justice to the role in “Sorungeth Soru”.

There were other popular roles too with Sri Lankan versions of the famous Tamil “Vallava” film series starring Jaishankar and Manohar produced in Tamil Nadu by Ramasundaram of Modern Studios. Gamini was the mainstay of the “sooraya” film series in Sinhala. ” Soorayangath Sooraya”, “Edath Sooraya Adath Sooraya” “Sooraya Soorayamai” ” Hatharadenaama Sooraya” etc. The action films of old had a simple underlying thread that good triumphs over evil. So Gamini like MGR gave us a happy feeling and inspired all to greater heights.

This success in action movies did not mean that Gamini was playing stereo -typed roles alone. Far from it! He played a variety of roles and proved his thespian skills in many. Two memorable performances were in Lester’s “Nidhanaya” and “Yuganthaya: as Willie Abeynayake and Simon Kabalana. “Nidhanaya” Lester’s masterpiece is the only Sinhala film to be included in the 100 Best Movies of the World list.

There have been several actor – directors who failed when directing themselves. It was a case of underplaying or overacting. One man who performed this dual role creditably was Hindi cinema’s Raj Kapoor (Awaraa, Barsat, Shri 420 etc) In Sinhala cinema Gamini was one man whose acting did not falter when directing.

Starting from “Parasathumal” to others like “Uthumaneni” “Sagarayak Medha” ” Koti Waligaya” “Nomiyena Minissu”etc Gamini played his roles remarkably in those films. At the same time he stamped his arterial mark as director. One cannot place him in the class of an A plus director in Sinhala cinema. But an A minus director he certainly was.

Other noteworthy films where his histrionic skills were strikingly displayed were “Getawarayo” “Hulawali” “Oba Dutu Daa” “Sekaya” “Sanasuma Kothanada” “Weli Kathara” “Sana keliya”, “Deviyane Oba Kohedha?” , “Sekaya” and “Sarungale”. His performances in films directed by him were all fabulous.

“Sekaya” produced by SPM movies and directed by E. Rathinam was a remake of the Tamil classic “Deivapiravi”. Gamini, Rita Ratnayake and Tony Ranasinghe played the roles acted by Sivaji. Padmini and SS Rajendran in the original. I had the chance of seeing both films again in my twenties again. It was then that I marvelled at Gamini’s performance as against that of Sivaji. Sivaji like MGR, SSR etc came to film from the stage. Gamini like Gemini Ganesh came straight to films.

Incidentally both Gamini and Sivaji were greatly influenced by Marlon Brando. Gamini combined shades of Sivaji, Brando, Brynner and Paul Newman. His primary inspiration however was Brando. The Hollywood giant passed away some months ago. Though affected by Brando it must be said to Gamini’ s credit that he evolved his own “fusion” style and distinctive method.

Two English films starring Gamini Fonseka that I have sen are “Sitadevi” and “Rampage”. In Manik Sandrasagara’s “version” of the Ramayana Gamini played a modern Ravana to Bengali actress Mamta Shankar. Rampage was a Moby Dick type of man vs beast saga with an elephant as protagonist. In this Gamini played a planter – hunter opposite Mary Tamm who also acted in Frederick Forsythe’s “The Odessa File”.

Gamini also acted in an Indian Tamil movie “Neelakkadalin Orathiley”. He had two heroines Radha Saluja the Hindi actress and Sri Priya the Tamil – Telugu star. An Indian Tamil magazine review described Gamini as a “Koluk moluk Biscuit Pappa” look alike. What it meant was that Gamini had “babyish” looks alike the child models in advertisements for biscuits. Radha Saluja became a close friend and used to correspond with him for a long time.

Gamini however never acted in a Sri Lankan Tamil film. When reputed writer Senkai Aaliyaan’s “Vadaikaatru” (North Wind) was filmed Gamini was approached for the “Viruthasalam ” character role. It did not work out. But Gamini gave an astounding performance as a Tamil in Sunil Ariyaratne’s “Sarungale”. He played Nadarajah, the Jaffna Tamil clerk in a story that highlighted both the anti – Tamil communal violence as well as the caste contradictions among Tamils.

Among places that “Sarungale” was filmed in was Karaveddy my mothers ancestral village. Gamini himself was very proud of his role in that movie. Once in a conversation before the film’s release he told me personally “any Sinhala man who sees this film will never lay hands on a Tamil again”. Alas! That was not to be and not many years later came Black July 1983.

But one thing that must be emphasised in the case of Gamini Fonseka that he was a man with absolutely no trace of communalism in him. I have had only about four or five conversations with him including an interview for the “Virakesari” in 1978.This is not enough to gauge a man but two lengthy conversations with him convinced me of his bona fides in this respect. But there have been several people intimately knowledgeable of Gamini like his close friend Sivanandhan (now in Canada) who directed him in “Oba Dutu Daa” who vouch for the greatness of the man in this.

A notable feature of Sri Lankan films both Sinhala and Tamil is the multi -ethnic diversity of the industry. Sinhalese, Tamils both Sri Lankan and Indian. Muslims , Malays and Burghers have all contributed to this. The contribution of Tamils to the Sinhala film industry is massive starting from that pioneer SM Nayagam producing “Kadawana Porunthuwa”.Many leading Producers, directors, cinematographers, technicians, studio owners and even some artistes have been Tamils.

Gamini acknowledged and appreciated this immense contribution by the minority communities to Sinhala cinema. He has not been afraid to state this publicly whenever the occasion arises. He did so in the Golden Jubilee celebration and also in what was perhaps his last interview given to Prasad Gunewardene and Stanley Samarasinghe of “Daily News” .One important reason among many for the decline in Sinhala cinema is related to the escalating ethnic conflict. The single greatest blow to Sinhala cinema was the burning of Vijaya Studios along with the film archives. Many Sinhala films including those of Gamini ’s have been irretrievably lost

In conversations with Gamini I have often heard him refer to many of the Country’s problems including the ethnic crisis as having been caused and exacerbated by “third grade politics” “dirty politics” etc. He has often uttered these words in some films too. The more I read of what transpired in this Country in the Donoughmore era and the post – Independence years the more I am inclined to agree with Gamini. Contemporary politics of which I have enjoyed a ring side view as a journalist has only strengthened that viewpoint. Even now the selfish, irresponsible conduct of our so called leaders demonstrate that we are on accelerating towards doomsday.

He has acted opposite many actresses but the one with whose chemistry Gamini hit it off best was Malini Fonseka. Two others who paired well with Gamini were Jeevaranee Kurukulasooriya and Veena Jayakody. According to Gamini Sandhya Kumari was the most beautiful actress he interacted with while Malini was the best. The best actor according To Gamini was Joe Abeywickrema – not himself. The best director who brought out the best in Gamini as director was Lester and Gamini himself.

This article is to honour the memory of a man whom I loved as an actor, appreciated as a director, admired as a politician and above all respected as a decent human being. Gamini the actor on the Sinhala silver screen became an important part of life in childhood. This is the kind of relationship one has with actors , singers, writers and sportsmen. The impact of films and film stars in the South Asian region is Phenomenal. Childhood impressions in that sense are indelible.

My formative years as a Sinhala film fan were heavily influenced and shaped by Gamini Fonseka. To me and millions of other like minded people Sinhala cinema was personified by Gamini Fonseka for a long, long time. Notwithstanding the brilliant creators of our times who have elevated the standards of Sinhala films one is unable to imagine or visualise Sinhala cinema without thinking of Gamini Fonseka. Sinhala cinema was certainly not Gamini Fonseka but without Gamini Fonseka there was no Sinhala cinema either.

Belonging to a middle class Tamil family living then in Colombo I was drawn into the world of films at an early age. The staple diet of this film fascination was naturally Tamil – MG Ramachandran, Sivaji Ganesan, Gemini Ganeshan, SS Rajendran, Ranjan etc were the Tamil cine heroes who enthralled me then.

But I was indeed fortunate that despite my Tamilness I was equally attracted to Sinhala movies from an early age. This affinity for Tamil and Sinhala films itself was viewed as something unusual at St. Thomas’s Prep or STC Mt. Lavinia where I studied in the sixties. Few Sinhala or Tamil kids saw Sinhala or Tamil films in those schools then. But then I was indeed lucky to savour Tamil, English and Sinhala movies from a very young age.

As children we were enamoured greatly of action movies. “Fighter” actors were relished as opposed to “character” actors. So MGR , Jaishnkar, Anandan, Ravishankar from Tamil movies along with Charlton Heston, John Wayne, Yul Brynner and later Clint Eastwood were my childhood favourites. As far as Sinhala films were concerned there was only one and that of course was Gamini.

Gamini Fonseka entered my life when I was about eight years old. The place he did so was a movie theatre in Maradana bearing his own name Gamini. “Ran Muthu Duwa” was my first Sinhala Movie. The family went to see it for two reasons. One because it was the first Sinhala technicolour film. Secondly to see the famed underwater scenes made possible by Mike Wilson.

Gamini along with Jeevarani, Shane Gooneratne and Joe Abeywickrema starred in it. Gamini’s acting, dancing and fighting captivated me. I was well and truly hooked. I never ever recovered.

The song and dance sequence ” Pipee pipee Renu Natana” remains fresh in memory even now. I still remember the melody and some of the poetic lines like “Apey watte mal pipila meemassen wikvela” and “Rana giraw Kumbura udin mal mal gamanak giya” etc.

My admiration and fondness for Gamini’s films grew over the years. Initially the attraction was mainly the fight scenes. Gamini brought a refreshing naturalness to those scenes as opposed to the artificiality in South Indian ones. It was later that one learned to appreciate the finer points of his acting.

There was hardly a Gamini Fonseka film that I missed in the sixties. This was due to a woman Mary Caroline who was then a domestic helper at our home. She stayed with the family for about seven years. Mary was an avid Gamini fan. So I would accompany her every month to Sinhala films in general and Gamini Fonseka films in particular. This was how I managed to see so many of his films in my childhood. “Chandiya”, “Soora Chowraya” and “Sorungeth Soru” were some of my favourites then This is how Gamini Fonseka became a permanent part of my childhood memories. He remains there forever.

A break with Sinhala movie going came in the early seventies when my family moved to Jaffna. I returned with a vengeance to “Sinhala chitrapati”after we shifted back to Kurunegala and then Colombo. One recalls wistfully the hours of enjoyment at the Jupiter, New, Modern , New Imperial theatres in Kurunegala and Roxy, Saphire, Elphinstone and Gamini in Colombo. Not only did I see new films but also several old ones when re – screened.

I remain to this day a firm Sinhala film aficionado not only of quality films but also of those masala movies. Lester, GDL, Nihalsinha, Siri Gunasinha, KAW, Pathiraja, Sumithra, Tissa, Vasantha , Dharmasiri , Parakrama and Prasanna took Sinhala cinema in a new direction away from shackles of Bombay and Madras. But for sheer entertainment one cannot forget the “popular” films of Cinemas, Ceylon Theatres and people like Yasapalitha, Tampoe, Morais, Dev Anand etc too.

Gamini straddled both these worlds with ease. He was both an “arty” actor of powerful serious movies as well as a ” melodramatic ” star of popular cinema too. He was artistically appreciated and commercially valued. For two decades and more Gamini was the uncrowned king of Sinhala cinema. He made his mark as both actor and director. In the process he helped liberate Sinhala cinema Indian constraints and gave it fresh perspective and dynamic direction.

Gamini also elevated the standards of Sinhala cinema and provided it with integrity and self – respect. He fought for the upliftment of the industry and fellow artistes and technicians. Gamini Fonseka is inextricably intertwined with the evolution and growth of Sinhala cinema.

The film reels have run their course. The projector has ceased humming. The curtain has rolled in. The” Gamini Fonseka show ” ended in 2004.The lights are on again but the light has gone out of Sinhala cinema. All that we have are fond memories of the past and copies of his available movies. The memory of this monarch of Sinhala movieland will never cease. Thank You Gamini for innumerable hours of entertainment, pleasure and satisfaction. Thank You again!

(This is a modified version of an article first written in 2004)
[TamilWeek, Mar 19, 2006]

by Vasantha Rajah

President Rajapakse’s recent comments on the British-model of power devolution have provoked a healthy debate. He has vaguely expressed his willingness to follow the British way to pacify separatism within a unitary setup. Interestingly, many commentators from both sides have responded negatively. ‘British circumstances are different therefore inappropriate for us’ is the crux of their arguments.

True, we cannot dig up the British solution to separatism and arbitrarily impose it on our soil. Two decades of war and deep-rooted distrust would not permit that. But never underestimate the significant lessons we can learn from our former colonial ruler. After all, the British were the original architects of our state structures in their own image – though the British themselves had to dramatically modify their system as recently as the turn of the 20th century to conciliate a similar problem to ours: separatism.

The Scottish National Party was openly campaigning for a separate state, and it was gaining significant electoral victories in Scotland on that demand. Thanks to embedded democratic traditions in Britain the Scottish struggle did not develop into an armed conflict. The London government did not outlaw the SNP; it did not prohibit anybody from campaigning on separatism; and, it did not send an English army to occupy Scotland. If it did, the Scottish movement would undoubtedly have taken the war path and the SNP would have ended up as the ‘British LTTE’.

Thus, there is a vast difference in the way the two phenomena grew in the two countries. That does not mean, however, there is nothing for us to learn from the manner Britain – particularly the Labour movement -placated a growing separatist challenge.

Tony Blair’s New Labour that came to power in 1997 granted a regional parliament to Scotland and a separate Assembly to Wales, disregarding Tory objections. The strategy did appease the rising tide of separatism. [I shall deal with the discrepancies related to the ‘homeland’ concept in comparison to the Sri Lankan context later. I am aware of the fact that in Britain the concept of Scottish/Welsh homelands – Scotland and Wales – is non-controversial, and therefore, acceptable to all sides, while in Sri Lanka the ‘Tamil homeland’ concept is a highly contentious issue. Thus, the north-east merger has become an intractable problem for a durable peace settlement.]

Let me briefly explain the immediate background of the Labour’s Scotland Act. [For clarity’s sake I shall not mix up the Welsh and Irish cases here.]

Scottish separatism was marching relentlessly to new heights in Britain, particularly during the Thatcher period. The English majority kept voting the Tories into power (from 1979 to 1997) while the Scottish minority has been ineffectually voting Labour throughout this episode. Things came to a high point when Margaret Thatcher imposed the infamous poll-tax. The Scots were furious. The separatist Scottish National Party (SNP) found the poll-tax issue and the newly found oil wells in the north as a lethal combination to promote the separatist case. The Scots blamed the English majority for putting the ‘oppressive’ Tory party to power.

Scottish minority’s political impotence in the face of English-domination of the Westminster parliament was becoming obvious. With new economic prospects of oil-wealth in sight why should the Scots suffer for the ‘political whims’ of the English, it seemed. The SNP’s popularity was on the rise.

Just like 1994 saw the end of seventeen years of oppressive UNP rule in Sri Lanka, 1997 marked the end of eighteen years of Conservative (Tory) rule in Britain.

The new Labour government moved fast to introduce the Scotland Act (1998) devolving substantial powers to a regional Scottish parliament within a ‘unitary’ setup. The Act explicitly recognised the ‘Scottish homeland’ concept and their right to self-determination. Thus, the Scottish separatist ebb was effectively stifled and an impending constitutional disaster – in case the separatist SNP becomes Scotland’s largest political party – was avoided.

However, an irritating lop-sidedness, an inconsistency, in Britain’s new political arrangement remained unaddressed. Within the new structure, the English MPs cannot participate in Scottish regional affairs, while the Scottish MPs who are in the London parliament can, in matters pertaining to the English majority.

This discrepancy has rattled many on the English side. A campaign to have a regional English parliament – leaving the London parliament to play the higher role of a ‘supreme’ parliament to deal with issues common to the entire country – can thus be seen gathering momentum. In other words, the present set-up is seen as a ‘halfway house’ that needs further refinement.

Clearly, Britain’s unique traditions and political culture – of not having a written constitution etc. – helped the Labour government to move fast and devolve power disregarding the inconsistency.

Sri Lanka’s unique situation does not leave room to do things in that manner. We, no doubt, need a seductively unambiguous constitution in black and white, and that can only emerge as part of a negotiated peace settlement. Two decades of brutal war necessitates this. Representatives from all three communities should do this, and the peace talks should rise above its present limitation of negotiating an ‘interim administration’ – the albatross that frustrates any headway for the peace process.

Negotiating half-way solutions – ignoring core issues related to the whole constitution – is a futile exercise. It is a recipe to heighten suspicion and distrust. It has come up against a brick wall and turned the adversaries into ‘porker players trying to call the bluff’.

In the ‘interim set-up’, whatever the government proposes is perceived by the Tamils as a trap to maintain Sinhala/Buddhist supremacy; and, whatever the LTTE proposes is perceived by the Sinhalese as a Tiger-ploy to reach its separatist strategy. Both sides have good reasons to say so. Thus, the task is to break this vicious circle and move the peace process forward.

Undoubtedly, Geneva talks in late February to review the LTTE-GOSL ceasefire agreement was a breakthrough, in a symbolic sense – a necessary step to turn the tide in the right direction. Yet, it lacks positive steps to rectify the fundamental fallacy of the peace process’s existing format – the troublesome agenda for an interim administration.

Understandably, it is not possible to switch from one format to another overnight. So, the initiative for the change should come from outside the ongoing talks – a massive media campaign, for instance.

An outline, or an image, of an appealing final solution that can easily capture the imagination of all communities, in my view, should be its centrepiece.

The terms ‘federal’ ‘unitary’ ‘union’ etc. are too abstract, and do not mean much to the man on the street. What people need is a powerful image of a solution which they can picture. Above all, it is here, the British wisdom becomes handy for us.

So, if we are to learn from the British experience, we should design a setup that anticipates the way the British model is evolving. We can, for instance, propose two regional parliaments – one for the northeast and one for the rest of the country – and a Supreme (Central) Parliament where the highest levels of defence, economic and judicial powers are vested.

After decades of bitter experience it is not difficult to convince the ordinary people of all races that it is in their best interest to have the highest courts, highest level of military command and island-wide economic planning secured at the centre – admittedly, if a well-crafted constitution is in place to protect the rights of nationalities and individuals for everyone’s satisfaction.

[”Country of all, and voice for all” - says A placard at the candle light vigil, held on Dec 31, 2005; The vigil was organized by The National Anti War Front at the Independence Square - Pic by Dushiyanthini Kanagasabapathipillai]

The powers to be devolved to regional parliaments, of course, would be a matter to be negotiated through the peace process. The extent of regional powers would depend on the degree of equality (power-sharing) epitomised at the centre. If the power-sharing at the centre is designed for everyone’s satisfaction then the pressure to increase regional powers would diminish. Economic-efficiency’ interests of the island as a whole – as single geographic unit – will replace the sectarian interests of ethnic groups; virtues of mutual cooperation will replace suspicion and hatred.

All previous piecemeal approaches to peace, including the ‘Indo-Lanka Accord’, lacked this fundamental difference. None of them bothered to harmonise self-ruling clout in the regions with power-sharing arrangements at the centre.

If a media campaign along above lines could change the perception of all communities then the peace process’s cynosure should pass from the regions to the centre; its paradigm should shift from the regions to the centre.

The dynamics of the fast integrating world economy are already shaping the instincts of all communities to see the mutual benefits of having a strong, democratic, central administration. The task, however, is to remove ‘the fog’: the prejudices that poison the Sinhala/Tamil mindsets. An improved image of the British solution to separatism could be the starting point to do just that.

Finally, let me come to the most controversial issue – the desirability of having a single regional parliament for north-east. Many seem to think the north-east merger would be a disaster for stable peace. Their calculations seem to me to stem from the peace process’s present ‘piecemeal’ standpoint. Once its paradigm shifts – to perceive regional democracy from a wider perspective of a power-sharing centre – a north-east merger, I believe, would be an asset for peace and democracy, not a hindrance.

Within the envisioned political setup, the north-east electorate’s heterogeneity will, I believe, surface in a positive way. Even the eastern Tamils, not just the Sinhalese and the Muslims there, are a different kettle of fish who would not tolerate domination from any quarter. Therefore, regional MPs representing variety of interests and outlooks in the north-east regional parliament will be a blessing for vibrant democracy. Eastern plurality will be a buffer against dictatorial tendencies; thus, an asset to northern democracy in particular.

The proposed media campaign should convince all citizens that the war is not an option, that coordinated island-wide infrastructure projects and mutual entrepreneurial investments would be the bedrock of a united country, that the war will push the country towards more misery and divisions.

Elsewhere I have shown that Anuradhapura is best suited to be Sri Lanka’s future administrative capital – the ideal location for the Supreme Parliament. It already has all basic amenities to build a dynamic city and relieve over-crowded Colombo from demographic pressure. Its central position in relation to all parts of the country would make it the perfect venue for the Central administration. From the UN’s poverty elimination angle, it would help eradicate the present imbalances in economic development, creating jobs and economic vitality. Sethusamudra Project, as a future focal point in the South Asian economy, will have positive effects on the north-central region, and the development of the north-central city of Anuradhapura as Sri Lanka’s main cultural centre will immensely contribute to the island’s tourist industry.

Therefore, I suggest, the evolving British model can be adapted to suit the Sri Lankan context. And, we can propose to all communities the image of two regional parliaments overseen by an Anuradhpura-based supreme parliament as a viable alternative to be negotiated. This, I believe, should be the central theme of a media campaign that needs to be launched parallel to an ongoing peace process.