By: Dr. S. Narapalasingam
The beautiful island with regionally diverse climate, beautiful scenery and nonviolent affable communities was far ahead of many Asian countries in human development. Thanks to the free education and health care, literacy rate was high, infant mortality was relatively low; life expectancy high and even the very poor did not die from hunger. Ceylon as the island was known when the governing authority was transferred to the natives was the envy of many countries in Asia beleaguered by internal conflicts, food shortages, low income and poor living conditions. Today these countries are far ahead of the island-nation with a new name – Sri Lanka. Who started the process to destroy national unity and the flourishing peaceful sovereign nation admired as a pearl in the Indian Ocean? It was certainly not the minority Tamils.
Kumar Rupesinghe in his recent article titled ‘Linguistic discrimination against the Tamils’ has quite fittingly said: “Language is a source of identity and is a fundamental right of a person and it is also all pervasive. It is a question of dignity and equality. … In Sri Lanka, linguistic rights of Tamils have been a key source of conflict, which has paved the way for the civil war and Tamil insurgency”. The reasons for the insurgency in its present vicious form are complex and these relate largely to the failure to deal with the causes that led to the ethnic problem in the mid 1950s and its continued exploitation by main parties led by egoistic Sinhalese for achieving their narrow aims.
Ethnic discrimination was in its most spiteful form depriving employment opportunities for the educated Tamil youth and making conditions insecure for all Tamils. The future of the Tamil youth became bleak and the feeling of being reduced to the status of second class citizens was widespread. The periodic organized violent attacks against the Tamils also raised doubts about their future safety and security. Apart from the emotive belief that the entire island is innate to the Sinhalese and that the other ethnic communities exist because of their benevolence, the contest between the two major political parties for winning the broad support of the Sinhalese voters crucial for victory at the national polls also contributed to the discrimination. It is because of the unsafe and insecure conditions created by the governments that the idea of a distinct homeland for the minority Tamils in the North-East spread.
Divisive politics
The SLFP was formed in 1951 when its founder S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike second-in-command in the UNP realized that there was not going to be a future for him in the party. It failed to make much headway in the 1952 general election. The desperate need to win the support of the Sinhalese masses compelled the liberal Bandaranaike to solicit the support of underprivileged groups among the Sinhalese – Buddhist priests, indigenous medical practitioners, vernacular teachers, village leaders and farmers. They were promised policy changes to empower them, raise their social status and improve the prospects for a better future.
With these promises Bandaranaike abandoned his liberal nationalism and became a prisoner of chauvinistic and reactionary elements within his Government elected with their support at the 1956 elections. The ‘Sinhala Only’ Act introduced hastily by his Government as promised during the election campaign raised the morale of the Sinhalese masses. But it cast gloom amongst the ethnic minorities. This legislation was the beginning of the process of dividing the country along ethnic lines and the exploitation of the Sinhala-Tamil divide in the contest for State power. The post-independence ‘divide and rule’ policy was intended to negate the effects of the similar policy followed by the colonial government. The beneficiaries then were mainly the minority Tamils and the Sinhalese elites. Since the emergence of the bitter rivalry between the SLFP and the UNP, each party’s political interest rather than the national interest largely influenced government decisions. Moreover, their impulsive actions and inaction on national issues intensified the ethnic division and destroyed the features of a stable nation-state. No effort was made towards national integration.
The current electoral system was also devised to serve the interests of the ruling party and its members undermining the democratic tenet. Under the current system the minor radical nationalist parties are able to exert undue influence on governments deprived of sizeable majority by the system. This also made it difficult to introduce major amendments to the constitution that required two-thirds majority. One should not be surprised if these radical elements sabotage the ongoing efforts to reach a bipartisan agreement on the approach to the resolution of the ‘National Question’. They are now playing a crucial role in the destruction of the nation-state.
K. Godage, formerly of Sri Lanka Foreign Service who has been constantly urging the two main parties to make joint efforts to seek a permanent constitutional settlement to the conflict that has bedeviled the island for decades denying the masses peace and promising future wrote: “The political culture of this country has been built on adversarial, confrontational politics without regard to the national interest. Our politicians have missed the wood for the trees. This is the unfortunate tradition which we seem to want to perpetuate. The cement that has held this form of confrontational politics together has been, the vulgar pursuit of political power, for with it goes the opportunity to mount the gravy train and get rich quickly. In the process have we not become a morally degenerate society?” Other likeminded senior citizens too have appealed for consensual politics. Indeed, it is the wish of all peace-loving people.
The deplorable state to which politics has degenerated hindering the progress of the country and the improvement in the living conditions of majority of the population is reflected in a recent editorial comment in ‘The Island’. To quote: “There is no gainsaying that it has been the continued degeneration of politics that has pushed this country to the present parlous state. Our national problems could not have assumed the present tragic proportions had our political culture been different. So when the political culture for which the country’s political leadership is responsible degenerates, its cancer spread to other fields is obviously unavoidable. All the unhealthy features such as unbridled selfishness, ambition, jealousy, competition, duplicity and intolerance characterize and dominate today’s politics. The quality of statesmanship which is sorely required today to pull the country out of the present crisis has increasingly been replaced by ‘politics’ which is generally described as the strategy of party and the lust for the spoils of office.”
Indifference to unifying moves
The Federal Party leader S.J.V. Chelvanayakam reached agreements first with Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike in 1957 and later with Dudley Senanayake in 1965 to mitigate the difficulties faced by the Tamils as the result of the Sinhala only legislation. Both pacts ensured the preservation of the island as a single geographical entity. The first one was abrogated even before implementation due to pressure from Buddhist clergy and the UNP, the then main opposition party while the second could not be implemented as intended due to obstruction by the opposition parties. Regarding this unfortunate development V.P. Vittachi, who had served as GA Jaffna district among other senior positions during his 25 years in the Ceylon Service has observed in his informative book ‘SRI LANKA – What went wrong?’ the following:
“Dudley Senanayake’s UNP Government (1965-1970) made an honest attempt to solve the ethnic issue once and for all. The Tamil leaders trusted him. In January 1966 he introduced a Bill to make regulations for the implementation of the Reasonable Use of Tamil Act of 1958 which had remained a dead letter. N.M. Perera joined Mrs. Bandaranaike in staging a march to protest against the Bill. However, it was passed and the Tamil leaders had cause to be content. Next Dudley Senanayake tried to create District Councils … Again there was fierce opposition to this; N.M. Perera, who had earlier said he was 100% for District Councils, said that he was now 100% against District Councils. This time Dudley found he could not carry his rank and file with him … the Federal Party quit the government.” Thus a chance for peaceful settlement of the conflict before it became intricate was lost because of the contest for State power between rival parties. In the case of the LSSP, the Trotskyites were bitterly opposed to the UNP and they also realized the only chance to play a role in governing the country was to align with the SLFP. The conservative Tamils were not keen to cast their votes to the leftist parties, although they appreciated their stand on the ethnic issue.
It was the same Dudley Senanayake anxious not to be sidelined by J.R. Jayewardene who was preparing to lead a march to Kandy against the B-C pact announced at a public meeting: “I am prepared to sacrifice my life to prevent the implementation of the BC Agreement, which is a racial division of the Ceylon under the guise of the Regional Councils System and is an act of treachery.” He was not the only leader, there were others who had taken opposing stands on the same issue, depending on which side of the House they were sitting at that time.
Why Tamils lost faith in the unitary system?
Although the Tamils had qualms initially, they later embraced the unitary system inherited from the British rulers hoping they would have equal rights under the principle of justice and equality for all citizens, regardless of their ethnic, linguistic and religious differences. They also expected the governments to foster unity in diversity essential for the efficacy of the unitary system. Their belief in one unified system of government was so strong that they rejected federalism advocated by the Tamil leaders – S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, C. Vanniasingham and Dr. E.M.V. Naganathan. In the 1952 general election, the leader of the Federal Party, S. J. V. Chelvanayakam was defeated by the UNP candidate S. Natesan (son-in-law of the revered Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan). It was Natesan who at the inaugural meeting on 6 September 1946 moved the resolution to establish the United National Party. The motion was seconded by T.B. Jayah, another non-Sinhalese. There was goodwill and mutual trust amongst the different ethnic communities. They had high hope of preserving the newly independent country as a prosperous cohesive one nation-state.
The schools in the predominantly Tamil North utilized the services of Buddhist priests to teach the Sinhala language to the students in order to strengthen the ties between the Sinhalese and Tamil-speaking communities and promote a common national identity. This was done voluntarily from a sense of national patriotism. They were all proud to be Ceylonese despite their diverse ethnic, religious and regional attachments. Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim and Burgher students all studied jointly in the schools located in ethnically mixed towns. Tragically, this togetherness disappeared after 1956 when the government led by S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike elected on the pledge to make Sinhala the sole official language of the country within 24 hours fulfilled the promise given to the Sinhalese electorate. In protest, the schools in the North abandoned the teaching of Sinhala and the teachers (the Buddhist priests) returned to their towns and villages in the South.
The decision to replace English by ‘Sinhala only’ was made ignoring the future of the youth and the need to know an international language. Teaching the children exclusively in their respective mother tongue was to say the least unhelpful to their future well-being. All subjects were taught in Sinhala to Sinhalese students and similarly Tamil students had to learn in Tamil. These students when they entered the universities (science courses) and even later in their lives regretted not learning English. The colossal damage done to the unity and advancement of the entire society became evident in the later years. Even the rural women who sought employment as house maids in Middle East realized the importance of English for communicating with their employers. Incidentally, the remittances of the migrant workers are a major source of Sri Lanka’s foreign exchange earnings. English as a link language would have also helped to bring closer the two linguistically divided communities.
The powerful Sinhalese leaders found even the language policy to be inadequate to satisfy their vote bank. The number of Tamil students entering the universities had to be curtailed drastically in order to admit more Sinhalese-medium students to the science courses. Prof. A. J. Wilson (son-in-law of Federal Party leader S.J.V. Chelvanayakam) in his book ‘The Break-up of Sri Lanka’ (Chapter 3: Competition for State Power) has stated: “The last policy decision which compelled the Tamil elites to turn in despair to the concept of a separate state was the decision of Mrs. Bandaranaike’s 1970-7 government to give preference to Sinhalese-medium students over Tamil-medium students in admissions to the universities”. The media-wise standardization of marks ensured that only the Tamil students with considerably higher ‘raw’ marks than their Sinhalese counterparts could enter the universities. Furthermore, the ‘area quota’ system introduced in 1973 aggravated the problem faced by Tamil students seeking admissions to the universities. According to the historian C. R. de Silva, the intake of students to science-based courses from the Tamil-dominant Northern Province between 1969 on the merit system and 1974 on the quota basis dropped sharply from 27.5 per cent to 7 per cent.
Many bright students were not only denied opportunities for higher studies but also employment with the ‘Sinhala Only’ policy. Moreover, appointments particularly at the low and middle levels were on the basis of political patronage that helped the Sinhalese job seekers. Had the Tamil youth been allowed to study in the English medium as their Muslim counterparts, they could have sought employment abroad. But this was politically damaging to the Sinhalese leaders who were hell-bent on exploiting the Sinhalese-Tamil divide for political advantage. Tamils must not be seen to be doing well as this would be against the selfish and partisan interests of the politically ambitious Sinhalese leaders. The frustrated Tamil youth enthusiastically joined the Tamil militant groups in the 1980s fighting against discrimination and oppression of minority Tamils by the governments dominated by the Sinhalese.
There was the obvious need to improve the quality of life of the rural Sinhalese masses; the vast majority did not have the opportunities to advance as their urban counterparts and the Tamils who benefited under the ‘divide and rule’ policy of the British rulers. But the decision to obstruct their advancement mainly to please the Sinhalese masses was ill-conceived myopic move. The belief that the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country as well as the future of the Sinhalese would be safeguarded by the majoritarian rule led to the marginalization of the Tamil-speaking people in the political and economic fields. Paradoxically, it has turned out to be a threat to the preservation of the country as one nation-state.
The 1972 and 1978 constitutions were adopted ignoring the interests, aspirations and sovereign rights of minority Tamils. Moreover, the biased way the governments functioned intensified the loss of faith in the unitary system. The UNP manifesto for the 1977 elections stated emphatically the grievances of the Tamils must be addressed, giving hope that the party when elected will take appropriate actions. The party led by JR Jayewardene won the contest with five-sixth majority which he retained for another term through the questionable referendum in 1982. Given the strength of the mandate, he had a golden opportunity to settle the ethnic problem and bridge the divide between the two major communities. But he did the opposite. His government’s role in the 1983 anti-Tamil pogrom which strengthened the case for an autonomous Tamil state in the island is part of Sri Lanka’s dismal post independence record.
Importantly, it was Section 29(2) of the first Constitution of independent Ceylon that gave confidence to the minority ethnic communities in the unitary system. It read: No (such) law shall (a) prohibit or restrict the free exercise of any religion; or (b) make persons of any community or religion liable to disabilities to which other communities or religions are not made liable; or (c) confer on persons of any community or religion any privilege or advantage which is not conferred on persons of other communities or religions; or (d) alter the constitution of any religious body except with the consent of the governing authority of that body. V.P. Vittachi had said that the omission in the new (1972) constitution of any similar provision was widely regarded among minority groups as ‘sinister’.
Poor implementation record
Kumar Rupesinghe in his article has said: “The Foundation for Co Existence [FCE] recently commissioned the Social Indicator of the Centre for Policy Alternatives to conduct a study to examine the current position of the implementation of the official languages provision in areas outside the North and the East, where there is a substantial presence of Tamil subjects”. The findings of the ‘Language Audit’ relevant to this article are: “When asked about the public’s satisfaction with the Tamil language competence of the staff at the institutions surveyed, 77.4% of the respondents expressed that they were either very dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied. When the respondents were asked whether the institutions they visited provided an official Tamil translator, 94.1% replied in the negative”. He concluded poignantly: “Such a situation after 58 years of independence, one can only say is nothing short of dismal and paints a very bleak picture of the interest given by the Sri Lankan State to the implementation of the language rights of the minorities.” This is a typical case of dealing superficially with difficult problems by making appropriate legislative or policy changes without implementing them fully.
Despite the impressive duties and functions listed in the District Development Councils Act No 35 of 1980 for the DDCs set up under this Act which the TULF supported, the system failed to play any meaningful role. The controlling persons were the Finance minister and the concerned District Minister appointed by the Government. The Councils were really appendages of the Centre. The funds needed for their efficacious functioning were not forthcoming. And with other adverse developments that occurred then (1981-1982) the scheme collapsed.
Another example of half-hearted implementation is the subsequent Provincial Councils Act No. 42 of 1987 legislated under the 13th Amendment. Ketheshwaran Loganathan in his book ‘Lost Opportunities’ had mentioned: “The experience of the North-East Provincial government has been that even the meager powers devolved by the Thirteenth Amendment were systematically denied to the province by the Administration of the Sri Lankan Government. The Thirteenth Amendment itself was being interpreted by the Sri Lankan side to the disadvantage of the Tamils.”
The yawning gap between declarations and accomplishments is also another characteristic feature of the political culture that evolved as a result of the lust for power. The announcements that independent commissions would be set up to investigate thoroughly some recent brutal killings in the renewed fighting this year remain to be seen as a positive change in the way the government functions. The current spate of abductions and killings with each side blaming the other gives the feeling that the parties have not taken seriously the firm announcements to set up ‘independent’ investigations into the killings! The Rt. Rev. Duleep de Chickera, Bishop of Colombo in a statement issued on September 20 following the massacre (September 17) of 10 Muslim workers who went to repair, Rattal Kulam, a water tank, 9 km south of Pottuvil in Amparai district said: “I also express my disappointment that despite promises, no Commissions of Inquiry have got off the ground and completed their work. It now appears that there will be no international investigation into the massacre of the 17 ACF aid workers in Muthur. The investigation into the killing of 5 students in Trincomalee and persons in Pesalai and Allaipiddy are further cases where justice is being delayed”. It is the reputation of the government that is at stake given the global concern over the several massacres of civilians this year. The conflicting media reports have cast doubts about the true perpetrators of the crimes. By not vigorously pursuing the investigations as declared, the rule of law is being undermined.
It is not just the absence of foolproof safeguards in the Constitutions to prevent the enactment of discriminatory legislations but importantly the discriminatory ways authorized Acts and official policies were implemented that promoted distrust of the Tamils in the administration. Even in the first Constitution there was no provision to safeguard against administrative discrimination. Prof. A. J. Wilson in his book (The break-up of Sri Lanka, page 48) has pointed out: “Section 29 did not provide safeguards against administrative discrimination such as preferential treatment for Sinhalese in public appointments, the setting-up of state projects in Sinhalese areas … Section 29 was only concerned with legislation.” What is crucial for non-discriminatory governance is devotion to underlying principles in the relevant legislative acts and approved policies. The lack of this resolve has also contributed to the distrust of the minority communities in governments.
By mid 1970s the distrust had intensified considerably. In essence what the two main rival parties competing for State power did since independence was to strengthen constitutionally the unitary system and the accompanying majoritarian rule, while promoting an environment unsuitable for its viability.
State terror and rise of Tamil militancy
The failure to obtain equal rights through non-violent methods for two decades with no sign of letup in the discriminatory and violent acts against the powerless Tamils led to the belief that the Sinhalese polity would not agree to any meaningful power sharing arrangement with minority ethnic communities. It was in this backdrop the Vaddukkoddai Resolution was adopted in 1976 at the first National Convention of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), a coalition of mainly the two Tamil parties, the All Ceylon Tamil Congress and the Federal Party. The resolution stated that “the Tamils are a slave nation ruled by the new colonial masters, the Sinhalese, who are using the power they have wrongly usurped to deprive the Tamil nation of its territory, language, citizenship, economic life, opportunities of employment and education and thereby destroying all attributes of nationhood of the Tamil people … and therefore … resolves that the restoration and reconstitution of the Free, Sovereign, Secular Socialist State of Tamil Eelam based on the right of self-determination ….” This was the Tamil response to Sinhala nationalism given from a state of utter desperation.
The convention also called upon the Tamil nation in general and the Tamil youth in particular to come forward to throw them fully into the sacred fight for freedom and to flinch not till the goal of a sovereign, socialist state of Tamil Eelam is reached. This statement has been cited many times by the LTTE leaders to justify their violent struggle for independent Tamil Eelam. There was fervent support for the resolution among Tamil youth as they were also frustrated as the Tamil political leaders by the intransigence of the Sinhalese polity. The word ‘Eelam’ gained great significance and was included in the names of the Tamil militant groups that emerged after 1976. Although the TULF did not suggest violent struggle to achieve the Eelam goal, it did not oppose violence directed against the ‘new colonial masters’. Individually, some ambitious Tamil political leaders encouraged the ‘boys’ towards an armed struggle, hoping to be politically powerful with their help. They did not think the ‘boys’ will eventually throw them out. And indeed a few were eliminated by the very same ‘boys’. The international community that is taking much interest in ending the armed conflict through ‘negotiated political settlement’ did not show any concern earlier for the plight of the Tamils in Sri Lanka under discriminatory rule.
Since 1958, the Tamils have been the victims of several communal riots. Immediately after the 1983 riots, support for the Tamil rebellion within the community increased dramatically and the whole world became aware of the plight of the Tamils in Sri Lanka. The tragic events also confirmed the irrelevance of conventional politics, particularly among the Tamil youth. They also lost faith in the traditional non-violent protests. The exodus of Tamils to foreign countries turned out to be helpful to the Tamil Tigers. The destructive power of the Tigers was stronger and direct than the political forces in the South that started the self-destruction process soon after independence.
Ironically, the self-destruction by the Northern forces is felt intensely by the Tamils in the North-East with many internecine killings, forced child conscription and continual displacements with many not resettled in their habitats. The suffering of the Sri Lankan refugees in Tamil Nadu before and after leaving their homes is very pitiable. For the community as a whole including those settled abroad the losses are by way of break-up of family ties, destruction of property and the erosion of cultural and human values.
Although India does not want to get directly involved in Sri Lanka’s peace process, it was Indira Gandhi’s government with its own agenda to stop JR’s moves to promote US influence in the region that provided arms and combat training to the Tamil militant groups. All Tamil militant groups including the LTTE were then seen to be fighting for the same Tamil cause. The fact that the Tamil Tigers had a different agenda became apparent after it started eliminating the leaders and members of other groups as well as the leaders of the TULF. The latter were also considered as traitors who had abandoned their own goal of Tamil Eelam which they vowed to achieve in 1976. The divide between separatists and federalists (or devolutionists) became clear after 1987 when the LTTE rejected the Indo-Lanka agreement and started fighting against the Indian troops, present in the North-East as members of the Peace Keeping Force. This divide could also be considered as between ideologists and pragmatists.
If the Sinhalese political leaders thought they were clever in the art of deception, the Tigers have proved them wrong. With the help of the Premadasa government the Tigers succeeded in ousting the Indian troops. This bitter experience of the Indians in the North-East region and the assassination of their former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by a Tiger suicide bomber are now hurting both the Sri Lanka government and the Sri Lankan Tamils. President Premadasa also encouraged the Tigers to fight against the Indian troops and even provided direct support to sustain their fighting strength. Thus, this was a joint venture in self-destruction. In this process, President Premadasa himself got destroyed. A golden opportunity to settle the conflict peacefully with India as guarantor was lost.
An objective study of LTTE’s tactics to make the division of the country inescapable will point to the need for a realistic approach to counteract their moves and secure lasting peace. The LTTE has taken violence to the extreme to the point of being considered by many foreign countries as terrorists. The Tigers also use indirect methods to achieve their political aim. The latter include the exacerbation of the mistrust and racial hatred caused by the acts of commission and omission of governments mentioned earlier. These have been used to motivate the cadres to fight and brainwash youngsters to sacrifice their lives and become martyrs. They are made to believe there is no future for them in governments dominated by Sinhalese. The peace process was used not to win the trust of other communities but to deepen distrust.
Joint political moves needed
For any negotiation on major political issues to succeed there must be mutual trust between the negotiating parties. If they are to accept something conceptually different from the original objectives through compromise, mutual trust is essential. The conceptual difference between separation and one unitary state is so vast that unless both sides are willing to compromise negotiation will collapse at some point. This was evident from all previous talks between the LTTE and Sri Lanka government since 1985.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s call from Havana and New York asking the Tigers to trust him is not good enough. Deeds and not words are needed to undo the damages done earlier by failing to do what is right for the good of the country and all the people, regardless of their diverse origins and political affiliations. The self-destruction process must stop now. The two main political parties that have governed either alone or in partnership with minor parties since independence have a moral duty to join in this constructive effort. India too has a moral obligation to help in this momentous task. The civil society has ignored its responsibility to safeguard the nation by deterring those politicians from taking damaging actions against the national interest. What should be sought is not military victory but political moves to frustrate the process of self-destruction of the Nation. This is the correct path to take in order to make the armed struggle unnecessary and indeed for securing lasting peace.
[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]
