Present Tamil Plight Mainly Due to Ultra-Nationalism of SJV
by S. Rasalingam
As an aging Tamil who has observed Tamil-Sinhala politics since the 1940s, I cringe to see the continued repetition of simplified and historically incorrect hurling of accusation, even by people who recognize the need for building bridges between communities. People of younger generation do not know that politicians like D. S. Senanayake (DS) tried to create a “Ceylonese” nation.
Much false propaganda has been generated and good men like DS have been besmirched. People like Ponnambalam Ramanathan, in collusion with Governor Maitland introduced the principle of “communal representation” in the legislative process. Some Sinhala leaders rejected this (”Ramanathan’s deception”), and then came the Donoughmore commission which proposed Universal Franchise.
Surely, it was a defining moment when the Colombo Tamil leaders decided that their dominant position would be threatened, unless they separated themselves from the Sinhalese, and call for a separate identity. G. G. Ponnambalam (GGP) in the State Council in 1934 declared that he was “a proud Dravidian” and rejected the “Ceylonese” concept of a polity of a single people. Natesan and others followed suit, as a reading of the political history of the times will reveal. Ponnambalam lent his voice to a movement which began to attack Sinhala Buddhists, and the Mahavamsa, their famed historical chronicle. Should I remind here that the first Sinhala-Tamil Riot occurred in 1939, in Navalapitiya, and spread to Passara, Maskeliya and to many other towns, when the Colonial government stepped in and stamped it out?
The riot was sparked by the inflammatory racist speech of GGP in Navalapitiya, attacking the Sinhala Buddhists and the Mahavamsa (see The Hindu Organ, June 1, 1939 and other newspapers of the time). It was then that S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike (SWRD) saw an opportunity, and went to every one of the cities touched by the riots, and established branches of the Sinhala Maha Sabha (see The Hindu Organ, June 19, 1939). It was in this extremely heated atmosphere that GGP developed his fifty-fifty solution as a means of safeguarding the dominant position of the Tamils. Far from bridging the gap between the communities, every action of GGP was designed to drive this “difference” between the Tamils-descendants of the Dravidians, and the Sinhalese, a “hybrid mongrel race split of from the aboriginal Tamils and mixed with Aryan invaders” (as stated by GGP in Navalapitiya in 1939).
The racism of the GGP et al was matched by the SWRD group. It would seem that SWRD the feudal aristocrat, and GGP the caste-conscious Catholic lawyer, were both power-hungry manipulators of the people for further their own interests. The elder statesmen of the times, i.e., Baron Jayatilleke, D. S. Senanayake (DS), Mahadeva etc. charted a reasonably non-communalist line.
DS in particular realized that public confrontations would be a grave obstacles to independence and bridge-building between the communities. When the Soulbury commission arrived, Senanayake managed to get the “Young Turks” like SWRD and others not to appear before Soulbury, and imposed a formal boycott while making room for informal contacts. GGP however appeared before the Soulbury commission and whenever possible for three months, claiming that the Tamils were being discriminated against in jobs, education, health, colonization settlements, etc. He even objected to the declaration of Anuradhapura as an archaeological conservation area as an act of discrimination. The Soulbury Commissioners rejected virtually all of GGP’s claims as being without foundation. It rejected the 50-50 demand, i.e., equal number of seats to the 12% Tamils and 75% Sinhalese as an attempt to subvert democracy.
The Sinhala leaders refrained from public confrontation with GGP during the Soulbury period, and this led to a sense of healing between the communities. The state council approved the Soulbury proposals overwhelmingly. GGP leading the Tamil Congress(TC), as well as SWRD and other Sinhala nationalists joined the DS cabinet which believed in the “ceylonese” concept (see Senanayake’s Acceptance Speech in the Hansard 1947).
[a Federal Party pamphlet with portraits of key members]
Meanwhile, dark clouds were gathering. The ultra-nationalist Tamil wing led by S. J. V. Chelvanayakam (SJV) was not happy. They grumbled about GGP’s approach, and proposed that instead of 50-50, the Tamils must pursue the “Two-Nation” concept, where the Tamils are equal to, and distinct from the Sinhalese. SJV said that Tamils should pursue their separate destiny. The opportunity to break from GGP arose with the Indian Citizenship Act. Most Ceylonese leaders and the Colonial government had become worried that the Indian Tamil workers and the Estate sector would fall into the hands of the Marxists who had began militant agitations. The new citizenship act required that only persons with seven years of residency could become citizens and vote in elections, thus eliminating transients. GGP and most other Tamils voted for it. But SJV declared that GGP was a “traitor” to the Tamil cause and used the moment to create the Tamil Arasu Kachchi. SJV contended that the Citizenship Act violated minority rights, and challenged it, and the government, in the courts, and in the Privy Council in London. The unequivocal judgments were that there has been no discrimination before or after the Act, and that the citizenship requirements were as reasonable as in the most liberal European states at the time.
Nevertheless, the Arasu Kachchi kept on agitating, determined to drive a wedge between the two communities, i.e., even among the anglicized Colombo citizens. I have attended meetings in Jaffna where the Arasu Kachchi talked of a separate Tamil nation, while in Colombo they sounded moderate and talked of federalism. A golden opportunity for the Arasu Kachchi arrived with the election of SWRD as PM. SWRD was a politician who recognized the rights of minorities, and an accommodation could have been easily reached with him. But the Arasu Kachchi’s public position in Jaffna was well known to the Sinhala nationalists who had deep distrust of SJV, E.M.V. Naganathan and others. If there is no trust, there can be no political Pact.
It is easy to blame the “Buddhist monks” for the failure of the Banda- Chelva Pact. But what did this Banda-Chelva Pact ask for? It asked for Tamil administrative regions in the North and East. At that time, just as today, the East involved Muslims and Sinhalese and Tamils. The Muslims opposed the Banda-Chelva Pact. The Sinhalese in the East opposed the B-C pact. The Arasu Kachchi had done NOTHING to build bridges between the two communities and win their confidence. Instead, they used every opportunity to confront the Singhalese. Ponnambalam and the TC also opposed the B-C Pact.
The B-C pact was NOT based on discrimination. It was based on the “Homeland Concept”. It asked for the same 2/3 coastal area and land area as a “homeland” for the Tamils (12% of the population) that the LTTE today is asking for. If the Arasu Kachchi had only asked for the Northern province and if its leaders had reassured the Sinhalese and Muslims, the B-C Pact would have had some chance of survival.
If the proposed B-C pact had actually got enacted, the Sinhala nationalists would have demanded the Tamils living in Weallawatai and Kottachenai to leave. The 1983 Black July would have happened decades earlier.
I have began from the Donoughmore Era and reviewed the history to indicate to young people that the story is not black and white, with the Sinhalese doing all the bad things and “creating the ethnic divide”, while the Tamils meekly performed “satyagraha” to win their rights both sides have been at fault.
The Tamils in the Vanni and other areas are not like their caste conscious counterparts in, whose only desire has been to retain their political power, and rule the North as absent landlords. The Vanni Tamils (”Malabars” in the language of the 1815 Kandyan Treaty, and also in Cleghorn’s report to the Colonial office), like the Singhalese, have a lot in common as our religion, social organization and language are very similar to that of the Sinhalese people. Although GGP and SJV attempted to emphasize differences, these are the same stock of people with mere superficial differences.
The LTTE is a creation of the elitist Colombo Tamils who decided to use the lower caste “boys” in far-flung areas to promote their misguided political struggle making our children mere cannon fodder. Meanwhile, their children, kith and kin have gone abroad and continue to finance a psychopath who has eliminated out teachers, our kurukals, writers, journalists, political leaders and thinkers, so as to create a subservient society toeing his line with no questions asked, in the name of Eelam.
So, what is there to be negotiated?
As Anton Balasingham once stated, “Only the borders remain to be negotiated”. It should not be forgotten that the Arasu Kachchi, while talking of Gandhian methods, secretly supported the creation of young militant groups. SJV personally met and worked with Sivakumaran, who was the first to commit suicide by swallowing cyanide.
I am sorry to say that the Tamil leaders of the 1930s, and then the ultra-nationalist activism of the SJV platform have been largely responsible for the plight of the Tamils today. Blaming the Sinhalese for all our ills won’t do. We need to soften our acrimonious uncompromising stand.
[This article is a slightly modified version of an article that appeared in "The Island".]
Lankan said,
February 29, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
The most recent round of riots in 1977 started after the ‘77 general election campaign of TULF lead by Amirthalingam and the crowd who swore to kill Sinhalese, make slippers from their skin. I remember very well how a Sinhalese lived in Jaffna at that time described these speeches. The militant groups of the party just started that after the election win of TULF. TULF leadership paid dearly for this by getting killed by the very own militants they nurtured. The innocent Tamils and Sinhalese are now paying for these treacherous acts of power hungry politicians.
KTR said,
March 1, 2008 @ 12:24 am
Dear Mr.Rasalingam, Your writings were born out of frustration than facts.
Your complete writings are based on fallacy and here are the points in contention.
1) The Sinhala Chauvinism was born in the turn of the century and not by mid 30s. Please answer the reason for the Anti-Muslim riots in 1914s by the Orchestrated by the Buddhist clergy
2) In your initial presentation you have mentioned “The riot was sparked by the inflammatory racist speech of GGP in Navalapitiya, attacking the Sinhala Buddhists and the Mahavamsa”. Isn’t it part and parcel of democracy that has freedom of speech to express their opinion in a non violent way? Are you meant to say that Rioting with the use of force is acceptable because of he said some thing that was not acceptable? If so then where is democracy as claimed by the Sinhala nation. If the speech is defamatory, take him to the Courts and sue him. Isn’t it the way forward?
3) What was the motive behind disenfranchise the Plantation Tamils, did they ask 50/50 or separate land?
Please don’t try to paint a picture that all are well if not for SJV and GGP, because we are all in hell because of the Pseudo Buddhism that is being practiced in the Island of Injustice.
Sri said,
March 1, 2008 @ 12:38 am
Mr.S. Rasalingam has made several inaccurate statements in his article.
One is about the 50-50 demand of Mr G. G. Ponnampalam. It was not 50%Sinhalese and 50% Tamils. It was actually 50% Sinhalese and the other 50% consists of all minorities not only Tamils. The idea was to safeguard the interests of the minorities from any discriminatory legislation within a unitary set up. During this period the population statistics reveals that only about 65-70% were Sinhalese. The minorities consists of Tamils of Indian as well as Ceylanese origin,Muslims and Burgers. The burgers were quite in large numbers at that time..
Secondly it is only a demand subject to negotiation. Now let us consider B.C Pact of 1957.The writer fails to provide a historical background to this pact. Everybody knows that Mr S.W.R.D.Bandaranaike was very interested in local Government reforms to address the problems confronting the common people. He, in fact, could be called the father of local Government movement in Sri Lanka. The election manifesto of MEP put forward before the 1956 elections refers to establishment of Provincial Councils throughout the country and the replacement of colonial Kachcheri system It was not brought about for any resolution of ethnic conflict, but as a move to democratize the local government system .The throne speech of 1956 and 1957 of MEP Government also refers to these Provincial Councils.
The B.C Pact was an attempt to accommodate the Tamil concerns into the concept of Provincial Councils as advocated by Mr Bandaranaike. Actually the Provincial Councils and even the BC Pact were the brain child of that great liberal democrat Mr Bandaranaike
Further BC Pact talks about two or more Provincial Councils being established within the Eastern Province, a comedown even from Mr Bandaranaike’s ideas regional councils in the East.so where is this homeland nonsense or 2/3territory .Only compromise is for two or more councils to democratically joining. to form a single council.
I need some clarification whether the nomenclature used for these councils were Provincial Councils or Regional Councils.
Mr Rasalingam you seems to be very passionate, knowledgeable and have the answers to all the problems, but be at least true to yourself.
The history should not be twisted to suit your arguments
ilaya seran senguttuvan said,
March 1, 2008 @ 12:54 am
The credentials of Sebastian Rasalingam has been questioned earlier – presuming the Writer and he are the same. Though carrying a Tamil name his inclination against the Tamils has been all too transparent – increasing the speculation he can be a non-Tamil writing under a Tamil name. While there is much in the argument some Tamil leaders from pre and post-1956 periods made mistakes that hurt the Tamil people, there is much room to think in the above piece, the Writer is either deliberately misquoting history or is doing so by error. The wily DS, in the view of many, is the father of Colonisation of the Batticoloa/Trincomalee Districts. He used his political power and position to settle Sinhalese from as far as Kelaniya and other areas in these 2 Districts using State resources. His ultimate aim of totally changing the demographic reality of both Districts remains realised in the past few decades. He certainly is a Champion of the Sinhala people. If his objective was to create a “Ceylonese Nation” as the Writer suggests this was not the way to go about it. Pon Ramanathan advocating “Communal Representation” was only responding to the pressures of the day when even the reality of “Educated Ceylonese” – laughable in today’st context – was tried out and has nothing to do with the fear of the Tamil leadership then of losing “the dominant position of Tamils” – an expression the Writer uses
freely once more creating doubts about his ethnicity.
His prejudice and/or ignorance is exposed when he speaks of GGP and the 50/50 theory. Like most Sinhalese then – including some of the more initiated – he was accused of asking for half of the seats in Parliament exclusively for the Tamils while they remained less than 20% of the population. Even today half-wit JVPers continue to sing this parrot-like. In my view, GGP was rising to the pressures of the day and his calling for 50pct of seats was not for Tamils alone. The Sinhala Christians, the Muslims, the Burghers were all entertaining serious fears of being totally submerged by the imminent Buddhist Sinhala wave unleashed by Anagarika Dharmapala under the veil of
restoring Buddhism and A. E.Gunasinha under the anti-Malayalee and anti-Tamil campaign of the 1930s/early 40s.
So, Sir, be assured GGP was not conspiring to retain the “privileges” of the Tamils of then (a word and claim JHU’s Gammanpila/Ranawake and SL Gunasekera falsely feed the Buddhist Sinhalese with) GGP was attempting by this suggestion to allay the fears of Tamils and the other communities mentioned above do not gradually lose their livelihoods. Surely, you know all too well those wonderful Burgher friends of ours – who did so much to the good of this country disproportionate to their small numbers – left for Australia and England as they feared for their future.
They had some place to go. The Tamils in this country had no place else to go since they lost their ancient Kingdom with the arrival of the Portugese. The 30 year struggle is to regain this and, I believe, the international community will soon do something about this – in the absence of any due action from GoSL. Therefore, good Sir, please don’t do further damage to innocent Tamils by raking this falsehood. Reading thru your article one gets the idea there was something like a regular GGP Vs SWRD battle going on at that time. That never was and I am afraid you have exaggerated this far too much. Your suggestion SJV encouraged the 2-nation theory is not only wrong but mischievous as well. He came to such a conclusion after 1976 when he found the Sinhala nation and polity was in no way going to share due power with the Tamils in their historic habitats. SJV, in fact, in previous years helped to defeat Tamil politicians (Navaratnam and others) who called for a Separate State in the 1960/early 70s. The other serious mistake is in withdrawing franchise rights of the million Indian Tamils – a right they enjoyed previously – to use your own words “Most Ceylonese leaders were worried Indian Tamil workers and estate sector will fall into the hands of the Marxists” Another serious miscalcuated hypothesis by DS that cost the country dearly – until the late Thondaman came and set right the wrong and without resorting to violence. Your comments
“the LTTE is the creation of Tamil elitists” is so shallow it requires no sensible response. Creating further doubts you are a Tamil, you mockingly refer several times to “the Arasu Katchi” – a pet theory of the Buddhist Sinhala chauvinists and the extremist fringe to suggest the Tamils are dreaming of a “Tamil Kingdom” and have a different name in Tamil and another in English for their Party – as SLG often charges. Sir, the term “arasu” refers to Govt e.g. Ilankai arasu. I shall say no more in the matter because the Sinhalese nitwits I referred above are those – to use a Sinhala saying – “who cannot be woken up because they are pretending to sleep. You can only wake up a sleeping person not one who is pretending to sleep.”
In my thinking the Tamils of this country, despite all their terrible suffering, humiliation etc are still ready to examine any reasonable and just space to live in an undivided country. The terms have been spelled out for so long and known by the whole world. It is up to the Sinhala leadership to make the moves. I am no LTTEer and, in fact, have been critical of them in many a fora but let me conclude with the words of the late Anton Balasingham “It is upto the Sinhalese leadership to decide if they want a united or divided country”
Dayan said,
March 1, 2008 @ 4:44 am
It is an interesting and almost true acount of the events since 1930. At present, both Tamils and Sinhalas are killing each other with impunity. We do not trust each other at every level.
We need a true mediator such as UN forces to stop the fightings and killings for a long time to cure the wounds. GOSL and the Sinhala leaders should learn the lessons from Mr Tony Blair to stop the problem in Northen ireland. Sri Lanka need a stateman and a powerful leadership.
May be it is too late.
Mahen said,
March 1, 2008 @ 9:15 am
Well balanced and very clarifying article on the duplicitious roles played by our past leaders to reveal the real history to educate and open the eyes of the blindly believing and very emotional youths of the present !
But I doubut that GGP is a Catholic?
truthful-tamil said,
March 1, 2008 @ 9:55 am
Mr Rasalingam, you speak the truth. I havent seen this article in the Island before and am only reading it now. As a Tamil I am ashamed at our double speak, untruths and many times, hate which we have been spreading mainly through our leaders. Most of us know this but conveniently hide what we know. The answer to all the problems I feel, is for us to stop being subservient to our ex colonial masters and to start accepting the majority of our Sinhalese brothers and sisters as equals. They are in undergoing the same trials and tribulations as us in trying to live normal day to day lives in a very very harsh environment in Sri Lanka.
Mano Rajah said,
March 1, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Sinhalese couldn’t tolerate ‘Tamils’ READ ‘not Ceylonese’ holding dominant position. By stating ‘GGP developed his fifty-fifty solution as a means of safeguarding the dominant position of the Tamils’ this aging Tamil writer admits that Sinhalese started the communal politics. Ceylonese concept doesn’t mean ‘take what we, Sinhalese give you Tamils’, giving primacy to Sinhalese or Buddhist majority and its culture or ethnically-based majoritarianism. It should only be based on all are equals, this country belongs to both Sinhalese and Tamils and no religion is above others. No Sinhalese leaders have ever said this.
We know who started irrigation schemes to systematically grab Tamils’ land.
The Sinhalese and Muslims in the East might have opposed Banda-Chelva Pact; however, the pact was torn down to satisfy Sinhalese Monks. Enacting the pact or the liberation of Tamil Eelam don’t mean relocation of communities. IF Serbians can live in new independent Kosovo why Sinhalese can’t live in Tamil Eelam and vise versa.
ratna said,
March 1, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
So, in a nutshell, writer is saying don’t blame the Tigers, blame the creators like …..TULF – Anandasangaree?.
Taraki-Kumar said,
March 1, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
Only a Sinhalese or an ignorant Tamil who wanted assimilation with the Sinhalese and to flatter them would claim GGP was a Catholic. Nor would an educated Tamil write ‘Kachchi’ instead of ‘Kadchi’ or ‘Katchi.’
And to call SJV ultra-nationalist is ignorance of the highest order. “Adangaath Thamilan” Professor Suntharalingam, who was an advisor to DS, or “Puliyankoodal” (Kayts) Navaratnam might have been ultra-nationalists, but SJV?
Of course I have met quite a few Tamils professional who were born in Colombo or who lived there from childhood, who say that because Tamils are a minority they need to meekly accept their second class status and not protest at any discrimination. Such people felt that any agitation by the North-East Tamils for their just rights would rock their relatively comfortable existence in the South. In every instance, they were ignorant of what the Tamils in the North-East had to undergo, what the Tamil leaders had been agitating for, etc.
So, if Mr. Rasalingam is indeed a Tamil, he can speak for himself. Once a Tamil homeland is established, which is inevitable with or without the LTTE, the likes of him can complete their assimilation by continuing their flattery of the Sinhalese (He can call Jeyaraj Fernandopulle to get some tips) and live in the South, leaving Tamils in the North-East to take care of their own affairs.
I have always said that those Sinhalese who have historically lived in the East and the Eastern Muslims will need to have their interests protected when a Tamil homeland is created. The ITAK especially had plenty of support among the Eastern Muslims at least until the early eighties, so to say that SJV’s proposals were opposed by the Eastern Muslims is not entirely correct.. Names like Dr. Ilyas in Puthalam, the late Mr.Ashraff in Kalmunai, one Mr. Mahroof come to mind. Even Masoor Moulana (the brother of Alavi Moulana and uncle of Alisahir Moulana) of the UNP was initially part of the ITAK, I believe.
But it is one thing to take care of the interests of those Sinhalese who have in the normal course of life lived in the East, and quite another to consider those who were settled there after chasing away Tamils from their lands to complete the ‘Sinhalization’ project starting in the early 1950’s. The issue of what to do with such settlers will remain a thorny one, as is the illegal Jewish settlements in Palestinian land. The demand that such settlements need to be dismantled and Tamil refugees/ IDPs resettled in their original homes is just and deserves to be made consistently.
Any Tamil claiming to be a leader who ignores the demand of the IDPs to resettle in their lands will justly face their wrath.
selvan said,
March 1, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
It is obvious the writer is a Jaffna Tamil who conveniently forgets the colonization schemes of DS in the East. It did not affect the Jaffna man then why even worry about it. An inconvenient truth revealed by Rajalingam ?
Dias said,
March 1, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
The Sinhalese, Tamils, and Muslims – can continue to debate as to who committed the first wrong for yet another 100 years while the rest of the world forge forward with new innovations and hope for their children. The author’s entire point could have been encapsulated to the simple saying, “it takes two to tango” – a phrase commonly used by shrinks in relationships counseling. So, now that we know this fact for certain (that all our forefathers, Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslims had made mistakes) why don’t we just say “sorry” to one-another, forgive our fore-fathers, forgive one-another, forgive ourselves, and put our collective minds together to harness solutions? Until time we do so and put this ugly past behind us, it is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to get together to construct productive solutions. Or is such a proposition too simplistically American for the considerably more intellectual Sinhalese and Tamils of the Sri Lankan nation?
Incidentally, the key to discovering solutions may be for Sinhalese to view the challenge exclusively from the minorities (Tamils and Muslims) vantage point and for Tamils to view from the Sinhalese and Muslim perspectives and the same for Muslims – to perceive it from a Sinhalese and Tamil point of view. The biggest impediments to this exercise are the negative garbage dished out by extremists on both sides – the ultra nationalists Sinhalese-Buddhists on one extreme and the ultra separatists on the other. I concurr with #5 Dayan what is badly needed is a statesman who has the spine to stand-up what is “right” by all the communities of the nation.
Ram the 2nd said,
March 1, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
The truth no matter when and where it is coming from, is absolute.
Also the comments are a good indication how deep rooted the lies that are being spread inorder to get the support to divide the two races.
Many are in a deep dream. Sooner they wake up the better for everyone.
ilaya seran senguttuvan said,
March 2, 2008 @ 11:10 am
Truthful Tamil #7 …. I am afraid your desire to be truthful is not matched by your appreciation of the history of the country. Yours
is one of the most bizarre arguments I have seen in this debate.
Friend, this is what you say the Tamils should “start accepting the majority of our Sinhala brothers and sisters as equals”In which planet in the galaxy have you been all these years (since the 1950s that is)?
The whole struggle of the Tamils up to now has been that the Sinhalese are not accepting us as their equals. I am sorry there are among us Tamils who do not know this basic fact. That celebrated Irish wit-writer remembered people like you along the following lines “Those who cannot learn have now taken to teaching” These interesting and educative columns should be good enough for you to learn and understanding why the Tamils in this country have been suffering and struggling for so long.
2ndClassTamil said,
March 2, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
‘PulithThOL POrththa Pasu’. We have a few masquerades frequenting these columns. Some, trying to twist and rewrite history. They are entitled to their opinion. But one person’s view, or the views of a few bootlickers – you know who ‘cannot obliterate history of the recent past that is impressed in the psyche of a people, distilled from their experience. So, good luck to the spinners and twisters of history.
I was reading this article to find out what this aged author was prescribing for the ailment. At last it was there in the last sentence. ‘We need to soften our acrimonious uncompromising stand’. Rather than concentrate 99% of his thesis on his version of history, he could have elaborated on how to ’soften’ our stand which would have been useful to our younger generation who are carrying the can.
He wisely says in the previous statement ‘Blaming the Sinhalese for all our ills won’t do’. Sure, I agree. Somehow, I can’t help names like Karuna, Sangaree, Devananda, Pillaiyan and a few others coming to my mind. Or was the author referring to himself?
Tulius said,
March 2, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
Inherent act of racism in modern Sri Lanka was the disenfranchisement of Tamils after the independence. What else followed was in response to this single incident. Sri Lanka failed in nation building since then.
Peter said,
March 3, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
It was then that S.W.R.D.Bnadaranayake(SWRD) saw an opportunity,and established branches of SINHALA MAHA SABHA. Now Mr.Rasalimgam even in line with your view the Sinhala leaders were not UPASAKAMAHATHAYAS but leaders waiting for an opportunity to create a Sinhala Budhist hegemony. If it was the attitude of the then Sinhala leaders to create a ‘Ceylonese’ identity SWRD should have created ‘Ceylonese Maha Sabha not SINHALA SABHA.
In your opinion the B/C pact was not implemented because the Sinhalese and the Muslims of the East objected to that not because J.R.with the Budhist monks by way of foot march to Kandy and acts like saboteged the implementation.What was the percentage of the sinhalese as against the tamils in the Eastern Province before the Colonisation of Ampara and Kantalai. If you are not sure I suggest that you go through the census statistics of that era.You agree that B/C was asking for Tamil Administrative regions in the North and East. Do you not agree that had the B/C pact been implemented the Tamils would not have been pushed to a position where they are forced to believe no otherway except go the seperate way. I also can conveniently say that I am an aging tamil .
I have seen the effects and disastrous results of the so called riots(genocide ) of the 1958,1971,1977, 1981 and 1983 first hand.I am one of the few who believed in the Ceylonese identity ,studied the Sinahala lanquage( though I did my education in the English medium like you I suppose) and got through the Sinhala language Proficiency GR.IV.( if you are in doubt I can provide with the proof) as way back as 1967 and even worked in that medium.It did not take much longer to realise what a folly it was. Inspite all these efforts the promotion I deserved was refused to me.
The reason I was a tamil.I left the job and the country. There are 1000’s of cases like me. So Mr.Rasalingam tell me ,is it my fault? You are conveniently forgetting another part of the history. I am refering to the standardisation in the eductional system. Are you aware of that and the purpose of that system.Is it also the fault of the tamils? I do not deny that there are lots of good hearted ,decent and just Sinhalese in Srilanka but unfortunately when they speak for the truth they are branded a terrorist or LTTE. So they are simply bulldozed down and their opinion does not count . I can give you a very good recent example. Are you aware that a Budhist monk in Batticaloa started a fast unto death protest today( 3.3.2008). Do you know why? He was only trying to be just and a honest Budhist. He is branded as LTTE by no other than the JHU. I have observed so many individuals writting comments under tamil pseudo names like Karuppiah etc. comments attacking the tamils. But I can understand that if those comments are written in Sinahla names nobody will belileve it as the case of the ministers of the GOSL,so much so for the integrity of the GOSL and the present day Sinhala leaders.
ilaya seran senguttuvan said,
March 13, 2008 @ 5:42 am
Re. Mr. S. Rasalingam’s (13) gracious comments.
Coming from an Indo-Lankan lineage, in the 50’s – as a school boy – I remember several known people shuttled between Ceylon and India via the Fort Railway Station at very short notice – sans any mandatory papers. The trek by foot, I believe, was prior to the arrival of the railway here (1905?)…. In talking of historians, I do not suggest we go by history written by your men of your own race only – that will narrow your source of knowledge to a very narrow field indeed. Sinhala historians Sir Paul Peiris, Dr. S. Paranavithana, Dr. Colvin R. de Silva did not seek to distort history and remain neutral historians who command respect. Look at what Indrapala/n has done to himself in his latest about- turn. Your analogy of evidence-Court procedure is interesting – and, in most instances, true. But, Sir, in a court of law the presiding judges are not willing to allow time eternal to debunk the other side. Whereas, in a historical work, there is unlimited time to engage discrepencies…… Re. Nalin de Silva – see his comments last week in Island’s Midweek Review. The man has done a somersault about his claim of the time of arrival of Tamils to Jaffna, Lankan royalty etc. Nalin’s claim – which you strangely seem to agree with – that Tamils came to Jaffna only 400 years ago – is preposterous. Nalin is now changing gears on this….. My comments about the presence of Tamils here over 3,000 years ago is supported by not only Sir Paul Peiris – but by the very presence of the holy Tiruketheeswaram, Koneswaram and, across the sea, Rameshwaram temples that have stood perhaps longer. Your man Roberts contests this elsewhere in his rush to become a Sinhala champion. Re. Lankan Citizenship, the 7 year period, I think, was subject to applicant not having remitted any money in recent times to relatives in India, Sir, (Mr. Thondaman) senior himself, my close and good friend, told me that Lankan officials sabotaged the easy acquisition of Lankan citizenship by various bureaucratic obstacles…. As I mentioned earlier, SJV originally was opposed to the Separate State idea but fell in line in the face of Sinhala obstinacy to consider Reasonable Tamil demands…. Please forgive me for some strong words I used in my previous rejoinders to your comments. Let me conclude by saying, in spite of all the deep wounds in the Tamil pysche – like you and DBSJ, I want to still see a united, peaceful and prosperous Sri Lanka of tomorrow where any one wishing to live any where in the island should be enabled by the State to do so unambiguously. I think this is still possible and there is space in the hearts of millions of decent Sinhala folks TODAY to realise this – notwithstanding the JVP, JHU, Nalin de Silva, Champika Ranawaka, Udaya Gammanpila, Dinesh Gunawardena and those Buddhist priests of the Sinhala chauvinistic fringe…. …… I extend to you my good wishes for many more years of pleasant retirement…I hope to continue to read your useful and well structured comments.