Why is it that our people fall for propaganda? Are they not intelligent enough to see the lies in propaganda? What is the difference between an Australian voter and a Sri Lankan voter where propaganda is concerned ?

“The mindset of the average citizen in Colombo, suburbs or in villages is not chauvinist.
If the above is the case where would you place the “Colombo lady(of foreign origin but who has lived in this country for a very long time) and is known to me who said ” the Tamils should go and live in India because that is where they belong.”

Thank You for your replies to some of the comments I had made. I shall get hold of the Marga series that you have refered to when I have the time.

Recently a Colombo lady(of foreign origin but who has lived in this country for a very long time) and is known to me said ” the Tamils should go and live in India because that is where they belong.”
Where would you place that type of comment? Why is it that people say such things when the need is for reconciliation and unity?

I am a Sinhalese christian but this type of comment is unacceptable. If you ask me it smacks of racism.
I have lived in the UK in the past and I can tell you that such racial remarks will not be easily tolerated over there.

I am not trying to “patronise the Tamils” in any way as you claim nor am I trying to set moral standards.
However, the point I am trying to make is that the Sinhala community as the majority community has a responsibility to see that the minorities are looked after. I believe that in the past the minorities got a bad deal. In no way am I trying to put the minorities down or sound patronising by saying so. The south has to get its act together. This also applies to the North now that the war is over.

Having read some of Michael’s articles recently, like the one justifying internment of tamils – I beg to differ.

Now, you call the Kandyans delusional. I call them rational. They recognized that there are three fundamentally distinct regions in the country, and that governing each particular region in accordance with the customs unique to that region would avoid a lot of future conflict. The only model that would fit such criteria is federalism. Secondly, it is incorrect to say that SWRD mentioned federalism simply to get support from the Kandyans – the Kandyans were also supporting the demand of the Tamils to get federalism, for over 2 decades.

Ignoring the Tamil demands was not an option. Tamils were bound to lose many of the gains they had made during the colonial administration, once the Sinhalese came to power in ’48. The goal should have been to ease this process of adjusting to a lower status. Instead, the colonization, language acts, riots, standardization, etc. was a sign that the majority was ready to flaunt their superiority. It is the same situation we are facing today.

Thank you for the cut-and-paste.

“The ethnic issue as we know it did not exist in the 1920′s.”

If the ethnic issue did not exist in the 1920s, then why did you bring up what SWRD said in that decade???

SWRD brought up federalism to get more support from the up-country Kandyans, who back then had delusions about being superior and separate from everyone else. The issue was resolved after everyone ignored the Kandyans and their demand for federalism fizzled out.

One could argue that the best solution to address the Tamil separatists’ demands would be to ignore them, instead of getting emotional and overreacting with violence. How do you feel about that?

I never claimed he was a racist in the 1920′s. The ethnic issue as we know it did not exist in the 1920′s (save perhaps for the venom of Dharmapala and the occasional riot, e.g. 1915). Anyway, the following remarks are worth reading:

“The seed of Federalism was planted in the North and East as far back as 1926.

None other than the Oxford-educated SWRD Bandaranaike was once invited by the Tamil Youth Congress to address them.

The subject he chose on that occasion was, “Federalism as the only solution to the political problems”. This was, in fact, his response to the British Government when it handed its reins over to the Sri Lankan politicians with these words: “Divide and Rule”.

One reason for the Tamils not opting for “Federalism” at that time was because the Colombo based elite made up of educated policy makers and other large number of Tamils enjoying prestigious professions like Government jobs and other commerce in the Sinhala areas, perceived the community being “all island” rather than regional!

Furthermore, for these people Federalism meant a break with the rest of the country: for it implied the Tamil businessmen, the doctors, lawyers, politicians and government employees to cut themselves off from their comfortable places and positions.

And so, the idea of power sharing at the centre through holding portfolios seemed more lucrative than sharing power at the periphery through “Federalism”.

And what is more the Tamil elite also had the opportunity of sending their own kith and kin to prestigious Colleges and Convents at the centre-a stepping stone for their children’s higher education abroad.

But whereas the other lower classes which constituted the 70% of the Tamil population at the periphery were saddled with other inhuman realities such as caste system, dowry system etc, which prevented equal opportunities in education and social uplifting until one morning they woke up to hear the alarm bell, “Sinhala in 24 hours”.

One will readily understand the astuteness of SWRD for he knew that the only way out to help to unify the country was to free himself from the UNP fetters to find his own party to steer his way through to become the Prime Minister.”

http://federalidea.com/focus/page/41

So in other words, you actually have no evidence that SWRD Bandaranaike was not a racist (or was pro-Tamil) in the 1920s.

Rhetoric cannot be the reason why no political solution to the Tamil issue has been found in 60 years. It is clearly an institutional failure. The various institutions, be they civil or administrative, have evolved very little since the British left. In fact, many of them have actually experienced a state of digression. This is particularly exemplified by the involvement of the Sangha and nationalist political parties (JHU/JVP etc.) in the formulation of legislative policy. Whereas in the West such “fringe” parties are not considered part of mainstream politics, that is hardly the case in SL. The situation is so bad in SL that whichever party hopes to come to power must form an uneasy “coalition” with such extremist elements. Thus, the Mahinda Rajapakse administration could not have seized the reigns without the tacit support of the JVP (equivalent to the BNP or Ku Klux Klan). Is it any wonder then that the same ruling party does not push for legislation that might sufficiently address minority concerns? Such attempts would impinge upon the secret agreements made during election time. Furthermore, extremist parties are not prone to change their agenda… they would ensure a majority consensus for such legislation would never see the light of day. As simplistic as this analysis seems, it is the crux of the problem at hand. There is very little that can be termed “progressive” or “liberal” in the Sri Lankan political scene, be it a lack of checks-and-balances in the Constitution, or mainstream political parties that do not subscribe to a nationalist agenda. In the words of Mahinda Rajapakse, the “home-grown” solution is the preferred choice.

You are not telling me anything that I do not know. Please read my articles in Collective Identities edited by me (Marga 1979) and EXPLORING CONFRONTATION (Reading, Harwood 1994).

The fundamental difference in analytical perspective is that you treat “rhetoric” as unimportant. a totally materialist perspective. In my view it is the stirrers behind any set of “riots’ or a pogrom that are as critical as the assailants. See my analysis of the 1915 pogrom in Exploring Confrontation –now reprinted in CONFRONTATIONS (Colombo, Yapa, 2009)

SO we need to know more details about the RHETORIC of the Tamil leaders in the 1930s to 1960s. And on the subject of the POWER OF LANGUAGE, look at WHY TUPPAHI in http://www.tuppahiwordpress.com. As a footnote let me stress that if some Tamils try to utilise my material on Sinhla prejudices to damn the Sinhalese, my conjecture –repeat conjecture – is that the same caste prejudices against mixture were even stronger among Tamils in the 19th and 20ht centuries and that the Burghers and Kaberi in Lanka were also looked donwn upon by Tamils [obviously not by all] because of their racial mixture

PS, minor issue: While Buddhist monks were a in the vanguard of the forces that scuttled the B-C Pact the assassination was due to the machinations of Buddharakhitha whose financial schemes were being blocked by Banda.

“Tamils had no qualms with the 1947-1948 Soulbury Constitution because of Section 29. It confirmed the earlier undertaking given by the first Prime Minister D. S. Senanayake that all citizens will have equal rights and no one will be victimized because of his/her ethnic or religious background. Section 29(1) stated: ‘Subject to the provisions of this Order, Parliament shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good governance of the Island’. Subsections (2), and (3) of Section 29 contained the following inhibiting provisons:

29(2): No such law shall – (a) prohibit or restrict the free exercise of any religions; or (b) make persons of any community or religion liable to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of 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.

29(3): Any law made in contravention of subsection (2) of this section, shall to the extent of such contravention, be void.

Before the adoption of Sinhala as the sole official language of the bilingual nation, the schools in Jaffna on their own initiative mobilised the services of Buddhist priests to teach the Sinhala language to Tamil students. They abandoned this arrangement soon after the Sinhala only Act was enacted in 1956. Ethnic Tamils as others in democratic multi-ethnic societies wanted to hold on to their ethnic identity while embracing the collective Ceylonese identity. Tamil nationalism was then not a threat to unity and peace. Attachment to one’s ethnic or religious group does not mean disloyalty to the country of residence. It is not the Tamil people who sowed the seeds of separation. This is not an opinion but the whole truth.”

http://transcurrents.com/tc/2009/09/post_421.html

You forgot to mention that nobody in Jaffna in those years supported federalism.

“Less is known about Tamil extremism because little research had been done in this field for the 1940s to 1970s.”

That is because Tamil extremism was all rhetoric and did not blossom into violence until the 1980′s. Whereas, the Sinhala-Buddhists were rioting against the Muslims as early as 1915. As Niranjan has correctly pointed out here, the basic problems lies with the South. It is they who are opposed to power-sharing with the minorities in even the slightest form. The tragic saga of S.W.R.D Bandaranaike is a case in point. This man was not a racist initially. There was a time when he gave a speech in Jaffna detailing the positive aspects of federalism (circa 1920′s). However, to have any lasting appeal to the largely impoverished Southern masses, it was necessary for him to convert to Buddhism, and openly vouch for racist legislation, such as the Sinhala-Only Act of 1956. Yet, being an intellectual, he continued to negotiate with the minorities (e.g. Banda-Chelva Pact). However, such negotiation was looked unfavorably by the extremists in the South. No less than a Buddhist MONK chose to assassinate SWRD at point blank range. Since that time, the monks have risen in stature… they have the ability to influence any piece of political legislation put on the table. They have their own political party and sit in the Parliament. Together with the JVP, which opposes any Western economic model, they ensure that the bulwark of the Sinhala-Buddhist theocracy remains intact. There is a nice line in the Sri Lankan Constitution of 1972 that sums it up: ” The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place…it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster Buddhism.” By the way, Sinhala-Buddhist fundamentalism began well before Independence; it was given a tremendous boost by the “Buddhist Revival.” Its founder, Anagarika Dharmapala, was a self-confessed Aryan supremacist who also believed that Sinhalese are “sons of the soil,” and Tamils/Burghers/Muslims are all but foreign invaders.

What do you think of the failure of the majority community (Sinhalese) to even consider the possibility of federalism as a plausible solution to the Tamil issue? We can scrutinize history all day long, however, at the end of the day, a solution must still be found. Of course, if a particular solution is not even being considered, then we may presume it will never be found… but the reasons for such an omission may well shed light on more sinister aspects of the State and its objectives.

“When I was employed in the Foreign Ministry during the UNF Governments ceasefire period my boss used to tell me that the “lunatic fringe” was getting active. In 2005 they rode to power on the back of the SLFP.”

Your boss needs to learn a little more. The “lunatic fringe” (I presume you’re referring to the JVP and JHU) increased its popularity in Sri Lanka after the electorate perceived that both the UNP and SLFP (under Chandrika) were selling the country to the LTTE.

With the LTTE gone, the appeal of the Sinhala “lunatic fringe” will disappear. Just watch the results of next year’s parliamentary election.

As my last remark in “Niranjan 2” indicates, I agree with your point that it took two to tango. Arasaratnam put it pithily [I think this was either in his article in the book edited by Philip mason in 1967 viz india and Ceylon Unity in Diversity or in that edited by me Collective Identities by Marga 1979].

Less is known about Tamil extremism because little research had been done in this field for the 1940s to 1970s. But note the the firebrand rhetoric of V. Navaratnam in the 1960s and the federal Party offshoot known as Pulip Padai (Army of Tigers) in the early 1960s. One of those involved in the latter was the clerk Rajaratnam who had some ideological influence on young Prabhakaran and whose daughter was DHANU.

That said, the main responsibility for the widening of the chasm should be cast on the majority community and its leaders with due recognition of the structural factors that also assisted this process.

PS: re my para 2, I would welcome additional snippets of information

SO, I am pointing to a different reading based on personal experiences. Thus, I am raising the perennial, knotty issue of the methodology and basis for generalisation. The ISSUE IS: how deep and how widespread is Sinhala chauviism

The rhetoric and forces that brought the Rajapakses to power in 2005 would seem to weigh in favour of your conclusion. Motifs from the 1956 era were powerful ingredients in their propaganda. And who can neglect the Dutugemunu imagery on display in recent times?. The problem lies in the fact that voting patterns are directed by a multitude of factors and isolating one factor is problematic.

It would seem that our electoral processes actually deepen chauvinism because they encourage populism. In other words we have a Catch 22 situation: our species of democracy encourages extremism. As Professor Arasaratnam noted long ago (1960s?) the two poles feed off each other.

Finally, I note that “In Your Face” is on the spot in questioning your emphasis on the absence of “pluralism” in Lanka. Just take in some of the key festivals at Munneswaram or Kataragama; look at the composition of the cricket teams over the last ten years; think of the Christian congregations in Colombo, Kandy … … Thus, some facets of intermixing and cross-fertilisation are firmly in place while our society also promotes Sinhala Tamil and Muslim extremisms. A paradox of our times?

I could not agree with you more re the problem posed by Sinhala chauvinism. In fact I have made “THE SINHALA MIND-SET” my opening pitch in the new website: http://thuppahi.wordpress.com. This essay only tackled one facet of the situation because I wished to highlight that facet without clouding the reading with too much.
I also suggest that you look at the three pamphlets which are part of my contribution to the Marga Monograph Series on A History of Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka: Recollection, Reinterpretation and Reconciliation, which appeared between 2001-03 and are available for next to nothing in Colombo. The point is that, among several issues, these explore the historical legends and the power thye exercise on Sinhalese thinking.
I will soon post three summaries of these articles in THUPPAHI. you may alos like to look at the relevant essays in the more recent anthology, Confrontations (Colombo: Vijitha Yapa, 2009).
Michael