No country could survive when minorities are not forced to assimilate. The Tamils’ critical mass (as you say) becomes less important when the government moves forward with its decades old recolonisation plan that tries to make the North and East more multi-ethnic. It is not possible for Tamils or anyone to retain their minority identity when having to live among the Sinhalese.

I’ve seen many Tamils in the South who are unable to read and write Tamil and change their names to Sinhalised forms. Tillekeratne Dilshan (the cricketer) was originally Malay-Muslim, but he was brought up among Sinhalese and had to grow up with a Sinhalese identity. Many young housemaids and shophands who work in Colombo are Tamils from the Hill Country who take up Sinhala names and it’s likely that their children would have a Sinhalese identity.

So it’s neither impossible nor unethical to assimilate the minorities into the mainstream community and subject everyone to the same rule of law. The only obstructions are the LTTE and relations between these communities and their respective homelands – Tamil Nadu and Saudi.

your heritage is as relevant to Australia as Arthur C Clarke’s to Sri Lanka. you just dont have enough numbers to be counted as a force in Australian politics. so even if you didnt want to integrate into the Anglo society, you would have had little choice but to do so anyway.

Other migrant communities as you say, such as muslims in Britain for example, have attained that critical mass, and have become a force in both politics and public debate. they are learning there should be space for cultural differences and practices if only to negate the radical elements and feelings which inevitably springs up in any society when that society feels threatened or marginalized.

Forcing any person or groups of people to ‘become’ something that they think they are not, is neither principled nor pragmatic.

The case for devolution for me, and ultimately for anyone is personal. why shouldn’t a person have more of a say in what goes on around him, than a person who lives far off, irrespective of whether they live in the same ‘country’ ? if certain people in this country would like to interact with their government in Tamil, Sinhala, or Malayalam and they represent a majority in a particular geographical zone, isn’t it ‘more practical’ for them to do that?

I believe Sri Lanka can become one united country, without necessarily having an exclusive language or even a culture. The only way to do that is to first recognize that Sri Lanka, within its current territorial borders is not mono-ethnic or mono-linguistic but a country which is at least dual-linguistic and multiethnic.

The simple fact is that there’s no Sinhala Nadu in India. The Sinhalese’ ancestors have come from many parts of India and Asia, and have developed a unique and exclusive nation-state in Sri Lanka. Sinhalese probably have more Tamil blood in their veins than of any other ethnic group. The truth is, the Tamils who migrated to Sri Lanka thousands of years ago are the forefathers of the modern Sinhalese. It’s more likely that the contemporary Tamils in Northern Sri Lanka are later migrants who continued to keep their Tamil identity (which is essentially foreign and native to Tamil Nadu) unlike the previous waves of Tamils who were inducted into the Sinhalese nation.

Nevertheless, my point was not about who came first or last. It’s simply that any country should have a mainstream culture, nationality and language, and where a minority group deviates from these and attempts to insulate itself from the rest of the country, it only leads to chaos. I live in Australia and I have no opposition to adopting the Australian way of life which is primarily Anglo-Gaelic in nature. I wouldn’t say I have more rights to Australia than whites because we are genetically closer to Aborigines than they are. As you said, many Western countries are having problems with some migrants because they refuse to adopt Western liberal values and culture and integrate into the mainstream society.

A nation-state could only develop with assimilation, integration and amalgamation. Federalism is not used in EU to divide and devolve, it’s used to centralise, unite and homogenise and ultimately create a European super-state. Sinhalese as an ethnic group constitute 75% of the population and the Sinhalese language is spoken by over 85%. It’s more practical for everyone to be of the same nationality and speak the same language in the long term. The peaceniks in Sri Lanka advocate a system where petty ethnic differences, divisions and enmities would be irrevocably and permanently established in the constitution.

I believe assimilation is possible because ethnic differences in Sri Lanka are mainly cultural and linguistic but not racial. It’s very difficult to tell apart a Sinhalese and a Tamil. Sinhalese culture and language have benefited immensely from Tamil inputs and many Sinhalese (including myself) have Tamil ancestors. I’ve seen countless examples of naturalised Tamils in the South whose children take on a Sinhalese identity and speak Sinhalese language.

It shouldn’t be that difficult for the government to put in a long term strategy to colonise all areas of Sri Lanka with people of different ethnicites thus getting rid of exclusive Tamil/Muslim enclaves and paving the way for eventual assimilation of all. It’s vital that influence from Tamil Nadu and Saudi Arabia is restricted to achive this.

If people from different countries, ethnicities and religions in Australia could become one nation, speak one language and have a common culture, it should be possible for Sri Lanka where there are no racial differences, the cultural differences are very superfluous and more than 85% of the people speak one language anyway.

Now getting back to our issue, unfortunately it is quite true that majority ethnic and racial groups try to subjugate or ethnically cleanse minorities and try to dominate a particular country in which they are the majority. (Now there are some minority groups imposing their will over a majority, like under apartheid in South Africa). But conflict such as these are now more frequent in the developing world due to the lack of, the rule of law, corruption, lack of liberal institutions, lack of political maturity, blatant racism, narrow mindedness, etc.

Looking at Sri Lanka’s history, going more than 2,500 years ago we need to accept some truths that are not being told in the sri lankan history books that are taught in our schools. For example: a big majority of sinhalese (not all) believe that they came first to this island and that somehow they are the owners of this land and hence try to treat the minorities as foreigners and this causes problems. The truth is this island is closest to the Tamil people of Tamil Nadu in India and closest to South India and hence whether it is 2,500 or 3,000 or more years ago due to lack of modern transportation systems human migration took place with groups of people moving to the closest place next to them and then from there to the next closest place and this is one of the ways how human migrations are likely to have happened. Some others would have come by boat but once again they would not have sailed far out to sea but kept close to the coast since the far out sea was an uncertain place and with theories such as the earth being flat people would not have boldly ventured out but would keep close to the coast or sail along the coast to a new destination. Hence it is very likely that the Tamil people in particular and the South Indians in general are likely to have first come over to this Island, which likely might have been attached to Tamil Nadu through a land bridge from Talai Mannar to Rameshwaram. The Hindustan Times sometime ago showed NASA satellite pictures of a land bridge that is now submerged in water. One could do a google search on this and findout. Anyway the important thing is whoever occupied the south indian region is likely to have come to the island of Sri Lanka first.
The sihalese contention that they were first to come is not true, firstly because there were no Sinhalese people in India to come from, secondly, Vijaya who is known as the first sinhalese king came from the present day states of Orissa and Bengal, so he must be an orissan or bengali and likely practiced hinduism. He married Kuveni but that marriage was not considered appropriate and then he married a tamil princess of the Pallava Dynasty of South India. Now this is how I believe the forming of the sinhalese people took place. People from Northeastern parts of India came and mixed with people of Southern India or Dravidians and the fusion of their languages with also the additional fusion of pali which came with the advent of buddhism to sri lanka caused a fusion which created the sinhala language. If one looks at the sinhala script it is similar to the South Indian language of Telugu spoken in Andra Pradesh state. Hence this is likely to be the beginning of the sinhalese people and that is why there is no sinhalese language in India but only in Sri Lanka because it formed through the mixing of different peoples. Take for example the Senanayakes, Bandaranayakes and all those whose names end with Nayake. This name came from the Telugu speakers of Andra Pradesh who married into the royal family in the Tamil royal family and as Tamils came to the Kandyan Kingdom and hence the last king of Kandy was a Tamil, even though the title name was sinhalese. Same goes probably for people who have names that end with Kone, example: tennekone, alahakone, wijekone. Tamils have names such as alahakone, rajakone, chinnakone, thangakone, etc.
Now if one looks at Sri Lankan history in this way we can understand that this island has always been multicultural of sorts and hence we should protect the identities of all the people, especially the minorities because they are the ones who feel afraid that they maybe wiped out and hence fight to have a separate land to perserve their heritage, identity, language, etc. So the majority should make the minorities feel wanted in the society by appreciating their culture, language, identity, etc. In the present Sri Lankan culture the minorities don’t feel that. For example SWRD Bandaranayake being born in a christian family changed to buddhism because he knew he could not win an election being a christian. Now his heritage was hindu and tamil but he was one of the many sri lankan leaders who did not have the guts to standup for the truth.

Now coming back to our political solution, the majority group of experts of the APRC have rightly diagnosed that minorities have been left out of the power structure of this country and have decided to empower them with different regional bodies that will give them some say in the power structure. Lets take the example of the United Kingdom, which has been divided into England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island with each having their own flag and own identities recognized. But in the UK the people have well developed liberal institutions, their understanding of pluralism is matured and they understand the true concept of power sharing that is why they don’t feel afraid of giving minorities some space and allowing minorities to enhance their identity through symbols such as flags and others. Yet at the end of the day they come together as the UK, although their might be some rumblings in Northern Ireland.
So it is important to give minorities power, recognize their identity and allocate resources equitably or in consideration of ground realities.

JustMal says, multiculturalism has failed and gives examples of France, UK and Australia. The problems which I think he refers to are related to Muslim immigrants who have come within the last 75 years or so. This is evident in France, UK and Australia. But this problem is not because of multiculturalism but is economic in nature with these problems coming due to lack of opportunities or perceived discrimination from the minority groups who have protested due to unemployment, dilapidated communities that probably don’t get proper funding or this maybe the perception. But also the fact that these immigrants come from developing countries where they have not been used to proper systems of law enforcement, and have been used to corruption, nepotism, favoritism, cronyism and discrimination and hence they are finding it difficult to fit into the system of their adopted developed countries where law enforcement is better, a system of meritocracy prevails to the larger extent and hence one would have to compete, attainment of skills for a developed society maybe different from the country of origin, etc. If the allocation of resources, whatever they maybe financial, human, etc is given equitably or by taking into consideration ground realities it can help to help minority groups from developing countries to fit in to the developed world system. But at the same time these minority groups can have their identity and can share in the power that is available to them. But in Sri Lanka there are minority groups that are likely to have come even before the majority, like the Tamils and then the Muslims also have a long history of being in this island hence to compare the problems of a developing country like sri lanka with problems in developed societies that arise from recent migrants from developing countries is sadly wrong and does not help us find a solution

It is unfortunate that JustMal does not recognize the true benefit of pluralism, decentralization, power-sharing, etc but then again if you don’t have to live in Sri Lanka it is always easier to pass narrow minded solutions while one lives in comfort not having to live through the pain that this country endues. Let’s standup for pluralism, cultural identity, equity, etc.

http://transcurrents.com/tamiliana/archives/272

I find DBS Jeyaraj’s account of the ethnic tensions in Batticaloa really disturbing. Is this the kind of future we want for Sri Lanka?

The bright eyed federalists of Sri Lanka inadvertently advocate a system worse than Apartheid or the premodern Hindu caste system. They want to institutionalise our ethnic differences and interracial enmity instead of integration and assimilation. Creating exclusive ethnic enclaves and legalising would lead to mini wars all over Sri Lanka, not between guerilla groups and the government but among ordinary people as seen in Kattankudy.

Majoritiarian democracy is a much better system. Minorities should not be seperated and left alone to govern themselves in independent communities. The sort of multi-culturalism these people advocate has failed all over the world with disastrous results. There are countless examples from countries like France, Britain and Australia.

The government must formulate a long term policy to colonise all areas (North+East and Hill Country in particular) of Sri Lanka with people of different ethnic groups so that there aren’t any exclusive ethnic strongholds. It is particularly important to restrict the influence of foreign Wahabi fundamentalist groups that cause much discord in the East.

The solution is to allow anyone of any ethnicity to live anywhere in the country without discrimination as long as they don’t deviate from the mainstream culture. The long term strategy should be comprehensive assimilation and centralisation followed by restriction of foreign influence on minority communities. That’s the only answer to the conflict in Sri Lanka.

Honestly speaking, I”m happy about JHU’s decline. Their purpose was to be a catalyst for sudden and dramatic change, not to be a permanent actor in the long term. They were far too fundamentalist and unpragmatic for that. JHU could be revived yet another time with a different name if the need be, but I doubt if that’s necessary at a time when sections of the UNP in addition to both SLFP and JVP had been forced to transform themselves into Sinhala nationalists.

“no consensus as to the sincerity of the Mahinda Chintana ‘vision’”
With 6,000+ billboards (as I was told recently, real figure may be higher) dotted around the country, it’s Chintanaya like you’ve never seen it before at every roundabout, junction, road and hoarding in Colombo, as well as the Kings Road (formerly Galle Road) up until Hambantota. Having lived through Premedasa’s regime, this is far worse – it is a classic dictatorial bent – to see oneself amongst the people, smiling and waving, through billboards, in an attempt, ultimately futile one hopes, to stifle diseent against his scant regard for democracy by appearing to be humane, popular and benign.

“Whilst smaller parties such as the JHU which have little to guard against in terms of their already shrivelled constituency base and the prospect of being almost wiped out in any forthcoming election, have therefore more fully immersed themselves in the Rajapakse administration”
The observation is correct, though I wish to add that upon meeting the (extremely amiable) Udaya Gamanpila of the JHU recently, he told a couple of us that he saw no reason to fear the decline of the JHU supporters since the President had completely accepted the JHU’s ideaology and aims – hence there was no need for a separate political party ! (Janadhipathi thuma ape kodiyath ekka ediriyata giyama, apata athi wedak ne neda? – When the President takes up you flag and goes to the fore with it, what use is there for us?)

“it is the communalism of the elites combined with a lack of development that has always failed the people of Sri Lanka and their needs as a whole and led us to the current juncture where they feel devolution and federalism is a ‘communal’ response to a problem created by the past pursuit of elite-led ‘communal’ politics”
I recall a question I asked Che here, which he still hasn’t answered, on whether he really thinks, as I understood him to argue, Sri Lanka can develop as a consociational democracy? While the JVP’s logic is obviously flawed (to go into it in detail would be to regurgitate much of your excellent analysis, along with Asanga Welikala, in your paper on Politics in the South here), there is something to be said of the argument that it is our political elite, post-’48, who got us where we are.

“Yet, that is all they are: a mere gloss in which the MOU, the 17th Amendment etc can all be jettisoned or merely be played along with in the current juncture without too much regard for the international repercussions in a context where Colombo has a found a strong supporter of its hardline and belligerent position in the US administration and little willingness to censure the Sri Lankan government for abuses. In this context one surely begins to wonder what likelihood there is of Mahinda really seeking to switch political strategy at this point when there is little to be gained.”
While is precisely why those such as Dayan, articulate, passionate and intelligent, seek to win favour with MR by advising him to a path that he is unable and unwilling, ultimately, to take, for it involves equal consideration to be made, in a politico-military strategy, to the recommendations of the APRC. There is simply no returning to democracy in Sri Lanka in the short-term, this war cannot be won, and indeed, was never intended to be won. All we seek is strategic advantage for the propaganda that fuels the actions that further stifle democratic dissent and pave the way for a Stalinist regime hell-bent on maintaining its total grip on power, backed of course, by the US, which is partial to exceptionalism in all forms.

Would Dave Rampton be able to offer some insights into the way liberals/federalists can meet this critique without compromising the legitimacy of the alternatives they offer with the majority community? Or is this an irrelevant question since in the Sinhala-Buddhist nationalist conception of politics, liberals and federals are ‘inauthentic’ anyway and have no legitimate perspective to offer. Would, therefore, liberals and federalists be wasting their time in addressing this critique?