Some data from the 2001 Census

732,149 SL Tamils in the 18 districts outside of the N&E. This is 4.3% of the total population outside the North and East (which is 16,929,689).

16,929,689 is the total population outside the N&E

18,797,257 total population of Sri Lanka

1,867,568 population of the N&E

If we decided to try and calculate the 54% percentage differently and assumed, since we don’t have the statistics, that all the population of the N&E were SL Tamil, (which of course they are not) then in 2001 there would have been 1,867,568 + 732,149 SL Tamils in all of Sri Lanka, and the proportion out of them living outside of the North and East would be 28% . I am sure you could come to closer estimates using other figures, but not sure it would give you a figure of 54%.

If we assume the 54% number and calculate the number of SL Tamil people in Sri Lanka, then you get a figure of 7.2% which is lower than your 8.4% and a huge drop from 12.7% in the 1981 census. Could calculations based on natural population increase over two decades, migration and death account for such a huge variance?

Another point is the juxtaposition of dubious numbers with more credible facts that lead to completely distorted messages – for instance, President Rajapakse’s contention that “Today, the innocent Tamil people in Sri Lanka are migrating to the Western Province in large numbers…especially in the Western Province they live and work happily” is backed by migration statistics that show that the largest migration to Colombo is from Jaffna, though innocence, Tamilness, or ‘living happily’ are assumptions and leaps of faith!

But at the risk of weaking this important point and since a number of responses (Sham, Sinaha) have asked about the numbers, I respond as follows (most of which is found in the main article).

As I said in my post there is no evidence given for the “54%” figure by its proponents (President Rajapakse, Asian Tribune etc). My hunch was that the very persuasive “54%” figure is based on a flawed interpretation of census data, together with a misguided approach to North East conflict issues.

However (as I noted in the article) one estimate for the actual number of Sri Lankan Tamils living outside the North East is given in the recent ICG report on Sinhala nationalism. The ICG uses recent data compiled by the Northeast Provincial Council from District Secretariats’ data. Rather than paraphrase it, I reproduce below the footnote of the ICG report:

“President Rajapaksa, addressing the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, stated that “54 per cent of Sri Lanka’s Tamil population now lives in areas other than the north and the east of the country, among the Sinhalese and other communities”. Accurate population figures for Sri Lankan Tamils are difficult to come by, given the 2001 census could not be held in the Northern and Eastern Provinces and given ongoing war-related displacements. Calculations are further complicated by the fact that many Indian or Up-Country Tamils categorised themselves as “Sri Lankan Tamils” in the 2001 census. Nonetheless, one can come to a rough estimate by combining the 2001 census data for Sri Lankan Tamils living outside the north and east – 622,961 – with figures for Tamils living in the north and east – 1,693,751 – compiled in 2004 by the Northeast Provincial Council from district secretariats’ data. Based on these figures, 27 per cent of the total Sri Lankan Tamil population lives outside the Northern and Eastern Provinces, not 54 per cent.”
(Sinhala Nationalism and the Elusive Southern Consensus)

The “27%” figure calculated by the ICG as the number of Sri Lankan Tamils living outside the North and East would seem an accurate figure, but I reiterate the need to look at issues at the root of the conflict and reasons for the movement of Tamils, rather than give too much credence to these seemingly persuasive numbers.

Please accept my appologies.
what i was acutally saying is that in the absence of anynumber, some aproxiamte number would do, till it’s refined and cut and chopped till it come close to the actual number.

but actually , interetsing fact is that CPA, has carried out a survey, and they seems to have the ethnic figures as per the people who conducted the survey.

the article is titles “Poll results: How do you think we can end the war and attain peace in Sri Lanka?”

and in return to a question i posed a staff member had replied that “However, the data is weighted before any analysis in order to make sure that the survey reflects the actual ethnic and geographical compositions of the surveyed population (in this case, the survey areas mentioned in the report). ”

it may possible to get the exact figures and % from them. good luck

Also, in others: how many refugees, how many displaced including shades of displacement, how many actually killed by SLA, LTTE, paramilitary, depressed/inflated casualty tolls of cadres from all armed actors. This list is a running one.

Sham, I think union black’s point is simply, 54% is not an empirically immutable figure, thus it should not be used – for example, by a President – as empirical evidence to disprove ethnic demographic majoritarianism of Tamils in the N-E, if that is the case or not.

If 54 is correct, above, below, is less relevant. If these figures are used with a priori knowledge they may not be 100% correct, to prove a political point, it would be suggestive of mala fides, no? The same logic would apply to Tamil nationalist advocates on the murky issue of “demographic patterns” and state-sponsored resettlement schemes in Amparai.

Which actually touches on a much larger problem of Tamil-Muslim historiography, past and modern, in Lanka – where much of the information coming out of the region is perceived biased before it is read, tainted before reported, on both sides of the ethnic divide, a simplistic example, from Tamilnet to AsianTribune. Both are perceived biased by the perspectives they do not push.

In general, the modern historical narrative is versioned, aside from a few media columnists and writers doing the best they can with the access they have to report the truth. in the aftermath, until there is some sort of internationally-mediated TRC in a distant, distant post-settlement future where the plausibility of co-existence does not seem depressingly laughable – Lanka’s inclusive history – Sinhala, Tamil, Muslim – will remain ambiguous, disputed. History is always disputed, but in Lanka’s case, there is room to diminish the divide, and find areas of convergence.

Other stats say that there are only 4% Tamils left in the country. Do we take are seriously too?

As can be seen the number 54% seems to have been arrived from the way that you have detailed.

but like you said, by the fact that they actually have moved to western province shows that they have voted with their feet.

It would be interesting to see if they will vote for the TNA or to another party at the next election.

on another note, are you suggesting that the number of % who are living outside NE is higher than 54%? can it not be 54% by a mere chance?

i dont seem to understand your argument, as you can’t use the above logic to prove that the acutual number living outside is differing from 54% , or as aindication in which direction (UP OR DOWN) it should move, and you have no clue as to the number?

SO basically whats you say is 54% may be wrong as its a simple calculation but there is no other calcualtion, which gives a better picture? and actually you may be wrong and it may be acutally close to 54%.?