David Miliband, the foreign mister of Britain, has said that the People in Sri Lanka need to find space to realise their many similarities, rather than becoming further polarised by their differences.

This is exactly where Britain failed in their former island of Ceylon. They failed to act, especially from 1948-1972, with this unrealistic thought in mind.

Britain very well knew that any constitution of any country describes the aspirations, hopes and expectations, and provides a sense of security for all the people of any country.

Britain also knew that a constitution is a consensus document of ALL the citizens and that when that consensus is reached it would become the covenant and living document between the state and ALL the people.

Britain was well aware that a constitution can never be a unilateral document of the people of a nation in the absence of the people of another nation, when there are two nations and peoples in a country.

Britain was conscious that any constituion is merited firstly for its process and then for its contents.

Britain was aware that when the island was still the dominion of Ceylon, in 1972, ALL the elected representatives were to form a constituent assembly and reach consensus on the contents of the covenant between the state and ALL the citizens of dominion of Ceylon.

Britain knew that the elected representatives of the North East, by majority, desired the constitution for the island to provide the ability for the people of North East to freely determine their own future. And when this request was not consented, the elected representatives of North East walked away from and boycotted the constituent assembly.

Consequently, Britain was aware that the representatives of North East did not agree on the contents of the 1972 constitution and that there was no consensus between the people of ALL the nations of the island.

Britain was aware that the Sinhala nation decided to unilaterally continue with the constitutional process and introduce Sinhala Buddhist favoured contents of the constitution and unilaterally annex North East illegally.

Britain was aware that in a strict sense it was not not a “constitution” for the entire island but was simply a framework for the dominion of Sinhala nation on the Tamil nation, and that the constituent assembly failed in its process and contents to draft a constitution committed to the inherent dignity, equality and unalienable rights of ALL the people.

Therefore, Britain should have intervened in 1972 and either refused to accept the rebel state of Sri Lanka or asked the representatives of North East to form their own constituent assembly and declare Tamil Eelam as an independent sovereign state.

Because Britain failed in its responsibility, today, we are engulfed in Brutal war. Aspirations, hopes and expectations of both nations remain shattered. We have been drinking from a cup of bitterness and hatred since 1972.

After 36 years now, many inhabitants of the island have come to realise that Sinhalese freedom is inextricably bound to Tamil freedom and that the destinies of both are bound together as two countries but in one island.

I agree that the Tamil nation and the Sinhala nation must sit down at the table of brotherhood and talk peace, but Britain must act for it like how it did for Rhodesia at Lancaster, than just speaking out.