How was the decimation of TELO not “understandable?” After all, TELO technically had attacked the LTTE first. Its members were engaging in “anti-social” activities like extortion. You think that it was more “understandable” to kill a defenseless person than to go after an armed group?

You don’t think that the LTTE’s murder of C.E. Anandarajah in 1985 was worse?

Let me understand correctly: if Duraiappah had personally murdered the 9 people at the Tamil Conference without any input at all from Colombo, and then declared that the 9 had been traitors and that he was acting on behalf of “Tamil Liberation,” then would you believe that his murder would have been “not understandable?”

” But this entire contradiction of how the cause of liberating Tamils began with murdering a Tamil appears to have escaped you. My outsider perspective is that it is this characteristic of the iyakkam literally from day one that has led to the present condition of the Tamils.”

Wijayapala,

“But this entire contradiction of how the cause of liberating Tamils began with murdering a Tamil appears to have escaped you. My outsider perspective is that it is this characteristic of the iyakkam literally from day one that has led to the present condition of the Tamils.”

I am not in any way seeking to justify his killings. I used the term ‘understandable’ to differentiate that killing from, say, the decimation of the TELO. If the LTTE was justifying the former by saying he was a collaborator strengthening the oppressive SL state, their justifications for the merciless killings (and burning of their dead bodies) of the youths whose aim was exactly the same as theirs, was totally incomprehensible by anyone except by the paranoiac , power hungry mind of VP. It showed clearly that he wasn’t interested in Tamil liberation per se, but with some imagined glory as the “sole” guy who fought, in the manner of Kings of old. I regard the TELO killings as the real starting point of LTTE’s fascism. It was then many of us lost any romantic notion of liberation. It was qualitatively and quantitatively different from the Duraippah killing.

This did not help her win the 1977 elections. Nor did JR’s anti-Tamil policies prevent the JVP from launching their 2nd uprising in 1987. There were far more important things to the Sinhala electorate that pushed their support in other directions.

“By contract, the Sri Lankan Tamils are Sri Lankans just like the Sinhalese; they have as much rights as the Sinhalese have. If they are not allowed to be equal in every sense of the word, then they want to go separate; can you argue with that?”

I am not sure what is the contract you are referring to, although I do not deny that SL Tamils are Sri Lankans just like the Sinhalese. Anyway, let me ask a tough question- if Tamils became equal to Sinhalese in SL, how many Tamils in the diaspora would return instead of remaining in the unequal West?

What do you mean by “equal” here? If you’re talking about linguistic implementation in the administration, then I completely support you. If on the other hand you’re equating equality with devolution, then there is a contradiction: “if they are not allowed to be separate (through devolution), then they want to go separate.” (that is how I hear it)

Again as I see it, lack of devolution is not the cause of inequality, but the demand for it is a symptom of inequality.

“Mrs Banda introduced devastating discriminatory policies after 1971; it is indisputable that the Sinhala hardliners were behind them!”

Standardisation ultimately was targeted not against the Tamils but areas in the country that had overrepresentation in education and employment. The two districts which suffered the most from standardisation were Jaffna and Colombo, but Batticaloa benefited from it. The first student from Kilinochchi was enrolled in university right after 1972.

“The 1972 Republican Constitution that took away the minority provisions; it was a severe blow to multicultural democracy in Sri Lanka!”

Arguably given that the 1948 Constitution was not able to prevent the Sinhala-Only legislation of 1956, its minority provisions were hollow. This is again why I say that it is not enough to simply have constitutional provisions. There has to be a shift in mentality.

“During the late sixties and early seventies, many Tamils in the North were learning Sinhala language; there were Sinhalese even in my village giving tuition classes.”

I heard that Tamil nationalism arose not in the 1970s but earlier after 1956 Sinhala-Only, and that this ironically pushed Tamils away from learning Sinhala. Tamil militancy on the other hand began in Jaffna after standardisation was passed.

“You stay at Mount Lavinia Hotel when you visit Sri Lanka? I would say that you are better off than 95% of the Sinhalese!”
Sorry, I do not follow the rational of the above statement!

Most Sri Lankans let alone Sinhalese would never be able to afford to stay in that hotel. I live in the West and even I have never stayed there when returning to SL!

“However, if someone is saying he is going to start a revolution against a state that had come to symbolize oppression, the killing of a pro-state mayor who had failed to take responsibility for the killings by the state of innocent people, is understandable.”

I’m afraid that I must disagree with your retrospective view (NOT your objective account of the environment in 1975). The Duraiappah killing was the FIRST act of LTTE fascism, a year before the LTTE was formally established! UTHR’s version is that Duraiappah played no direct role in the nine people accidentally getting electrocuted that day. It may have been understandable for people to have been angry with Duraiappah and demonstrate this at the next Municipal Council election.

But to KILL the man outright?? (I am making a distinction between an emotion and a specific act motivated by that emotion)

I will grant this much: if Duraiappah was a Sinhala arbitrarily implanted into the Jaffna administration- and not a democratically-elected Tamil mayor- then I may be able to say that it was “justifiable.” But this entire contradiction of how the cause of liberating Tamils began with murdering a Tamil appears to have escaped you. My outsider perspective is that it is this characteristic of the iyakkam literally from day one that has led to the present condition of the Tamils.

I heard too many Tamils (mostly living outside the N-E) during the CFA years express hope directly to me that the LTTE would eliminate all the “traitors.” How were they expecting me, a Sinhala, to interpret these statements. If I were a “Sinhala Buddhist Nationalist” as Burning_Issue thinks I am, perhaps this would have been music to my ears- Tamils praising the idea of killing other Tamils!

If Tamil internal killings had not become a staple of the struggle, I can say with confidence that you would have won the war, and we (Sinhalese) would have been the losers scratching our heads in ignorance what went wrong.

Obviously since I am not a Tamil, I cannot serve as an authority on what Tamils should or should not do or think. But I am a Sinhala and I CAN tell you how we look at this Tamils killing Tamils phenomenon. Despite the many misdeeds that we Sinhalese have committed against Tamils, we did not invent the idea of Tamils attacking each other beginning in the mid-1970s (although Sinhala leaders most certainly have exploited this).

“With everything that has happened over the last 30 years and everything that you know NOW to put the past into perspective, do you feel that the above sentiments that led to the killing of Duraiappah were justified or reasonable?”

I don’t think political killings are ever justified, and Duraippah’s killing was no different. However, if someone is saying he is going to start a revolution against a state that had come to symbolize oppression, the killing of a pro-state mayor who had failed to take responsibility for the killings by the state of innocent people, is understandable. If the LTTE had not been so fascistic and started killing other militant groups and other Tamil politicians equally committed to Tamil nationalism, if it had not conscripted/abducted children to fight for it, if it had made a course correction when India intervened with the Indo-Lanka accord, the LTTE could still have come out OK despite the Duraippah killing among many others.

There were so many idealistic youths who were willing to sacrifice their lives for a cause they believed in. There was this romantic notion of ‘Tamil liberation.’ That the LTTE’s fascistic leadership made a wasteland of that idealism does not take away from the idealism of the youths who sacrificed their lives in the early days of the struggle. As I remarked in another thread, I do not regard the idea of armed resistance against an oppressive state in itself as illegitimate. States have to go the extra mile in ensuring that they use their monopoly on violence with the utmost care without indulging in crimes against humanity. If the state fails to do this, there will always be hot-blooded, idealistic youths who will rise to challenge the state.

“In the West where there is a large Tamil diaspora, would you say that the whites are the Masters and minorities are subordinates?”

I would expect this sort of rhetoric from Sinhala Buddhist Nationalists; since you are not one I am somewhat taken a back! To start with the Tamil Diasporas in the West are foreigners; they make the best of things with all things considered. By contract, the Sri Lankan Tamils are Sri Lankans just like the Sinhalese; they have as much rights as the Sinhalese have. If they are not allowed to be equal in every sense of the word, then they want to go separate; can you argue with that?

When the Tamils went to the Western countries as refugees they had to abide by what was install for them in the respective countries, so, you say that, why not they do the same in Sri Lanka. This is why I say that, the Tamils are sub-ordinates in their own country!

“Arguably Sinhala nationalism as a political tool failed after the 1st JVP insurrection.”

I am sorry that I totally disagree with your above statement; Mrs Banda introduced devastating discriminatory policies after 1971; it is indisputable that the Sinhala hardliners were behind them! The 1972 Republican Constitution that took away the minority provisions; it was a severe blow to multicultural democracy in Sri Lanka!

“I would argue that Tamil militancy in the 1970s helped bring Sinhala nationalism from the dead.”

You can argue but you will not win; as I said above, it was the Discriminatory policies that were introduced by the then LSFP Government collectively with the Sinhala Buddhists Nationalists that brought about the rise of Tamil Nationalism. During the late sixties and early seventies, many Tamils in the North were learning Sinhala language; there were Sinhalese even in my village giving tuition classes. Please do not mitigate the impact the Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism has had in the ethnic politics in Sri Lanka.

“Would you support devolution in Sri Lanka based on how it is implemented in Wales?”

Yes, I would support that; this would be a step in the right direction. The provinces must prove worthy for greater power devolution along the lines of Scot devolution in the future.

“How will devolution or decentralisation (are they the same thing?) pull the nation together and emphasis a common Sri Lankan identity? It appears to me that it will rather reinforce the differences.”

This is very fear that the Conservatives in the UK were scaremongering; on the contrary, it reinforced the union and Nationalistic parties lost their separatist platform; this is a fact.

“You stay at Mount Lavinia Hotel when you visit Sri Lanka? I would say that you are better off than 95% of the Sinhalese!”

Sorry, I do not follow the rational of the above statement!

“However, you have to differentiate between rhetoric and real intentions.”

Not very easy. Would you agree that both the average Sinhala and Tamil were not clear as to the actual intentions of ITAK/TULF before 1983?

“You have to understand that politicians are driven by personal egos, not entirely by ideology. There was for a long a rivalry between SJV and GG, and SJV’s weakness was he sometimes ratcheted up his rhetoric in order to beat GG. This is not unusual in politics.”

Yes, thank you for the clarification. I am aware that GG was supposed to be a very effective orator. So like the Sinhalese, there were entirely internal political dynamics which fueled Tamil nationalism.

“Many who knew SJV well said, however, that he was among the more honest politicians. In my time, people respected him as sort of a Tamil Gandhi or at the least an elder statesman; he had Parkinson’s and in meetings he spoke so softly that another person had to repeat his every sentence aloud.”

What do you think about the views he held in the 1970s? Some argue that he did not support the direction that Tamil politics were taking, but was unable to express it.

“Most Sinhalese fail to understand the importance of the TRC killings. It was after that Alfred Duraippah, who as Mayor of Jaffna failed to prevent it or take enough action, became a hated figure among youths. They said he should have at least resigned. Now UTHR may give you a different take on that TRC event and Duraippah, but even as a little kid I was aware of the undercurrents then.”

If we fail to understand the importance of what happened at the 1974 conference, it is probably because we were not there.

Let me ask you a tough question in hindsight: With everything that has happened over the last 30 years and everything that you know NOW to put the past into perspective, do you feel that the above sentiments that led to the killing of Duraiappah were justified or reasonable?

Sorry that I never responded to you. To be honest I had forgotten about this thread (as I have with some others) as most comments are going towards other threads. Thank you for keeping me on track.

“Devolution on the other hand is not necessarily “right”- it depends on whose perspective you’re talking about. Pragmatism has nothing to do with it.”
I would say that pragmatism has good deal to do with when one assesses as to what is practically possible with certain constraints!

I was speaking about myself- my views on devolution have nothing to do with Sinhala nationalism in SL, and you may be surprised to hear that popular opposition to devolution has less to do with Tamil-phobia than you may think.

You can argue that Tamil cannot be implemented as an official language or that HSZs cannot be removed because of the constraints of Sinhala nationalism. I would argue that both of these two issues are too important to dismiss because they are not “pragmatic.”

“The Sinhala Buddhist Nationalism is very powerful in Sri Lanka; it has been influencing the politics and socio-political aspects since independence. It is a well established phenomenon with powerful actors; hence, it would be practically difficult to cultivate agreements to such mammoth changes so rapidly.”

To an extent I agree, which is why I argue that one has to choose one’s battles. You can’t hope to get everything you want at once.

“However, I am totally aware that, without the consensus of a good section of the hardliners, it would be practically troublesome to execute such programmes at the ground level.”

Above I mentioned that I agree to an extent; what you say might be true now but not necessarily in the future.

Arguably Sinhala nationalism as a political tool failed after the 1st JVP insurrection. At that time, a generation of youth came of age who had no memory of the colonial period, and had instead grown up with the memory of the various governments’ broken promises. It is interesting that one of the original demands of the JVP was to allow access to learning more international languages beyond merely Sinhala.

I would argue that Tamil militancy in the 1970s helped bring Sinhala nationalism from the dead. Whereas the original brand was essentially anti-Western but took an anti-Tamil form, the UNP/JR variant was specifically anti-Tamil but also anti-India (Tamils were portrayed as Indians). Again this interpretation took a severe beating in the late 1980s when the UNP first invited the IPKF, and then under Premadasa allied with the LTTE against the IPKF. Again Sinhala nationalism was in quasi-limbo until the military defeats in the late 1990s and the subsequent Western-backed CFA. Sinhala nationalism, now spearheaded by the JVP and JHU, came full circle and was directed again against the West, although the focus was the LTTE.

The LTTE is now finished and that leaves the West as the target of Sinhala nationalism. If relations improve with the West somehow, or if the country undergoes hardships that cannot be pinned on the West, then Sinhala nationalism has a bleak future.

“So you are convinced that, if the Tamil language is implemented honestly, there will be no need for devolution of power!”

Actually, I do not even know what Sri Lanka would be like if Tamil language was implemented the same way that that French is implemented in Canada. I think we would have to get there first to see whether or not devolution is warranted. After all, it was language policy which led to the demand for devolution.

“A centralised system is feasible; it would be like, the Sinhala Buddhists are the Masters and minorities are sub-ordinates!”

In the West where there is a large Tamil diaspora, would you say that the whites are the Masters and minorities are subordinates?

“Sripala De Silva is one; his sister instructed one of the key members of a volunteer team that came to Sri Lanka to operate on children with Cleft pellet that only carry out operations on Sinhala kids; this person told me in 2007 with dismay while I was at Mount La Venia Hotel!”

Thankfully he is no longer the Health Minister. There are many Sinhalese who do not like him because of his poor performance. You know, for example, that his neglect of the hospitals in Anuradhapura contributed directly to the deaths of soldiers who otherwise could have been treated?

You stay at Mount Lavinia Hotel when you visit Sri Lanka? I would say that you are better off than 95% of the Sinhalese!

“I do agree that Anandasangaree has been admirable to some extent; had no association with any sort of violence, but he did not do enough to challenge the state atrocities perpetrated against the Tamil civilians. If he had, he would have been given a White Van treatment; he could be regarded as a coward from Tamil perspective!”

Do you agree with that perspective?

He would not have been given the white van treatment. All the government had to do was to remove his security, and the LTTE would have killed him.

“Has he abandoned the Vaddukoddai Resolution; it was a TULF creation after all!”

Hasn’t the TNA also abandoned it?

Given that the LTTE which came to uphold the Vaddukoddai Resolution had murdered many TULF leaders, I don’t think it is necessary anymore to link the TULF with Vaddukoddai.

“The Sinhala rural people understand the concept of power devolution in the context of Tamil homeland concept; this is what has been drummed into them! So, to them, devolution means the Sinhala giving into the Tamils; this is why they are dead against devolution.”

There is another, more fundamental reason why they oppose “power devolution” which does not involve Tamils. Can you think of what it could be? Hint: only the rural Sinhalese living outside Western Province feel this way, not the people in Colombo.

“It is healthy to have decentralised power empowering the provinces that will facilitate and be accountable for their own affairs. This will build confidence while pulling the nation together as one. The new constitution must put emphasis on a common Sri Lankan identity;”

How will devolution or decentralisation (are they the same thing?) pull the nation together and emphasis a common Sri Lankan identity? It appears to me that it will rather reinforce the differences.

“This will also keep at bay nationalistic sentiments; just like what one sees both in Scotland and Wales.”

Would you support devolution in Sri Lanka based on how it is implemented in Wales?

“The Sri Lankan Tamils know very well that, any association with India is futile including the Tamil Nadu circus government and it’s politicians. They are clearly in favour of power devolution within Undivided Sri Lanka; their democratic message should be taken seriously at least this time!”

Who is “they” in your last sentence- Sri Lankan Tamils or India/Tamil Nadu?

” ITAK’s ideology was sufficiently watery and vague that it could accommodate anyone in the federalist-separatist spectrum. Otherwise, Navaratnam probably would never have signed up to begin with.”

Agree to some extent. However, you have to differentiate between rhetoric and real intentions. Whereas Navaratnam probably had a serious intent to create a separate state, for SJV and the vast majority of ITAK, it was more of a slogan and bargaining chip at negotiations. Some people start negotiations with their maximum demand in order not to be thought of as a pushover by the other side. You have to understand that politicians are driven by personal egos, not entirely by ideology. There was for a long a rivalry between SJV and GG, and SJV’s weakness was he sometimes ratcheted up his rhetoric in order to beat GG. This is not unusual in politics. Many who knew SJV well said, however, that he was among the more honest politicians. In my time, people respected him as sort of a Tamil Gandhi or at the least an elder statesman; he had Parkinson’s and in meetings he spoke so softly that another person had to repeat his every sentence aloud.

Under Srimavo, apart from standardization and denial of language rights, the regime jailed many youths who were active politically, who when they came out of prison became popular in the Tamil youth movement. Mavai Senathirajah, Kasi Anandan and Vannai Anandan were three of the prominent youth speakers in those days. There was also the matter of killings at the Tamil Research Conference in Jaffna in 1974 (?). That was a seminal event in the radicalization of Tamil youths. All these eventually led to the Vaddukodai resolution and the formation of the TULF. Most Sinhalese fail to understand the importance of the TRC killings. It was after that Alfred Duraippah, who as Mayor of Jaffna failed to prevent it or take enough action, became a hated figure among youths. They said he should have at least resigned. Now UTHR may give you a different take on that TRC event and Duraippah, but even as a little kid I was aware of the undercurrents then.

Anyway, even in the new TULF, Navaratnam played no part. His Kayts constituency then was represented by a Tamil pundit by the name K.P. Ratnam, of the TULF. Though Amirthalingam was a firebrand orator and hobnobbed with some militant groups, including VP, as opposition leader in parliament, his accommodating posture earned the wrath of the Tamil militants. Everyone knows the rest. I will stop at that as my time is up.