Dear Wijayapala,

Your posts in the last couple of days are gems! I am very impressed with your neutrality and rational approach in discussing issues where people are very polarized here. While I always read the posts of Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka and David Blacker with great interest, yours is about the best in this blog for your vast knowledge and acknowledgement of mistakes committed by both sides. I feel like writing a lot (as parallels from other countries including my own), but at the moment I would stay on the sidelines and enjoy reading your posts I guess. But I only hope these discussions continue in a sincere manner without ending in fights. In any case, keep up the good work!

best wishes
Krish

Hi Mr Nithy, thank you again for your kind words.

“Due to various reasons two cooking in one kitchen under one roof still living together is neither unusual nor something new to our Society. It can not be called as ‘Separation’.”

Then what is it called? And what is wrong with my Parippu?

“I feel the word ‘Separation’ should have be replaced with ‘Tamil Nationalism’ and be written the other way around as ‘Nationalism only became popular after 1956 Sinhala only.’”

Technically you are correct; few people in 1956 were talking about separatism even after the violence that year or in 1958. However, I still trace the root of separatism back to 1956. Let me explain.

Sinhala Only was a terrible mistake in that not only did it alienate the Tamils, but it accomplished little for the Sinhalese specifically Sinhala youth. It did for the first time give the Sinhala masses access to government, which is why some old-timers still refer to it as a “revolution.” However, it effectively barred the Sinhalese from the outside world, and the youth were particularly cognizant of how small the “Sinhala world” was. One of the JVP’s demands in 1971 was that the youth should be able to learn more languages to avoid being imprisoned in ignorance and isolation. Therefore, I argue that Sinhala Only was not a “natural” policy of the Sinhala polity but a distortion, or better yet a political gimmick. It was a monument to the failure of the English-speaking elite to create government of the people.

Given that it was an aberration, the Tamil leadership rested on solid ground to oppose it. They had the opportunity to embrace the adoption of Sinhala while pleading for Tamil to be included as well. After all, if all Sri Lankans were denied access to government because they did not know English, what justice would there be to deny the section of the population that did not know Sinhala? Although I do not know whether this approach would have worked, I am fairly certain that it would not have provoked anti-Tamil violence.

As it turned out, a section of the Tamil leadership (ITAK) saw Sinhala Only not as a mistake but as an opportunity. Chelvanayakam reportedly was delighted when he first heard of SWRD’s gimmick idea and sent his congratulations. ITAK responded to this gimmick with its own electoral gimmick of “federalism.” ITAK’s concept of “federalism” was not based on any inherent merit in the devolution of power but more fundamentally on majoritarianism. If the Sinhalese could implement Sinhala Only simply because they happened to be the numerical majority, then why not delineate a subunit of the country where the Tamil-speakers happened to form the majority?

The problem with this thinking is that it essentially justified Sinhala majoritarianism; whereas the aforementioned “Sinhala and Tamil” approach would have challenged majoritarianism, “federalism” only reinforced it. The Sinhalese also unfortunately smelled a conspiracy when ITAK called itself “Federal Party” in English. As a result, “federalism” became equated with “Tamil Rule” in their minds, and remains so to this day. The current pro-devolutionists are perpetuating this equation by stupidly shrieking that Sri Lanka will return to war without “political solution,” instead of showing how devolution will benefit everyone and not just the Tamils. They are keeping alive the incorrect perception that the Tamils are a threat.

The other danger with “federalism” is that the Tamil leadership itself did not have a common vision with regard to it. M. Thiruchelvam, who did not himself live in NE saw it as a way to mobilise Tamil electoral power and allow the Tamils to play a kingmaker role in politics. V. Navaratnam on the other hand viewed federalism as the first step in establishing a separate Tamil state, as the Sinhalese feared. It is precisely this ambiguity that allowed “federalism” to slide to separatism.

Other actions by certain Tamil leaders further entrenched the idea among Sinhalese that Tamil politics carried an anti-Sinhala bent, such as Amirthalingam’s “anti-Sri” campaign. Whether or not it was justified, it deserves to be classified as gimmick because it gave nothing to the Tamils while antagonising the Sinhalese.

“A thought of ‘Nationalism’ never existed in the Tamil politicians’ mind until 1972; and was not only in vocabulary but also even unknown to the general Tamil populace till the Black July 1983. The credit for inducting and naturalizing such feeling undoubtedly and enviously goes to the Sinhalese politicians only – nobody else”

I respectfully disagree. Standardisation hurt the Jaffna and Colombo Tamils, but it helped the Wanni and Batticaloa Tamils. The independence of Bangladesh also gave inspiration to the Jaffna youth that they could fight for their own homeland. Although it is debatable whether 1976 Vaddukkoddai Resolution represented a genuine desire of the Tamils for a separate state, it gave the extremists in JR’s subsequent Cabinet the ammunition to scapegoat the Tamils for everything that went wrong during his regime.

My intent is not to point fingers at Tamil leaders; the violence committed against Tamils before the war can only be blamed on the Sinhala leaders (SWRD & JR) and the Sinhalese who allowed it to happen. It is simply to show that their general reaction to stupid decisions made by Sinhala leaders was to make their own stupid decisions.

“GV deserves my sincere thanks for patience, tolerance and scrupulousness in moderation.”

If anything, we should be thanking you for your patience, tolerance, and moderation.

wije

Due to various reasons two cooking in one kitchen under one roof still living together is neither unusual nor something new to our Society. It can not be called as ‘Separation’. Hope none of us will have difference in opinion.

Whether I accept all what you write or not, among all, still I do read your commentaries with keen interest. Though often they make me feeling silly, disgusting and less inspiring but most of them are very interesting, inviting, accommodating and above all repelling too – thus catering for all moods, feelings and sentiments. I single and regard you as a well-read, well-informed intellectual and man of acceptable degree of reasonableness and civilized decency.

Having said so, I wish to draw your attention to one of your assertive statements and write as below in order to correct the essence of the message and control the wide-spread wrong notion among our Sinhalese brethren about the inception of Ceylon Tamils feeling of ‘Separation’.

Quoted dated 19th inst. To Sinhala_voice: ‘Separation only became popular after 1956 Sinhala only. Therefore the solution is to reverse the mistakes of the past’. I feel the word ‘Separation’ should have be replaced with ‘Tamil Nationalism’ and be written the other way around as ‘Nationalism only became popular after 1956 Sinhala only.’ Let me believe the wrong idea that the statement conveys may not be the fault of your mind but of your naughty fingers on the keyboard. However, your second line stating the remedy is much appreciated and honoured – it’s typical of wijayapala.

A thought of ‘Nationalism’ never existed in the Tamil politicians’ mind until 1972; and was not only in vocabulary but also even unknown to the general Tamil populace till the Black July 1983. The credit for inducting and naturalizing such feeling undoubtedly and enviously goes to the Sinhalese politicians only – nobody else; Ceylon Tamils will never ever claim equality over it. GV deserves my sincere thanks for patience, tolerance and scrupulousness in moderation. Nithy!

Don’t use brackets to italicize. Try the greater than/less than signs below your k and l buttons.

“There’s isn’t anything wrong with unlimited terms by it self. The problem is when it is coupled with the unlimited power inherent in the Sri Lankan president.”

The question of whether or not the Executive President has too much power does not answer the question whether or not SL is a democracy. In the 30+ years that SL’s been saddled with the 1978 Constitution, power has changed hands three times peacefully (not counting D.B. Wijetunge who assumed power after Premadasa’s assassination).

Oh and FYI, JR did not contest the presidency in 1988 because eventually he became aware of how incredibly unpopular he was. Concern over term limits had nothing to do with it. Go back and learn your history properly.

“The basic rights of the citizens to such things as free movement and freedom of expression must be honored and all people must have equal say in government.”

That’s all nice in Political Science 101, but democracies in practice are another story. The US is considered the world’s oldest continuing democracy in spite of severely limiting suffrage until relatively recently.

“Vishwalingam Gopithas”

Mr Gopithas is a British national, and he is being held by the police not the SLA. Try again.

“The power of those local organization are greatly constrained by the army and the central government.”

How?

“I’m aware.”

Then kindly demonstrate that you have the bare minimum understanding of the diversity of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka so that I don’t have to show everyone here again how incapable you are of holding a conversation on the topic of the Tamils. Again I ask: how come “Civil Society” wasn’t able to find more signatures from Batticaloa or even Colombo??? Are you so dense as to believe that the only Tamils having any brain cells live in Jaffna????

“I said he was better than Mahinda. Big difference.

JR is better because in just one week his lightly-armed minions killed thousands of Tamils who weren’t being used as human shields by the LTTE, and made tens of thousands more into angry refugees?

“But I think it’s hopeless — thus they should boycott them.”

So then, why isn’t the TNA boycotting the govt?? Think!!!

{i]There isn’t anything unusual with the concept of unlimited terms. FDR was the US President for four terms- does that mean the US did not have democracy during that time?? Furthermore, in parliamentary systems it is possible for someone to be prime minister for decades, such as Robert Walpole.[/i]

There’s isn’t anything wrong with unlimited terms by it self. The problem is when it is coupled with the unlimited power inherent in the Sri Lankan president.

[i]The key part, which you have totally (and unsurprisingly!) missed, is that the incumbent President still has to win elections. As long as his opponent is Ranil Wickremasinghe, even a potted plant could remain as head of state indefinitely.[/i]

There’s more to a democracy than simply winning elections. The basic rights of the citizens to such things as free movement and freedom of expression must be honored and all people must have equal say in government.

And the recent discovery of thrown out votes seems to cast some doubt on Mahinda’s election through fair means.

[i]Kindly provide a name of someone who has been held by the SLA for years without trial.[/i]

Vishwalingam Gopithas

[i]Then how is it possible that the TNA won the local elections in Kilinochchi, Mullaitivu, Mannar, and Vavuniya?[/i]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2011_Sri_Lankan_local_government_elections_by_province,_district_and_local_authority

Again there’s more to democracy than election. The power of those local organization are greatly constrained by the army and the central government.

[i]And how long did it take? The blacks in many places only got the right to vote 100 years after the US Civil War, and it took 40-50 years after that for Obama to be elected President. The British government only recently apologised for the atrocities committed against the Irish Catholics in the 1970s.[/i]

Sri Lanka has had 70 years now. We don’t have the luxury of more time. It’s a modern society today — not the less tolerant 1800s.

[i]What about Batticaloa or Trincomalee? Colombo? Are those also “undeveloped” areas, or are you simply unaware that there are Tamils living in places outside of the Northern Province? lol[/i]

I’m aware.

[i]And he compensated for that by attacking the Tamils in 1977, burning down Jaffna Library in 1981, and then killing more Tamils in 1983! It truly is despicable the way you support someone so anti-Tamil![/i]

I didn’t say I support JR. I said he was better than Mahinda. Big difference.

[i]The question is WHY are they talking to Mahinda, my slow-witted friend, not whether or not they are! If you identify yourself as “anglicised,” kindly demonstrate the basic reading skills to back that claim![/i]

Um, sorry — I misread. Why? because they see it as their only recourse now. But I think it’s hopeless — thus they should boycott them.

OMG, Wijepala. That was a really great post. Sorry I called you an apologist.

Dear Human

“The independence and power of institutions have slowly been eroded in favor of an all powerful head of state which now can run for unlimited terms.”

There isn’t anything unusual with the concept of unlimited terms. FDR was the US President for four terms- does that mean the US did not have democracy during that time?? Furthermore, in parliamentary systems it is possible for someone to be prime minister for decades, such as Robert Walpole.

The key part, which you have totally (and unsurprisingly!) missed, is that the incumbent President still has to win elections. As long as his opponent is Ranil Wickremasinghe, even a potted plant could remain as head of state indefinitely.

“The army is given the freedom to hold civilians in custody without trial (for years)”

Kindly provide a name of someone who has been held by the SLA for years without trial.

“Also, areas like the Vanni have no democracy”

Then how is it possible that the TNA won the local elections in Kilinochchi, Mullaitivu, Mannar, and Vavuniya?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2011_Sri_Lankan_local_government_elections_by_province,_district_and_local_authority

“The blacks and Native Americans in the US? The Australian aborigines? The Irish Cathlics in N. Ireland (as you pointed out!)?“
Last I checked the majority have repented and attempted to fix their errors in those cases

And how long did it take? The blacks in many places only got the right to vote 100 years after the US Civil War, and it took 40-50 years after that for Obama to be elected President. The British government only recently apologised for the atrocities committed against the Irish Catholics in the 1970s.

“Jaffna is the epicenter of Tamil culture in Sri Lanka. The Vanni is undeveloped and restricted.”

What about Batticaloa or Trincomalee? Colombo? Are those also “undeveloped” areas, or are you simply unaware that there are Tamils living in places outside of the Northern Province? lol

“JR at least attempted to meet the Tamil demands by getting rid of Standardization in 1977”

And he compensated for that by attacking the Tamils in 1977, burning down Jaffna Library in 1981, and then killing more Tamils in 1983! It truly is despicable the way you support someone so anti-Tamil!

“And why do you think that the TNA isn’t boycotting him?“
You might notice they are talking to them.

The question is WHY are they talking to Mahinda, my slow-witted friend, not whether or not they are! If you identify yourself as “anglicised,” kindly demonstrate the basic reading skills to back that claim! 😉

Dear sinhala_voice

“This memorandum clearly shows that Mahinda administration ONLY defeated the military militia form of the LTTE.”

In other words, force has been a total failure when it has come to fighting Tamil nationalism, despite its success in defeating terrorism. In other words, the path forward must not involve using force.

“The IDEOLOGY espoused by the LTTE is live and well from the 1940?s.”

Contrary to what many Sinhalese believe, Tamil nationalism is not an ideology or anything pre-planned or organized. It is primarily an emotional reaction to changes that took place after independence. By itself it was harmless, but when Sinhala mobs attacked Tamils out of fear of Tamil nationalism it mutated to become violent and dangerous.

The above memo actually provides a good clue to the proper way of defeating Tamil nationalism. The nationalists are worried that “equal rights” will diminish their cause. They are absolutely correct. Separatism only became popular after 1956 Sinhala Only. Therefore the solution is to reverse the mistakes of the past. When that happens, the ordinary Tamils will not take the “civil society” ideas seriously.

Agnos, I did not understand your “greater violence” theory. Who is willing right now to inflict “greater violence” on the Rajapaksha regime to win Tamil rights? Or rather, who is willing to risk their lives for another such hopeless cause?