Dear Vijaya,

Based on your review of the book if reference was to be made to Prof. Phadnis it would have been more relevant to argue along the lines that Kalana Senaratne has – that Sampanthan is engaged in a delicate balancing act trying to hold differing camps together and that this corresponds with Phadnis’s view of the “fragmented nature of Tamil nationalism”.

Thanks

Dear Vijaya,

Thanks for doing the research and for confirming suspicions that the name dropping was in fact an “appeal to authority” argument and done erroneously to boot. You have exposed a classic Dayanesque obfuscation.
As Kalana Senaratne has intelligently articulated, this kind of knee-jerk writing is really not very helpful and to the following verse comes to mind:

“Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who
That it’s namin’
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changing”

Bob Dylan, 1964

A Point of Clarification on my earlier comment:

I should have mentioned, though I take it that it is evident to Dr. Jayatilleke and others, the ‘book’ by dr. Phadnis i refer to is ‘Ethnicity and Nation-building in South Asia’, first published in 1989. This is the book referred to also in DJ’s piece carried on GV regarding the autonomist-secessionist continuum in Tamil politics.

P.V.

Dear Dr. Jayatilleke,

I want to thank you for the reference to Dr. Phadnis’ work. In fact, one reason why I am so late with this comment/question is because I wanted to spend some time going though the book itself (the second edition of 2001). According to my reading I am afraid I could not find anything in the book in support of the claim that Tamil sub-nationalism is unique in the region with respect to its autonomist-secessionist continuum. Could you please send me a precise reference, page numbers?

Indeed, chapter 5 discusses case studies of “five social movements having ethnicity as a major impulse, in the “autonomist-secessionist moulds.” (page 217). And these are: the Dravidian movement and Tamil ethnicity in southern India; the Mizo movement in north-east India; the movement for the liberation of Bangladesh; the Baluch movement in Pakistan; and, the Tamil movement in Sri Lanka.

In each of these cases the book notes that there were shifts back and forth between autonomist and secessionist demands. On page 266, for example, there is an interesting analysis of the use of the term ‘liberation’ and its various meanings in the context of political discourse in then East Pakistan, which ranged from autonomy to emancipation and while ‘liberation’ did not always imply secession, it (secession) “was an option kept handy if political expediency warranted it.” On page 285, for example, the book notes how “there were variations on the autonomist-separatist continuum” in the Baluch movement with the latter’s goals ranging from an independent to a Greater Baluchistan. On page 313 there is a reference to “instances of autonomist-secessionist movements, with the Chakmas in Bangladesh at one end and the Sikhs in India at the other.”

On pages 297-298 there is also a discussion about how the Tamil movement in Sri Lanka moved on the continuum from demands for autonomy to secession. Needless to say the book argues at some length across different chapters, and with great nuance I might add, about the different factors and forces that shaped both Tamil and Sinhala nationalisms in Sri Lanka, noting the fragmented nature, especially of the former.

Indeed, to be certain that I was not misreading the book, I also contacted Dr. Rajat Ganguly, who co-authored the Revised Edition of the book (2001) along with Dr. Phadnis, (sending him your piece) for a clarification on the point you make about the uniqueness of Tamil sub-nationalism. He was kind enough to write back and also said: “The Sri Lankan Tamils, to the best of my knowledge, have not been the only ethnic group in South Asia to display the ‘autonomy-secession’ continuum. […] It is quite common for ethnic political movements to demand autonomy, failing which groups or factions often move to a secessionist platform. Movement in the opposite direction also do take place.”

Please note, I am not contesting your point that there is an autonomist-secessionist continuum in Tamil nationalism, only that the book does not make the point that such a continuum is unique to Tamil nationalism in South Asia as you maintain. If the first edition (which I have not seen through) did make this point then it appears Dr. Phadnis evidently changed her mind by 2001, though I feel it is unlikely. I also think one cannot disagree with you that nationalisms-Tamil and Sinahala–poses some unique challenges in Sri Lanka, but, for example, Baluch nationalisms in Pakistan, or Naga or Meitei nationalisms in north-eastern India pose challenges that are unique in their own right and context.

In my own view, given my knowledge (no doubt limited as it is) such a continuum is evident in many other nationalisms in South Asia and beyond. Indeed as Donald Horowitz is said to have noted demands can “switch from autonomy to independence and back again” (Donald Horowitz, “Patterns of Ethnic Separatism” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 23 (April 1981), p.168).

In any case, I would be happy to be corrected.

Regards,

P. Vijaya

PS: All page numbers refer to the “Revised Edition” published by Sage in 2001 (paperback).

“There may be statements made by our leaders to suit the polity of the time but Eelam is our ultimate goal.”

Problematic only when you see through certain lenses

Seeing how India has approached it, shows there is no problem.

Yes cyril, it’s only the Sinhalese nationalists who are the stumbling block towards constructive inter-ethnic dialogue. Afterall, the Tamils have *never* demonized the Sinhalese/Muslims/Sri Lanka/North Indians/Hindi language/Brahmins/Malayalees/Kannadigas, have they? And they have never advocated the creation of a mono-ethnic Tamil-only state, have they? Interesting.