The Bank of Ceylon (est 1939), was
Headed by Mr. Chelliah Loganathan from 1953 to 1969 as it’s General
Manager. Before that, in 1944, he served in the Bank’s Jaffna branch.
He returned to the Banks Head office as the OIC of Current Accounts.
The Bank was nationalised in 1961 and became a State Bank.

[Edited out]

Here is what a Tamil who had first hand experience
of Loganathan’s policies, has to say.
“I was truly an
out-caste paraiah among the Tamils. Although most Tamils
could readily get a housing loan from the “Bank of Ceylon”
run by Mr. Loganathan, especially at the Wellawatta branch,
I found that I could not even open an account even with a government
pay cheque.”
http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/06/sinhalization-of-north-and-tamilzation.html)

That’s
how the Tamil Bureaucracy worked and it was not limited to the
Banking sphere.

A very long article that requires a similarly long reply to do justice to it. But I will limit my analysis to examine the underlying philosophy behind your argument.

1. You assume that the Northern Province and the Eastern province together is a contiguous Tamil area, which of course is false and cannot be justified using history.

Dutch cartography contains many Sinhala place names in the North (http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/kaartencollectie/zoeken/weergave/detail/q/id/af99937a-d0b4-102d-bcf8-003048976d84)
and in particular, has this entry in the Dutch National archives which proves that the Northernmost border of the Sinhala Kandyan Kingdom ran through Elephant Pass (http://www.atlasofmutualheritage.nl/detail.aspx?page=dpost&lang=en&id=682#tab2)

Prof Pradeep Jeganathan (a Tamil intellectual) says “it is not historically accurate to say that the Kings of Jaffna ruled the east, certainly even a cursory glance at Dutch records and the doings of Rajasinha the 2nd will tell you, that the Kings of the Kanda Uda Pas Rate, (the five countries on top of the mountains) were also the overlords of Batticoloa and Trincomalee” (http://www.pjeganathan.org/)

2. The British administrative boundaries reflect Habitation patterns.

This again is a false premise and cannot be maintained.

In 1881 the Tamil population of Lanka was about 345,000 (from the census of 1881 and 1911). In the same year the Sinhalese numbered 1,846,600, the Moors 184,500, Malays 8,900, Burghers 17,900 and others 14,500.

Hence before the foreign colonists arrived, the population numbers would have been lower but the ratios would be more or less similar. For the sake of argument I would be using the figures already mentioned.

The Northern and Eastern provinces, demarcated by the British, have a combined area of 18,880 sq km and a
perimeter of over 1000 km which a population of 345,000 will find impossible to protect against a competing population of over 2 million.

In 1886 Lanka’s forest cover was 80% (ref: A Review of Forest Policy trends in Sri Lanka by Mangala de Zoysa, Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ruhuna). This means that total population, including the Tamils, but excluding the Veddahs, inhabited only 20% of Lanka’s Land.

The Northern and Eastern Provinces claimed as a Tamil area, constitutes 28.8% of Lanka. This is 8.8% GREATER than the area inhabited by the total population of 2.5 million. Hence it is not possible to maintain
a claim that the British, demarcated the Provincial boundaries, to coincide with natural habitation of the different ethnicities.

3. The Sri Lankan State sponsored Colonisation of the North and the East.
This is a canard that is spread and relied upon to cheat the Non Tamil community of Land which is a scarce resource vital for life.

The indigenes of Lanka are the Veddha aborigines. Everyone else is a colonist. The Sinhalese are a product
of intermingling of colonists with the indigenes as they are not found anywhere else in the world.

The type of colonisation that you refer to occurred on a large scale in the Kandyan Kingdom when the colonisers brought in Foreigners and settled them there. In this case the Lands used were dispossessed from the Sinhalese on a large scale by enacting unjust laws.

1830s Waste Land Ordinance.
“Historically, the wastelands ordinance has most often been used to claim lands from natives, for use by a colonial or occupying power, most notably the British in Sri Lanka”. (wiki)

1840 Crown Land Enforcement Ordinance.
“As a result of Crown Land Enforcement Ordinance, 90% of the land in the Kandyan highlands was designated as land belonging to the British Crown” (Herath et al, 1995:77).

1897 The Waste Land Ordinance Act.
“The Waste Land Ordinance Act annexed more lands as crown lands where villagers could no longer claim them according to the new British imposed rules” (Roberts 1979:233, Obeysekara 1967: 98-100).

“The impact of these land ordinances were uneven, because they were largely limited to the former Kandyan Kingdom” (Mendis 1951:166). “These changes to the Kandyan land and service tenure systems disintegrated the old Sinhalese systems” (Codrington 1938:63). “The majority of the Sinhalese villages effectively lost the structural prerequisite of land tenure systems” (Obeysekara 1967:101).

What was the impact of these on the Sinhala Farming community?

“Many villagers in the Kandyan area were deprived of their high lands formally used for chena cultivation or grazing the cattle” (Mendis 1951:85). “According to the 1946 census on population in the agricultural
sector of the island, 40% of the agricultural peasant families found in the former Kandyan Kingdom were landless while there were 26% landless agricultural families recorded in the wet zone” (Herath 1995: 79).

These Land Ordinances vested about 85% of Lanka’s land in the Crown

As you can see, those who were affected was the Sinhala peasantry and not any other community. Most of them are still Landless even after nearly two centuries..

In fact, the equivalent of Resettling the totality of the indigenous Tamil population in the midst of the Sinhala Kandyan Kingdom on Sinhala Land took place under the British govt. The 1911 census reveals that Foreign Tamils residing in Lanka exceeded the indigenous Tamil population. Almost ALL of them occupied Sinhala Land.

That watchdog is what happened before independence but conveniently forgotten.
Now lets examine what happened after Independence.

You have stated that “Needless to say, the social and political implications of colonizing certain geographical locations of predominantly Tamil areas were profound.”

What then would you call what happened to the Sinhalese hinterland?

Profound is too insignificant a word to use to describe their predicament in the heartland of their own
Kingdom compared to what you have labeled profound.

Now let’s examine your claims about what you term “Govt sponsored Colonisation”.
I don’t agree to the use of that term when foreigners are not the beneficiary.

How does a govt provide redress to the vast numbers of Sinhalese whose lands were dispossessed? Do we evict the current Indian origin Tamils and restore ownership to the rightful owner, the indigenous Sinhalese? That is a course of action that I would not recommend as it is not humane. I doubt that you will recommend it either. What then is the alternative? Keeping them landless and perpetuating a near two centuries of limbo is not tenable. Then what is the alternative you suggest?

You have written about settlements in Gal Oya and the Mahawelli developments. What is wrong in providing
land to those who remained Landless for nearly Two Centuries? You are objecting to Sinhalese being provided newly developed Agricultural land by Govt funded river basin developments. The East is totally within the former Sinhalese Kandyan Territory and the Gal Oya scheme is totally within it. Even the Mahaweli scheme is South of Elephant Pass and is hence inside the former Kandyan Kingdom.

Now lets examine development.funding.

Gal Oya commissioned in 1952 (800 000 acre feet). An Investment of Rs 75 million (exclusive of downstream
cost). This was 10% of the annual export earnings from tea.

Accelerated Mahaveli Development Project, commissioned in 1978, with the intention of utilising the 7 billion
acre feet of water that flowed in the Mahaveli river to irrigate the dry zone. It cost Rs 55 billion (up to 1989). More than twice the annual export earnings from tea.

The per capita burden of all these developments is as follows
75% by Sinhalese, 11% by Lanka Tamils, 9% by Muslims, 4% by Indian origin Tamils and 1% by the rest.

Your argument hides the fact that the brunt of development cost is borne by NON TAMILS, to the
tune of 85%.

Now lets look at your interpretation of the 13A

Here is the FULL clause on Land distribution.

2:5 The distribution of all allotments of such land in such projects will be on the basis of national ethnic ratio. In the distribution of allotments according to such ratios, priority will be given to persons who are displaced by the project, landless of the District in which the project is situated and thereafter the landless
of the Province.

Here is what you wrote

“Furthermore, according to the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, during the re-distribution of land acquired for Inter-Provincial Irrigation and Land Development projects, priority should be given to those
displaced by such projects, landless of the District in which he project is situated, and then landless of the Province.”

Where is the Landless Indian Origin Tamils, who are overwhelmingly resident in other provinces, accommodated within this Hierarchy?

However your interpretation has left out the most important condition while placing emphasis on the Hierarchy as a red herring. Why did you leave out the National Ethnic Ratio which forms the BASIS of Land Distribution? Oversight or dishonesty?

The requirement to adhere to the National Ethnic Ratio makes your argument puerile.
The current National Ethnic Ratio is as follows
Sinhala: Lanka Tamil: Moor:Indian Origin Tamil: Malay: Burgher
74.88 : 11.21 : 9.23 : 4.16 : 0.2 : 0.18

Hence according to the 13A, the developed lands are to be distributed on the same lines as the Debt burden carried by by each ethnic group. What is Unfair about it?

The desire to control a disproportionate quantum of Land and the preservation of demography within the Tamil habitat are mutually exclusive. Because the actual Habitation does not coincide with the boundaries over which power is sought. The only fair method by which political control can be retained under the 13A is to delimit the provincial boundaries to coincide with natural habitation. This means the creation of other provinces or central govt territories with the excess Land.

The 13A also states that
2:7 The distribution of allotments in such projects on the basis of the aforesaid principles would be done as far as possible so as not to disturb very significantly the demographic pattern of the Province and in accordance with the principle of ensuring community cohesiveness in human settlements.

The wording clearly states “as far as possible” but when you cannot find the diversity of ethnic mix within any given province the saturation point is reached very soon and in order to maintain the National Ethnic Ratios decreed as the BASIS by 13A, the shortfall has to be filled by those outside the province, change of demography notwithstanding.

The 13A decrees that Lands opened up by Irrigation projects be allocated on the National Ethnic Ratio. You
cannot have the cake and eat it. Either settle for a fair allocation of land proportionate to the population living within a province (irrespective of ethnicity) or face the prospect of a 13A mandated change in demography.

Read the article first (above), the extent of state aided demographic change becomes apparent. !

Dev, Tamils didn’t buy property in a barren waste land like Manner but in the middle of the capital city. It isn’t just Tamils who move to Colombo from North and East of the country but so do many Sinhalese from the South. Hence yours is also a canard that has been played time and again and holds no water anymore. To settle people in less developed areas of the country be they Sinhalese or Tamil, the government needs to step in and provide them with facilities.

This a canard spread by some !
No you are free to buy and live ANYWHERE, this is what Tamils have done in Colombo. Where they pay RENT or BUY -no one has thrown out the rightful owner of lands/houses to occupy them !
Nor has the government given any special incentives for the Tamils to live there !
What is NOT ok is for the state to grab lands from their rightful owners or PAY someone to go and settle in a particular location in order to change the demography !
There lies the difference !