“When the cry for a separate Tamil state was first proposed by a little known man called Visvalingam in 1918 there were absolutely no takers for it. Even the explicit reference to Tamil Eelam by the intellectual giant Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam in 1924 struck no responsive chord in the Tamil heart. … In the latter days of British rule the Tamil political leadership made no demand for a separate state or even federalism. When the brilliant Tamil intellectual C. Sundaralingam articulated a clear-cut political demand for Eelam, which he spelled out as ‘Eylom’, he was scorned as an “eccentric”, and his demand rejected by the Tamil politicians. The “Suyaatchi” or autonomy demand put forward by him was simply an euphemism for a separate Tamil state. He and his party were routed. But when the newly formed Tamil United Liberation Front contested the 1977 polls on a separatist platform it swept to victory winning 18 of the 19 Tamil majority electorates in the Northeast.”

Further support for this point comes from S. Sivanayagam’s book, Witness to History: A Journalist’s Memoirs (1930- 2004), (2005):

“[The resolution] came as a marked departure in Tamil thinking. Thoughts on the idea of separation [had] of course been aired by individuals now and then, but those came to nothing. That maverick politician C. Suntharalingam who represented in parliament the frontier Tamil electorate in Vavuniya could be considered the father of the Tamil Eelam concept (he spelled it ‘Eylom’), but as a mere general without an army, the Tamils never took him seriously. Professor A.J. Wilson in his political autobiography of S.J.V Chelvanayakam refers to an instance years earlier – in 1936 – when two Tamils, Dr S. Ponniah, a mayor in the Ceylon defence force and a notary of Vadamarachchy named Vallipurunathan had sent a petition to Britain requesting a separate state for the Tamils. They had shown Chelvanayakam (who was not an active politician then) the draft of the petition to elicit his views.”

See also the interesting commentary from Dr. Pradeep Jeganathan on why it is important to examine Sri Lanka’s colonial past when looking at the roots of conflict in Sri Lanka.

1. http://sundaytimes.lk/030209/columns/cv.html
2. http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/tamileelam/2200arunachalam.htm

In 1949, the Ilankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (Lanka Tamil Nation Party) was formed. It was falsely termed ‘the Federal Party’ in English. Clearly, Tamil nationalism was independant of Sinhala nationalism and started before. It was based on the premise that there was a historical Tamil Homeland in the North-East. That is why those who allege discrimination and grievances demand Tamil Eelam, and not demand the correction of such discrimination and grievances. One may argue that the historical Tamil Homeland in the North-East is true; others may argue otherwise.

A Tamil person cannot still have his statement recorded in Tamil at a police station in Colombo or anywhere in the suburbs, even today. Not only that, even a marriage certificate for a Tamil couple is provided in Sinhala. I can cite many such instances.

Last year, when I met the Chairman of the Official Languages Commission, I asked him where I could obtain pension forms in Tamil in order to claim my late father’s pension dues. He was unable to give a satisfactory reply, but I found that his official business card was dutifully printed in all three languages.

What is the reason for this negligence? The Official Language Act was repealed during JRJ’s regime. The Tamil language was only made an ‘official language’ in 1987 at the request of India under the terms of the Indo-Lanka Accord. So in fact there was no genuine change of heart. It was simply compulsion. That is why it has not worked.

I do not deny the fact that there exists a serious lack of self-awareness between the Sinhalese and Tamils today, which is why a bigoted national minority is in conflict with the bias and hauteur of the national majority on this beautiful island. But this was not there in February 1948 when Sinhalese and Tamils considered themselves Ceylonese.

Tamil chauvinism also has deep historical, cultural, mythological and psychological roots which apparently give rise to the same inability to accommodate and acknowledge that progress has been made, however incremental it may be, to move beyond historical positions of intractability towards a more inclusive and accommodating reality.

The type of narrow, biased and de-historicised thinking reflected in the comment by Ganeshan is as much an impediment to the realisation of the legitimate aspirations of minorities as the worst chauvinist diatribes by majority extremists.

The Sinhala Only Act of 1956 and its consequences is the result of a botched attempt by the majority Sinhalese in the country to remedy the perception of slight and subservience suffered from colonialism. Merely because the Sinhalese were a majority it so happened they took over the reins of power handled to them by the British under a system of constitutional arrangement which was foisted on the diverse people inhabiting the country. The Tamils in the country were the second majority race. But the Sinhalese had completely ignored the fact that the Tamils too were a people, who like them, were subject to the said colonialists.

This is the reason for majority chauvinism. It is deliberately and purposefully articulated to be blind to the legitimate aspirations of minority peoples.

Sinhalese chauvinism has deep historical, cultural, mythological and psychological roots which in turn has bred an unrelenting stance to deny any reasonable accommodation to ameliorate or diffuse Tamil apprehensions as to their well being safety or security.

Since independence in 1948 the hostility between the Sinhalese and Tamils have assumed a sharper intensity as to the assertion of their cultural and religious identity, and manifested itself to a peak with the upheavals of 1983 and the destitution, impoverishment and homelessness of the Tamils.