H. L. D. Mahindapala

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The Tamils who migrated from S. India and colonized the northern peninsula in the 12-13^th centuries were ruled by three main home-grown regimes which dominated the Jaffna political culture: 1. the self-appointed kings; 2. the self-appointed upper-caste of Vellahlas who shot up in rank overnight from the lowest Sudras to the highest caste in Jaffna and 3. the self-appointed ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-sole representatives of the TamilsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ headed by Velupillai Prabhakaran. They succeeded each other in that order.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ According to Mudliyar C. Rasanayagam the Vellahla families migrated to Jaffna in 13^th and 14^th centuries. (pp. 335 and 336, Ancient Jaffna). When the kings were overthrown by the colonialists in the 16^th century the land-owning, agricultural Vellahlas emerged as the subaltern social controllers, with all the feudal and colonial privileges, operating within the over-arching colonial administrations. At the end of the Vellahla-dominated era in the latter half of the 20^th century the Vellahla leadership virtually handed over power to the militant youth in 1976 ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” a fatal decision that eroded their grip on peninsular power. In passing the Vadukoddai Resolution in 1976 they were hoping to ride on the backs of youth to power as the supreme rulers of a separate state. Instead the militant youth took the guns and fired the bullets on them first.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ All three regimes ruled Jaffna with an iron fist. All three regimes were over-determined by the Hindu militant ideology of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-doing your dutyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” a basic HinduƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ideology in which everyone was assigned a station in life and it was the individualƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s duty to perform his duties to God and man by conforming, without dissent, to the divinely ordained order which was unalterable by man.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ There was no room for individuals to opt for alternatives that would go against the higher law. Opponents who refused to obey the divine order had to face the consequences of the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-dutyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ that had to be performed by those in command, as declared to the opposing armies that faced each other in battle in the Bhagavad Geeta.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Mahatma Gandhi, however, interpreted the heart as the battle field where the conflict of deciding what is right and wrong continues to rage eternally. The Gandhian ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-dutyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ was to apply non-violent principles. But Hindu militancy generally interpreted ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-doing your dutyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ as action to confront the opponents violently and vanquish evil, no questions asked.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Appapillai Amirthalingam, the successor to the founder of the separatist movement, S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, often used the term of having ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-done my dutyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ cryptically, knowing that the Saivite-Hindus of Jaffna would know the original context in the Geeta. The Hindu ideology that legitimized the Vellahla casteist rule was invoked by them to keep the slaves and depressed castes in their place, violently when required.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ It is this Saivite-Vellahla violence that is represented in the Tiger flag. The quintessential culture of the Saivite-Vellahla violence is framed in all its fury in the Tiger flag. The fact that the Jaffna elite, who should know better, embraced it without questioning is testimony to the fact that the Vellahlas have no qualms in accepting violence as an integral part of their way of life. The brutal images of the Tiger flag have a broad appeal to the Vellahla expatriates, either consciously or subconsciously.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Some of them may not be aware that the appeal is derived from their inveterate culture of violence. In fact, the Vellahlas see the gruesome images as symbols of their pride and glory. Their devotion to the Saivite-Vellahla ideology, which incorporates Hindu militancy and casteism, took violence for granted as a part of their culture. This is one of the reasons why the Ghandian movement against casteism in Jaffan was short lived and overtaken by casteist Saivite -Vellahlaism.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ There is no doubt that the sensitive souls of Jaffna were averse to violence. But they were silenced by the overwhelming and over-determining culture of casteist violence which made them overlook the fact that the flag approved and accepted by the ruling elite, the Churches, the kovils, the University of Jaffna, the intelligentsia and running right down to the lowest common denominator, was evil in character, cheap in design and bloody in outlook.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  (Prabhakaran is said to have paid a few rupees to the Tamil street artist in Chennai who painted the brutal images dictated to him by the Tiger Numero Uno who was then a protƒÆ’†’ƒ”š‚©gƒÆ’†’ƒ”š‚© of the Indian government). It is a flag which has no redeeming features. It is vulgar. It is cruel. And it does not represent any humane or civilized values. It displays, as large as life, the hidden violent culture of Jaffna that had ruled the peninsular Tamils under the three local overlords that dominated Jaffna — their putative kings, the fascist Vellahlas and the fascist Tamil Tigers. Irrespective of this grim and obscene history, the Jaffna jingoists, particularly the expatriates, embraced the Tiger flag unquestioningly as the sacred symbol of their past, present and their future.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ It must also be acknowledged that this flag is a symbolic and fitting representation of the violent culture that began with Sankilli marching down to Mannar and massacring 600-700 Tamil Catholics on the eve of Christmas in 1544 and ended on May 18, 2009 when Velupillai Prabhakaran shot the Tamils who were deserting him in droves on the banks of Nandikadal. The slaughter of Christians was not unusual in Jaffna. The cold blooded slaughter in Mannar was only the better known massacre. The second biggest massacre was the Kopay-Jaffna massacre. (p.124 ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism, A Study of its Origins, Murugar Gunasingham, MV Publications, Sydney, 1999.)

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The slaughter of non-combatant Tamil dissidents, who subscribed to a different set of beliefs, was a common feature of the Jaffna polity from early times. Prabhakaran merely continued the tradition with renewed vigour and ferocity. He was the latest avatar of a long tradition of violence. It can be argued, therefore, that the Tiger flag has its roots in the violent culture of Jaffna. A cultured community could never have embraced a barbaric flag like the one designed by Prabhakaran ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” a pathetic mediocrity whose excelled only in organizing and executing brutality.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The symbiotic relationship between the Vellahla elite, particularly those in the diaspora, which gloried in every act of violence committed by the Tigers, confirms that Prabhakaran was their hero. He was publicly acting out the fantasies of violence inherited from their ancestors. The Tamil expatriates encouraged, financed and justified each act of destruction or killing by Prabhakaran believing that he was their ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Sun-GodƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ who would deliver them from ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the Sinhala-dominated governmentsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚. They took a sadistic delight in each war crime or crime against humanity committed by Prabhakaran, particularly because they saw his violence as the only means of achieving their political dream of Eelam.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The inseparable political alliance between the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and Prabhakaran also confirms that the TNA member ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” all of whom were pliant political factotums of Prabhakaran — were not only beholden to PrabhakaranƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s violence for their survival but were also ideologically alliedƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  in sharing of the Saivite-Hindu ideology of violence common to the Vellahla culture.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Even when their own people were incarcerated, tortured, persecuted and killed the TNA went along silently with Prabhakaran who was posing as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-the sole representatives of the Tamil peopleƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” a direct insult to the TNA MPs who also claimed to be representatives of the Tamils.

Violence was also the means with which the dying Vellahla culture managed to survive till the latter half of the 20^th century. Vellahla casteism, and the violence with which casteism was enforced, distorted the fundamentals of Jaffna society and stunted its growth into a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and tolerant community. The Vellahla supremacists resisted any competing ideologies of liberalism, socialism, Gandhism, humanism, you name it. Jaffna had all the symptoms of a warped society in which the casteist ideologies of Hinduism, traditional laws encoded in Thesawalamai and the intolerant and intransigent political culture of the ruling Vellahlas coalesced to produce of a culture of fascistic violence. This tradition of violence was documented in detail in the annual reports of the British government agents of Jaffna. Those reports reflect the nature of the inherent violence in the Jaffna culture. The Vellahlas wrote the darkest chapter in Sri Lankan history with the blood of their own people. They were surpassed only by the first born that came out of the Vadukoddai Resolution of the Vellahlas ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” Velupillai Prabhakaran.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The Vellahlas, of course, had a fairly free hand under the colonial rulers ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” Portuguese, Dutch and the British ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” to perpetuate their violence rooted in Hindu militancy. All colonial rulers accepted the principle of not interfering with the traditional laws that governed Jaffna. Any attempt to interfere, which meant intruding into the powers and privileges of the ruling Vellahlas, was met with resistance.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The Dutch were the first to get a taste of Vellahla violence when they rebelled against government positions being given to the Madapallis ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” their rival caste. Both castes were vying for supremacy by trying to capture the highest government positions in the Dutch administration. The Dutch Governor Van Rhee recorded: ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-I think it is necessary to state that a bitter and irreconcilable hatred exists between the people of the Ballala and of the Madapalli castes. It has, therefore, been a rule in the Jaffnapattam not to elevate one above the other. For this reason the two Cannecapals or writers of Commander are taken from these two castes so that one may be a Ballala and the other a Madapalli.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (p.12 — Memoirs of Van Rhee).

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ This demonstrate the perennial struggle of the Vellahlas to have not only social control through religion, casteism, rituals and violence but also political power at the highest level by grabbing the government posts that would give them access to the powers-that-be to consolidate their power, prestige and positions. ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The first Vellahla rebellion against their fear of losing power at the centre was against the Dutch. The second was against the Government of Sri Lanka when they passed Vadukoddai Resolution endorsing violence to retain their feudal and colonial power. The passing of the Vadukoddai Resolution, the rejection of universal franchise, resistance to democratization of the colonial administration, etc., were all calculated moves to retain the colonial and feudal privileges dressed up, of course, as minority rights. The Vellahla attacks on the Dutch and the Sri Lankan governments were planned exercises in gaining and retaining control at the centre to secure their privileged position.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ It is the Vellahla rebellion against the Dutch that prompted Governor Simons in 1706 to commission Dissawe Class Isaaksz to collect and codify ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-The Jaffnapatam ancient customsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚. Knowing the laws and the customs of the land would help the colonial rulers to maintain stability and peace by not disturbing the status quo. These customs had its origins in the Malabars of S. India. Tambiah says that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-in their ethnic origins, the Malabars and Tamils were oneƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚¦ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (p.51 ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…”ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  The Laws and Customs of the Tamils of Jaffna, Dr. H. W. Tambiah). Ironically, the colonial masters never recognized them as Tamils. They referred to them as Malabars, meaning descendants of S. Indians.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ After Isaaksz completed the codification it was reviewed for accuracy by 12 Mudliyars of the time and approved by them with requests for consolidating their rule over the slaves. The British who took over from the Dutch reaffirmed the legal status of Thesawalamai in Regulation 18 of 1806 which stated that the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-customs of the Malabar the Governor Simons in 1706 shall be in force.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Though the British abolished slavery under Regulation 20 of 1844 ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-many of the depressed classes remained as de facto slaves of their masters for economical reasons,ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ says Tambiah.(p. 83 ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” Ibid) Obviously, Vellahla dominance and social control of Jaffna never changed under any of the colonial masters. The Vellahlas tried every trick in the book to maintain the supremacy ascribed to them in the Tesawalamai. Tambiah cites the case of Sir. Ponnambalam Ramanathan appearing in the Supreme Court to justify the use of violence by the Vellahlas who had led a violent mob to terrorize and prevent a low caste man carrying his wife to the grave to the sound of tom-tom beating. Ramanathan argued in Court that the Vellahlas had the right to prevent tom-toms being beaten when a low-caste is taken for burial. According to him, under Regulation 18, of 1806 which recognized the force of Thesawalamai gave the right to Vellahlas to maintain their supremacy over the low-castes by preserving the privilege of beating tom-toms only for the Vellahlas. Tambiah says that Ramanathan concealed the fact that it was abolished under Regulation 20, 1844.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ This case is typical of the Vellahlas of Jaffna demanding special rights, over and above the rights of others, to impose their will on the land. They would fall back on their laws, customs and culture to justify any villainy as long as it contributed to sustain Vellahla supremacy. Responding to RamanathanƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s claims His Lordship Burnside, C.J., delivered a measured judgment. He said: ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-But suppose it is conceded that is the law, and that the Supreme Court should be moved for a writ of injunction to prevent a woman from being carried to the grave to the sound of tom-toms, does it follow that a body of men may assemble themselves together, and by a show of force and to the terror of the other subjects of the Queen enforce their own edict to that effect against the party who favoured the tom-tom.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  I apprehend not. I say it with diffidence in the face of the learned CounselƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s contention I trust that none of the ancient rights of the Malabar inhabitants of Jaffnapatam will be jeopardised. Notwithstanding the contention and the venerable authority on which it is based, I make bold to hold that the Malabar inhabitants of the Province of Jaffnapatam, whoever they may be must one and all be subject to the universal proposition of law applicable to the whole Colony, that the people cannot take the law into their own hands, and seek to administer it after the fashion of Judge Lynch.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (Queen vs. Ambalavanar ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” 1 SCR, 271, quoted in Ibid, p.85)

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ This is a judgment with huge implications that goes beyond a case of tom-tom beating in the colonial period to the broader picture in the post-colonial era. This case of Queen vs. Ambalavaner is a microcosm of the macro north-south crisis that exploded in the post-independence era. Primarily, if the underlying principles of Chief Justice BurnsideƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s judgment are extrapolated into the bigger political scene of the nation it will reveal how the Vellahlas (like Ramanathan) 1) hid the realities and demanded excessive ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ rights (e.g., 50-50, power sharing, separate state), 2) refused to be subject to the universal proposition of law applicable to the whole nation, 3) took the law into their own hands to impose their political will and 4) administered their politics through terrorism in the fashion advanced in the Vadukoddai Resolution that produced Prabhakaranist violence.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The Vellahla hubris and their unwarranted sense of superiority, inherited mainly from theƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  power and privileges of their feudal past and protected under colonial regimes, convinced them that they were entitled to a status which was way above that of all other communities. Their idea of equality was when the Vellahlas alone were given political, legal and social rights that elevated them to heights of power and glory as in the feudal times. Any threat to their powers and privileges were decried as discrimination. Any move of the post-independence era to address the historical imbalances left behind by colonialism was distorted as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-discrimination against the Tamils.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Attempts to democratize, equalize, modernize and rectify the imbalances of the colonial past ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” an inescapable necessity in all post-colonial nations — were opposed vehemently and misrepresented as an attempt to oppress the Tamil minority. Their argument implied that the injustices, inequalities and unfairness of colonial times that favoured the minorities and disadvantaged the majority in the post-colonial period should not be altered and retained intact for them to continue as the feudal supremacists. Any adjustments to the established colonial privileges, powers, and positions were condemned as acts of majoritarianism, communalism, and chauvinism riding rough shod over the minorities.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Their political maneuvers were aimed at preserving and perpetuating the old colonial mould without any alterations that would affect their interests. Colonialism empowered them with special and exclusive rights to be more equal than the others. In the post-colonial era they fought back aggressively to retain these privileges. The primary issues that ignited the north-south conflict were contained in the rearguard action of the privileged minority to retain their feudal and colonial privileges. Their tactic was to concoct fictitious histories, fabricated geographies and Orwellian political vocabulary to disguise their outrageous and mono-ethnic demands to project themselves as victims of majority oppression and discrimination. There was no other way they could justify their territorial claims and privileges that accrued to them under feudalism and colonialism. Their ultimate dream was to create an Orwellian world in which the Vellahlas would be more equal than the others.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Take their claim of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-discriminationƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ which was also defined by Dr. Colvin R. de Silva in mathematical terms. He is quoted as saying that simply because the Sinhalese constitutes 7/10^th of the population does not mean that each of them is entitled to seven plates of rice. The mathematics is absolutely fair, just and faultless. The morality of equality demands that one Sinhalese is entitled to only one plate of rice. That is the principle of sharing power equally.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Now, according to Dr. de SilvaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s mathematics that leaves 3/10^th out which can be divided into 1/10^th indigenous Tamils, 1/10th Indian Tamils, and 1/10^th Muslims, roughly speaking. But the exaggerated demands of Vellahla politics do not add up to Dr. de SilvaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s maths. According to Marxian maths the Sinhalese should have only one plate of rice even though they occupy 7/10^th of the land. So why should one third of the Jaffna Tamils be entitled to two thirds of the coastline and its hinterland, depriving the other 9/10^th their equal share of the national coastline? Where is the justification in that? Is this mathematics or numerical gymnastics?

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In other words, the Jaffna jingoists want an equal share of the produce of the land which is fair enough. And even the Jaffna Tamils would agree that they get a fair share of free education from kindergarten to university, free health services, subsidized essential items, a fair share of investments for development in the north and the east, etc. However, when it comes to ownership of land they want 2/3rds of the coastline leaving the other 9/10ths of the population only 1/3^rd.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The Marxian mathematics calculated by Dr. de Silva exposes the unrealistic and unsustainable claim of Jaffna Tamils to a share of the land that goes against all principles of equality and justice. How can the idea of equality be valid when a minority of 1/10^th claims 2/3^rd leaving the other 9/10^th only a mere 1/3^rd? Either the Jaffna Tamils havenƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t a clue of what equality means or their claim to be mathematical geniuses is sheer bunkum.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ This also proves that the solution to the north-south crisis is not in fragmenting the land into fractions. But according to Jaffna maths only a disproportionate share of land, power, positions, privileges given to them exclusively, at the expense of the other 9/10^th, would add up to equality. Dr. de SilvaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s maths also demonstrate that all the rules, laws, maths, principles, are measured meticulously and applied ONLY to the Sinhalese. But when it comes to the Jaffna Tamils maths, logic and principles are thrown overboard and their disproportionate claims are validated as minority rights. ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The crux of the crisis is in the imbalance caused by the lack of the principle of proportionality. All the formulas of the past have failed because of the excessive demands laid down by the 1/10^th in the north. The solution is not in fragmenting into disproportionate fractions but in sharing the land in common as trustees of every inch of the territory stretching from coast to coast.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The Marxist maths explains convincingly why a micro organism in Jaffna does not need more space than all the other species put together.