{"id":98167,"date":"2020-01-23T23:08:29","date_gmt":"2020-01-24T05:08:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=98167"},"modified":"2020-01-23T15:41:23","modified_gmt":"2020-01-23T22:41:23","slug":"intractability-of-the-tamil-problem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2020\/01\/23\/intractability-of-the-tamil-problem\/","title":{"rendered":"Intractability of the Tamil problem"},"content":{"rendered":"

Prof. N. A. de S. Amaratunga<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n

To understand the nature of the Tamil problem and why\nit remains apparently unresolved one must examine its history and origin. It\nhas its origin in Tamil separatism which dates back to 1930s. Tamil separatism\nis a Tamil construct. When independence for Ceylon was being considered by the\nBritish Raj as it was uneconomical to maintain their empire, the Tamil leaders\npetitioned the British Government requesting a separate state for the Tamils. A\ncase had been prepared for this claim well in advance. Mudaliyar C. Rasanayagam\nin his book titled Ancient Jaffna\u201d (1926) attempts to show that an independent\nkingdom existed in Jaffna before it was conquered by the Portuguese in 1619.\nThis is a distortion of facts. Mudliyar Rasanayagam’s views on Tamil habitation\nin Sri Lanka have been proved to be baseless and less than a scholarly\ndiscourse of the matter by Prof.K.N.O.Dharmadasa (2007).  Prof.Indrapala Karthigesu’s research work had\nshown that there is no evidence of Tamil habitation in Sri Lanka before the 10th<\/sup>\nCentury CE. If there were Tamil kings in Jaffna there should be inscriptions in\nTamil but not a single has been found. On the contrary the earliest inscription\nfound in Jaffna could be attributed to a Sinhala king, Parakramabahu II who\nruled Jaffna from Polonnaruwa.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The so called Tamil Kingdom was a creation of\nsuccessive  invaders from South India and\nalso Thailand and was for most of its existence a part of the Pandyan Empire in\nSouth India. This historical event was not any different from such other events\nin Sri Lanka caused by foreign invasions from South India and Europe. The so\ncalled Tamil Kingdom for long periods was part of a South Indian Dynasty. But\nso was the entire island of Sri Lanka when it was under British rule and\nconsidered part of the British Empire and perhaps also similarly part of\nPortuguese and Dutch Empires and also South Indian dynasties at different times\nin its history. Thus the so called Tamil Kingdom was only a result of foreign\ninvasion and not a creation of ancient Tamil inhabitants. The so called Tamil\nKingdom therefore does not qualify as a Kingdom of Tamils.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There had been thousands of such happenings in the\nhistory of the world but they do not lead to the the creation of a separate\nstate or a nation.  There is no evidence\nof an ancient civilization built by ancient Tamils living in the North or\nanywhere else in the country. The kovils built by invaders cannot be considered\nas features of a civilization. Tamils have not built, nurtured and protected a\ncivilization in Sri Lanka.  On the other\nhand there is evidence that Sinhalese built a civilization covering the entire\nIsland including the North and the East. Unless a group of people occupying an\narea of land build, nurture and protect a civilization on that land they are\nnot entitled to that land. This fact is of paramount importance when\nconsidering a solution to the so called Tamil problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this context it is important to see how this issue\nis being pursued at present. Former Chief Minister Vigneshwaran has called for\nthe creation of a Federal State for the Tamils and to substantiate his claim\nhad made reference to the ancient Tamil Kingdom and he has said Mahawamsa is\nfiction.. TNA leader R Sampanthan speaking in the Parliament on the 8th<\/sup>\nJanuary 2020 has drawn attention to the hitherto unresolved Tamil man’s problem\n(The Island, 10.01.2020). He has said 85% of Tamils have voted against Gotabaya\nRajapakse which he says is an indication that their problem has not been\naddressed and that the Tamils have at every election repeatedly voiced the need\nfor a solution to their problem. Since most of the economic, social, political\nand cultural needs of the Tamil community, in the Sri Lankan context, have been\nsorted out one wonders what other grievances could be bothering the Tamils.\nHowever, when one reads Sampanthan’s speech \none would understand that his problem is the nature of the state of Sri\nLanka as defined  in the present\nconstitution. What he wants obviously is to replace the word unitary\u201d (Chapter\n1 Clause 2) with the words united, undivided and indivisible\u201d.  For in his speech he says Identity and\nsecurity of the Tamil people needs to be addressed within the framework of a\nunited, undivided and indivisible Sri Lanka\u201d. He has pointedly avoided the word\nunitary\u201d in his speech. United, undivided and indivisible\u201d are the words that\nappear in the draft constitution presented to the parliament by the previous\ngovernment. TNA leadership is believed to have played a big role in its\ndrafting. These words place the single sovereignty concept in jeopardy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The definition of the nature of the state is one of the\nmore, if not the most, important clauses in a country’s constitution. The\nwording of the clause is of crucial importance for it will decide whether we\nare a single sovereign or of multiple sovereigns or whether there is freedom to\nsecede or federate. The English word unitary\u201d is not equivocal in this regard\nand so is the Sinhala word ekeeya\u201d. On the other hand the word united\u201d\n(eksath\u201d in Sinhala\u201d) could have a different connotation, it could mean\nseveral units have come together to form a whole eg. United States, United\nKingdom which is not the case of Sri Lanka which had remained unitary in its\nlong history. When ever its unitary state was disrupted due to internal strife\nor external invasion great kings had risen up to restore its sovereignty as one\nnation. Recently too in 2009 separatists were similarly defeated. Sinhala\nBuddhists have sacrificed their lives to preserve the country in its unitary\nstate from very early times  and they\nwill continue to do so when ever the need arises. For instance just before the\npresidential election Tamil parties proclaimed their demands which in effect\nwas a recipe for federalism. In response Sinhala Buddhist consciousness came to\nthe fore.  Sampanthan must understand the\nmeaning of the phenomenon that more than 70% of Sinhala Buddhists voted to save\nthe unitary state of the country to counter the 85% of his people’s votes caste\nagainst that sentiment. Thousands of people living abroad answered the nation’s\ncall in its hour of need.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sampanthan makes reference to statements ascribed to\nMahinda Rajapakse to show that the latter was in agreement with the position\ntaken up by the Tamil parties, India and the International Community. On the\ncontrary what Rajapakse had said was that there could be maximum devolution\nwithout sacrificing the sovereignty\u201d. In other words there has to be only one\nsovereign nation. This is not possible unless \nthe word unitary\u201d is used to describe the nature of the state which\ndenotes that sovereignty is reposed in a single elected institution. The\nattempt to manipulate the wording that defines the state is a dubious scheme to\nerode into the sovereignty of the nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the Tamil leaders are interested in seems to be\nfederalism, perhaps in different guise, based on ethnicity. Ethnic federalism\nor any other arrangement based on ethnicity that jeopardizes the unitary state\nor the single sovereign concept has not worked in countries where it has been\ntried. Failure is due to several reasons. Though the system is supposed to\npromote ethnic harmony it is found that very often the consciousness of ethnic\nidentities hardens resulting in disharmony and conflict (Lovise Aaden 2009).\nFurther the population distribution could be so complex that drawing boundaries\non ethnic lines are difficult and often results in creating minorities within\nthe demarcated area leading to further conflict (Mawdoni 2019). This is most\nlikely to happen in Sri Lanka. In ethnic federal states everything is likely to\nbe transformed into ethnic issues (Anderson, 2013). For example the appointment\nof officials in the police, the judiciary and other services would develop into\nethnic issues. Moreover, ethnic federalism instead of promoting unity in\ndiversity may encourage secession (Bergman 2011). Federation based on ethnicity\nhas failed in several countries among which are; Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia,\nYugoslavia, East-African Federation, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Malaya-Singapore\n(Anderson 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

TNA must realize that when  85% of Tamils vote for  federalism \n70% of Sinhalese will counter that. This divide is a Tamil construct\noriginating from their separatism which as mentioned dates back to the time\nbefore independence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This situation will not change as long as the Tamil\nleadership stick to their guns and relentlessly pursue a separatist agenda.\nTheir thirteen demands put forward just before the election was a revelation of\ntheir intent. If they persist with their deceptive methods to achieve their end\nSinhala consciousness also will harden and communal harmony would be a distant\ndream. If the Tamil leadership is genuine in wanting to work with the new\npresident what they should do is not give their people unrealistic promises\nthat are unfair by other communities but help him to develop their areas and\nimprove their living standards. They must also give up their parochial politics\nand work for the whole country like the president.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prof. N. A. de S. Amaratunga<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Prof. N. A. de S. Amaratunga To understand the nature of the Tamil problem and why it remains apparently unresolved one must examine its history and origin. It has its origin in Tamil separatism which dates back to 1930s. Tamil separatism is a Tamil construct. When independence for Ceylon was being considered by the British […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[127],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-n-a-de-s-amaratunga"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98167","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=98167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}