By Niki Moore
The campaign for self-determination for the minority Tamils in Sri Lanka should hold lessons for governments the whole world over. The question must be asked: Why self determination always have to be bought with blood?
The three-decade-long civil war in Sri Lanka is over. For most of the world it was a “hidden war” — public reporting concerned almost exclusively suicide bombers attacking tourist enclaves in the island and adjacent countries. The world really only knew about the “terrorist organisation” called the Tamil Tigers. In August this year, though, the Sri Lankan government launched an all-out offensive against the rebel group. When the firing stopped, the leader of the Tamil Tigers, Velupillai Prabakaran, lay dead. The Tiger had been beheaded.
But the commander of the Sri Lankan army, General Sarath Fonseka recently announced his forced retirement, complaining that his army might have “won the war, but we have not won the peace”.
He was referring to the thousands of ethnic Tamils housed in government camps, the left-overs of the conflict, living in appalling conditions, separated from family and support and victims of army brutality. Forced labour, arbitrary executions, gang rapes, disease and mortality — these are the realities for thousands of Tamils living in Sri Lanka who wanted nothing more than a place to call home.
Now the Tamil diaspora — millions of Sri Lankan Tamils living in countries around the world, are trying to place pressure on the Sri Lankan government to give them exactly that.
The question for many people, though, is: “What is this all about? What were the Tamils fighting for?”
The answer lies in the green and pleasant hills of the island once called Ceylon. It lies off the south-east coast of India, about the size of Ireland, separated from the state of Tamil-Nadu in India by a narrow channel.
The population is divided roughly into three quarters Buddhist Sinhalese and one-quarter Hindu-Tamils. This is the root of the ethnic conflict — a struggle for minority rights.
Both the Tamils and the Sinhalese have in modern times created folk legends that give them first option to the island of Sri Lanka, to justify their conflicting claims. In truth, both of these nations have existed side by side for centuries in peace. It was the advent of colonialism that planted the seeds of the modern civil war.
The colonial era began with the Portuguese and the Dutch in the 16th century. These nations recognised the different ethnic origins of the two nations and ruled them separately. But when Britain took over in 1802, her government introduced administrative conveniences that were disastrous for Sri Lanka.
Firstly, they consolidated the country under a single government, ignoring ethnic differences. Adminstrators introduced the commercialisation of agriculture, migrant labour, title to land, registration of births and deaths, and built churches to introduce Christianity. As the Tamil areas were largely the best regions for tea and rubber plantations, these regions were turned over to agriculture. Economic development took place in the Sinhalese cities. Educated Tamils were forced to leave their lands and seek work in the cities, where they were never assimilated.
Britain administered Sri Lanka along similar semi-autonomous lines to other colonies and allowed a supervised local government. Because of the development of the Sinhalese areas at the expense of the rural Tamil areas, Tamils knew that they would always be disadvantaged as long as they did not enjoy minority rights.
In 1947 Ceylon (as it was then known) was moving towards independence along with India. Tamils, keenly aware of their minority and undeveloped status, tried to counter their numerical and developmental weakness by demanding equal representation in Parliament. Their attempt failed.
In the nationalistic fervour following independence, Sinhalese chauvinism grew. Anti-Tamil feeling became stronger. The Tamils sought to counter discrimination by requesting a federal system so that they would have a degree of autonomy in their own areas. This attempt also failed.
By 1956, Tamils were second-class citizens in their own country. Sinhalese was declared the only official language, thereby disallowing Tamils from holding formal jobs in the state, education or formal economy. Tamils were discriminated against in higher education, by making the entry requirements higher for Tamil-speakers. The anti-Tamil feeling eventually erupted into outright violence and cultural vandalism against Tamils.
The Sinhalese government tried on many occasions to placate Tamil demands, but attempts were usually half-hearted in order to prevent alienating the Sinhalese majority, and every single treaty failed.
In 1972 Buddhism was declared the state religion of Sri Lanka. It was this that finally persuaded the Hindu Tamils that peaceful co-existence was no longer possible. As a final blow, in 1974 the Tamil library in Jaffna — the main repository of Tamil literature and culture, was burned down by Sinhalese soldiers.
In 1976 the Tamil leadership had concluded that only a separate state, as existed before the colonial consolidation, could ensure the survival of the Tamil people. A number of people, deciding that a political process of secession would be too slow, declared an armed struggle.
The real outbreak of the civil war began in 1983 when a group of militants ambushed and killed 13 Sinhalese soldiers in Jaffna. The government embarked on a retaliatory campaign of arrests, torture, detentions and executions of suspected Tamil militants. This was the beginning of a mass exodus of Tamils from Sri Lanka to escape persecution. It signalled the rise of the Tamil Tigers.
By the end of 1983 a full-scale civil war was in progress. Peace talks sponsored by the United Nations failed again and again and again. Both sides embarked on campaigns that were almost guaranteed to add fuel to the flames. The Sinhalese government introduced clampdowns and restrictive legislation, the Tamil Tigers introduced suicide bombers, child soldiers and human shields.
A sizeable force of military exiles fled to the Indian state of Tamil Nadu and launched attacks from there.
Then came 1987. The Indian government was alarmed by the existence of a secessionist group operating out of India and undertook to assist the Sri Lankan government to eliminate them.
The intervention of India in the civil war in Sri Lanka was the second-most disastrous event in the country’s history. Firstly, India had a socialist economic policy, but Sri Lanka was moving away from socialism and cosying up to the West. The Sri Lankan government was therefore seen as building links with countries hostile to India’s interests — South Africa being one of them. Secondly, India had a number of separatist groups of its own, and did not want to set a dangerous precedent by allowing secession in a closely-neighbouring country. Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi persuaded the Tamils to lay down their arms but then — according to Tamil sources — began a purge of Tamil civilians through execution and rape. The Tamils also aver that Ghandi asked his army to assassinate the Tamil leader Prabakaran when he visited India for peace talks. As a result of the apparent betrayal, a Tamil suicide bomber killed Ghandi in 1991.
The civil war had now reached the point of no return. So many atrocities had been perpetrated on both sides that any attempt at reconciliation was impossible. In 1995 the Sri Lankan government declared war on the Tigers, banned all media, restricted humanitarian organisations and imposed punishing sanctions on Tamil areas. It is estimated that 150 000 people died.
The final offensive came in May 2009. Thousands more civilians died. But at the end of the campaign the Sri Lankan government declared victory, releasing pictures of the body of LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. Other casualties included the leaders of the political wing of the LTTE. The Tigers were headless, and the military phase of the civil war seemed to be over.
But, as former General Fonseka said, the peace is far from won. Nearly 300 000 civilians who escaped the fighting — many wounded, malnourished and traumatised — are now held in government-run internment camps with inadequate food and water. The displaced are denied the right to live with relatives or host families and UN agencies and humanitarian organisations have not been granted full and unimpeded access to the camps and are thus unable to deliver adequate supplies and services. There are also serious concerns about the protection of residents from threats from government-backed Tamil paramilitaries, government security forces, and remaining LTTE cadres within the camps. Government officials have sent conflicting signals on how long people will be forced to remain within the camps, with estimates ranging from six months to three years.
The Sri Lankan government is also faced with the decades-old challenge of developing a set of political reforms able to address the grievances of Tamils and other minorities while reassuring the Sinhalese. A central test of the government’s commitment to finding a lasting and just peace will be its willingness to implement provisions in the existing Constitution granting powers to provincial councils. The government may have to go further and consider additional legal changes likely to be necessary to satisfy representatives of Tamils, Muslims and other minorities.
In conclusion, the central issue of the civil war is the issue of separatism. All countries that have been colonised agree vehemently that colonialism created divisions that caused unlimited hardship and dislocation.
Why is it unthinkable, then, to undo these arbitrary borders? Why is separatism an issue that draws a knee-jerk denial from governments? Why is it so unthinkable that an ethnic group would want to live among their own kind, worship their own god, speak their own language and honour their own heroes? Africa is the best (or worst) example of this: tribes were cut in half or summarily thrown together by a group of politicians in Europe who drew lines on a map. Toxic though these divisions were, no one appears in the least interested in re-drawing borders despite the number of tribal groups who have applied for autonomy.
Giving the Tamils a homeland which has existed for thousands of years with a colonial hiccup of a little over a century would cost the Buddhist Sri Lankan government nothing, but would allow peace to a nation that has wanted little else. This argument can be extrapolated to Ireland, Spain, Africa, Tibet, the Balkans, and the Middle East.
Suppressing the Tamils in Sri Lanka is going to create an endless supply of martyrs and agitators. Perhaps it is time for governments to count the cost of separatist battles and rethink the way that minority ethnic groups are viewed.
It doesn’t. But wars are very profitable.
This must be fiction. I couldn’t read beyond the part of “gang rapes” and “forced labour” in camps.
I just returned form sri Lanka and my duties there included work with a popular charity. There were 54 other NGOS and UN humanitarian partners working in those camps. The condition in the camps were by far than most refugee camps anywhere in the world.
Some images posted in the blog below: http://bailaman.blogspot.com/2009/11/photos-from-sri-lankas-idp-camps.html
Tamils already have a homeland – it’s called TAMIL NADU, twice the size of Sri Lanka. They are not going to get a second one in Sri Lanka. End of story.
Jaffna library was burned down in 1974? Says who? There are no gang rapes or any of the other accusations of crime occuring in the IDP camps? Tamils and Sinhalese live together fine in the South. The LTTE is responsible for ethnically cleansing the North of all ethnicities besides Tamils.
I agree, Niki. The only recollections I have of Ceylon in my youth were of its tea plantations and a colouring book showing Brownie uniforms from all over the world. I knew little more until now.
Surely each situation is more complex than you suggest? In SA, for instance, our Afrikaners were desperate for their own homeland, hence Oranje. Our black people tho’, found being parcelled off to areas they believed provided little arable farmland and bleak economies, reprehensible. They have a point.
Theory is not practical when both parties want the same land, as can be seen with SA land redistribution.
Given that whites in our country form so small a portion, I totally believe that, while many of us would be delighted to have a homeland or two away from the cacophony of the present reality, we’d be far from happy were we banished from the economic centres. Keeping cows and goats is not our habitual culture because we have a far longer history of urban settlement.
In this country, we live peacefully with Moslem neighbours. Why shouldn’t we? They don’t walk around with explosives packed close to their chests. Neither do we…
History proves repeatedly that if all are determined to have their own way, violence and chaos results. Something or somebody always has to give. SA’s only real chance may lie in the fact that many whites are prepared to shrug and turn away from open hostility; many black people feel the same.
As always these atrocities are perpetrated by MEN. Never, but NEVER is such atrocities the work of women. This world of ours is in DIRE need of MEN. I am reminded of a certain Samaritan woman, who went to the very town from which she was alienated, and said to them ” Come see a MAN”. Would that the men in power, in this world of ours, would allow that MAN to be their source of strength and guidance. As it is the men who will determine whether this comment will be published, might give it one look, and decide that they will not waste any space on it. Be that as it may, we are 2009 years closer to HIS return, and boy o boy, do I pity some of the so called big men of today and the past.
This is a valuable information and a good lesson, the answer to your question is simple but also difficult to accept, “things of value are costly” it’s an eternal principle. South Africa is one of the best examples. It is unfortunate that we seem to ignore the positives and negatives of the past which might help us to understand each other better and reach our desired future in years than in decades and centuries.
Patrick Kikine
And what of the Singhalese & Moors (Moslems) living in small communities in the so-called Tamil homeland? Are they also to have their own tiny homelands within the bigger one? And Tamils living now amongst the majority Singhalese, are they to have yet more minute homelands? So the world ends becoming atomised into tens of thousands of big and small homelands. The idea is absurd, I think should think a bit deeper about what is practical and possible.
Very interesting piece I am from a minority group in our country and can tell you that our rights are not being respected,we are forced to identify as blacks when we are not,we are marginalized,our heritage is not respected and ridiculed etc. I hope our BLACK government realizes that their attitudes to minorities can lead to thier down fall.
Why does the author think the issue is about self determinacy? There are ~2 million tamil people living in the rest of Sri Lanka quite happily. The LTTE were initially a band of smugglers and robbers that grew into a large criminal organization, then a terrorist organization. It killed or drove away all but tamil people from the regions it controlled, and would not let the tamil people leave, that is the truth of the matter. The west has a rather skewed picture of reality and people like this author are not helping, why don’t you/they try to do some actual research
The Tamil Tigers WERE terrorists. Real ones. Not in inverted commas. And the only reason the Tamils and Sinhalese weren’t at each others’ throats 500 years ago is that their territories did not encroach and were mutually inaccessible.
“Colonialism” brought the technology to the hitherto-ignorant allowing roads to be built between the two, ending their mutual isolation.
Is road-building an example of bad, bad, evil colonialism?
The fact that “flash-crowds” can now gather instantly and gatecrash a party and cause havoc is due to mobile phones. Is mobile phone technology a bad, bad evil thing too?
Knee-jerk damnation of “colonialism” is brainless. Colonialism brought a massive basketful of benefits: infrastructure, literacy, medical science, education, technology,cultural exchange. All the anti-colonial whingers focus on are the unintended and unavoidable consequences of a system which brought a fisful of misery but a wagon-load of benefits.
Like democracy.
And in a democracy the minority must yield to the majority.
Tamils must yield to Sinhalese. End of story
Niki Moore has expressed the truth about SriLanka in an excellent way. The Tamil nation has a right to a free and independent Tamil Eelam. The Tamil’s have a right to human rights.
The racist Srilankan government has implemented the policy of state terrorism over decades and the world was silent. They supported the Apartheid regime in South Africa. When the Anti Apartheid struggle called for a sports boycott, Srilanka send in cricket rebel tours. Now their new alliances are dictatorships around the world such as Iran, Burma, Syria and China.
The racist Sinhala people discriminates against Tamils because Tamils are dark in complexion, are Christains and Hindus by faith and speak Tamil. There are Africans taken as slaves to Srilanka and they too are discriminated becasue they are dark skinned. The Africans are classified as “a derogatory word” that is banned in South Africa.
This conflict is not as clear cut as many believe. My main concern is the lack of news that filters through from the IDP camps. Even the last offensive in May was marred with limited access to camps as shown on Backstory on CNN at the time. On the issue of a separate homeland, there comes a time when the world must accept that their ideal model of governance does not exist in places like Sri Lanka, why is it that Palestine is determined to rule their own land and Obama endorses this but the same does not apply for the Tamils?
This is in response to “Thiru” – prety much all of what you said is absolutely fabricated. Sri Lanka never supported the apartheid government. All the players who went on tours during the exile of SA were banned (just like players from the West Indies etc were banned for the same reason). Many cricketing nations had players going over and the reaction was generally to ban them. The tamils have no human rights? All tamils have the same human rights as everyone else. Some of the people considered the country’s greatest heros by all of Sri Lanka are tamil. Tamil people own 35% of the private land, even though they are only 18% of the population. The countries leading businesses are run by tamil people. Most tamil people want nothing to do with an Eelam, or a “tamil nation” as they are extrememly succesful and happy living among the rest of their countrymen!
And then he goes on about Africans being brought to SL as slaves, what?! That is total nonsense, and most people can’t even tell the difference between tamil and sinhala people, no one is darker than the other by race! And certainly there is no discrimination because of it!
Why do people speak this much nonsense?! To make up things like this is to degrade actual struggles by peoples of the world against things like apartheid in SA, civil rights movement in the USA etc.
Human rights are the same for all people no matter to what race or culture they might belong. I know nothing of what has transpired in Srilanka but what I do know is all peole want to live in environments where their human rights are respected. Conflict is engendered when people experience the denial of their human rights no matter on what grounds this denial is done. This is because such denial can never be justified.
This is in response to Jason. Your response shows the Sinhala mentality of denial and racist attitude towards the Tamils. Sri Lanka supported Apartheid and it continues to support racist policies in their country. If the cricketers were banned the Srilankan governement would not have issued them passports and visas to visit Apartheid South Africa. The Sinhala people are comfortable in power therefore they assume that Tamils are comfortable and have human rights. This is far from the truth as they are blinded to the oppression they cause to the Tamils. The African slaves were brought to Srilanka by the Portuguese and live in Trincomlee( Tamil Eelam), and they up to this day are called “Kaffirs” This is the Sinhala mindset. The Srilankans are in denial therefore there is no peace. The world views the Sinhala as a people of sin. The struggle against apartheid in South Africa,the civil rights movement in USA were successful so too it will be in Srilanka. It was only after the collapse of apartheid did the National party and most whites realised the truth of their actions and apologised and today we have peace and the best country in the world in terms of race relations.
In response to Thiru. So by your logic NZ (they sent a rugby team to apartheid SA), the nations that make up the West Indies (there were rebel Cricket tours to SA from there), England, Australia and their people supported apartheid. This is clearly utter nonsense. All the Sri Lankan players that went on that tour were banned after the tour (how could they be banned before?) – there was no travel ban to South Africa. That’s how all the other rebel tours also went ahead. Why do you think the likes of B. Warnapura, M Goonatilake etc never played cricket again (even first class cricket?!?). There are no African slaves in Sri Lanka, that’s an utter lie – furthermore the word “Kaffir” isn’t even in the Lankan vocabulary, an etymological study easily shows this. It’s not an assumption that tamils are comfortable, they are comfortable – most independent polls show this among tamils living in the non war areas. So far you’ve made up a bunch of lies, its interesting that supporters of the LTTE always end up making up lies to further their cause, but of course this is required when facts don’t support your case. Facts usually aren’t on the side of the terrorists and its no different here. And why would I have a Sinhalese mentality? I am a New Zealander, I lived in all parts of SL from time to time between 1979 – 1994. I am speaking from first hand experience.
This is in response to Jason. As a New Zealander you indeed have no knowledge of the history of Srilanka. If you are going to defend the state terrorism of Srilanka, then I suggest you read its history of African slaves being brought there and they are still labourers as to this date. The International community applied full sanctions on Apartheid South Africa and that included the sports boycott. Srilanka had sanction busting teams that came to South Africa on rebel tours and used the national flag of Srilanka at these matches. The quest for the independence of Tamil Eelam has been since the state of Srilanka was formed 60 years ago, read the Vaddukkoaddai Resolution of 1976. It is a Tamil national struggle which all Tamils support. However LTTE is not supported by all Tamils as it is an organisation that pursues violence and its end is a blessing in disguise. Facts are on the side of the oppressed Tamils. The world viewed Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and was banned by most countries because of the lies that apartheid had presented to the world. Today the UN and even New Zealanders celebrate Mandela as a man of peace and goodwill. Apartheid told New Zealanders that Africans are comfortable and have human rights and the media beleived it. What you experienced in SL from 1979 – 1994 isn’t the whole truth, only the one that is suffering and feels the pain knows.
Re Thiru: So what about all the other countries that had players going to SA (and ended up with the same result the SL players did – i.e. lifetime bans) – Were all of those govts supporting apartheid? Of course not. Mandela was thought of as a terrorist by the rest of the world?! That’s utter nonsense. Most countries demanded that Mandela be freed. “Apartheid told New Zealanders that Africans are comfortable and have human rights” – that’s a load of nonsense as well. If that were the case, why was SA banned from sport etc, and why were players who went there banned (here in NZ). Your argument is so flawed that it is not even internally consistent (without even bringing the truth of your claims into question). I have studied the history, and this is the unbiased peer reviewed history, of SL – tell me how many peer reviewed sources do you have for your so called “history”. I would venture none, since it appears most of it is imagined in your head, and the heads of others who share the same deluded view as you!
Re Thiru, cricket tours, point of clarification: “Put simply, those who went did so for the money. Some are honest, others less so. What is truly sad is the fate of those who were perhaps exploited more. While the English and Australian players escaped with fairly light punishments (John Emburey was twice banned for three years and both times returned to play for his country), the West Indians and Sri Lankans had a far more wretched time. Banned for life and socially ostracised, for some it destroyed their lives.” – Martin Williamson – executive editor of Cricinfo and managing editor of ESPN Digital Media in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
I was not clear enough. The Aussies and the English players weren’t even banned properly and not socially held accountable. So does that mean those govts and the people supported apartheid? Your argument is non-sensical, and it falls to bits under logical scrutiny.