The continuous damage caused to the integrity and unity of the nation is due to the Sinhala majority rule based on the notion that the entire island is the homeland of the Sinhalese and being the major ethnic community (constituting 75 per cent of the total population) they have the right to govern the whole country. The inapt system has also caused much suffering to the people and deprived peace, political stability, progress and prosperity to the island nation. The intrinsic diverse regional characteristics associated with the historical settlement of the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims in the island have been ignored in the Constitution based partly and superficially on the British/Westminster model.

British model

The British system recognizes the separate homelands of the English, Scottish and Welsh people in the island. It functions with powers devolved to Scotland and Wales. Maximum powers have been devolved to Scotland, which has its own Parliament, administration and judiciary. Scotland has even its own currency. Significantly, the British system is not labeled as unitary or federal. Now that the Republicans in Northern Ireland (who fought for merger with the Republic of Ireland) have decided to keep their homeland as constituent of the United Kingdom, they too have accepted the existing system that has both unitary and federal features. The Northern Ireland administration is now functioning under the power-sharing arrangement between the Republicans and Unionists, which has enabled both the Catholic and Protestant communities to co-exist peacefully.

If you ask a Scot where his homeland is, he or she will promptly reply Scotland. This does not make the respondent a non-British. On the other hand, if an Englishman living outside tells a Scot that Scotland too is his homeland he would get a mouthful. It is also important to note, there has been no planned attempt by the British authorities to settle non-Scots in Scotland. Recognizing the diverse demographic features of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all governments have been functioning judiciously without disturbing national unity and the union of regions. Importantly, the majority of residents in the different regions have confidence in the present system and there is no widespread clamour for secession. Confidence of all sections of the population in any sovereign democratic country’s governing system is essential for its success.

Breakup of the Nation

The political leaders of the ethnic minorities in Sri Lanka accepted the unitary system in 1947 (recommended by the Soulbury Commission) on the undertaking given by the national leader D. S. Senanayake that the minorities have nothing to fear, they will be treated as equal citizens and their interests will be protected. They also believed that the Tamil homeland as it had existed before independence would remain intact. Soon after independence ignoring the pledge, his government disenfranchised the plantation workers of Indian origin

The leadership of the ruling United National Party that was really committed to national unity and the concept of multi-ethnic nation thought the party would be weakened, if the working class were to lend support to the then relatively strong opposition left parties. The decision to disenfranchise the Tamils of Indian origin was motivated largely by the political interest of the conservatives to prevent the left parties gaining control of government. The rightist leader of the All Ceylon Tamil Congress did not object because this posed no threat to the Tamil homeland. The subsequent developments, after the SLFP emerged as the main challenger to the UNP went to the extent of keeping the ethnic minorities permanently in a state of submission. The power struggle between these two parties in which the ethnic minorities were used as pawns resulted in the division between the majority Sinhala and the minority Tamil speaking ethnic groups. Intimidation and denial of equal rights and opportunities to prosper demonstrated the supremacy of the ethnic majority community. This became a politically attractive flag for winning the support of the Sinhalese voters.

The argument of Sinhala nationalists or rather the majoritaians for unitary system is based solely on their thinking that any other structure would weaken the hold of the Sinhalese over the entire island resulting sooner or later in its breakup. In their myopic view, any arrangement outside the control of the Sinhalese imperils the future of their nation. Their concept of nation excludes or dissociates the ethnic minorities. The hegemony of the majority has been detrimental to national unity, peace and development. The ethnic tension that developed into a violent rebellion against Sinhala majority rule is the result of political decisions taken with this majoritarian nationalist mindset. The series of discriminatory official actions and several violent attacks against the Tamils led to the uprising of Tamil youth in the North. Although there seems to be increased realization amongst the Tamils that the ‘Eelam’ goal is pie in the sky, some Sinhala nationalists by their hostile utterances and devious moves are encouraging the Tamil nationalists not to abandon the concept of two nations.

Truth and reconciliation, not trickery are needed for uniting the divided nation. Formal recognition of Tamil homeland is fundamental to conflict prevention and strengthening the unity of the multi-ethnic nation. Tragically, this was ignored by the Sinhalese leaders, who thought with the Sinhala majority rule the ethnic minorities could somehow be kept under control. The stark truth is separation will not bring lasting peace and prosperous future for the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Importantly, not only the Tamil-Muslim unity but also Tamil-Sinhalese unity is essential for ethnic harmony and progress of all communities. Muslims who have ancestral roots in the North-East have the same right as the Tamils to claim the region as their homeland. The Sinhalese settlers in the East, many of them moved in after independence via the state sponsored colonization schemes should continue to live in the Tamil homeland in the same way as Tamils are living amicably in the Sinhalese areas. But this does not mean the SL government can continue with the past moves to settle Sinhalese in the North-East with ulterior motive. The right of individual families to settle any where in the island must be guaranteed. All these should be integral to the reconciliation efforts.

Reasons given for Sinhala majority rule

In the interview Stewart Bell of the Canadian daily ‘National Post’ (published 23 September 2008) had with the Army Commander Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka, the latter said: “I strongly believe that this country belongs to the Sinhalese but there are minority communities and we treat them like our people… We being the majority of the country, 75%, we will never give in and we have the right to protect this country… They can live in this country with us. But they must not try to, under the pretext of being a minority, demand undue things”. In another interview he had said: "The Sinhala nation has to sacrifice, if you want to protect the country and survive… In any democratic country the majority should rule the country. This country will be ruled by the Sinhalese community which is the majority representing 74 percent of the population" (Daily News 19 July 2008).

His forthright statements have highlighted the political thinking of Sinhala nationalists.

Tisaranee Gunasekara in her column in the Sunday Island 5 October 2008 has said, “General Sarath Fonseka is not just the Army Commander; he is known to be close to the Rajapaksa brothers and a member of the ruling cabal. And here he is, speaking his mind, publicly articulating his vision for a post-War Sri Lanka”. When President Rajapaksa in his interviews to foreign media keeps on telling that the final political solution will follow after eliminating terrorism, one wonders what kind of solution he has in mind?

The contrasting views expressed by many on the Army Commander’s statements reflect the difficulties in reaching a reasonable political solution to the national problem. To the nationalists, the social and economic progress is secondary despite the past miserable performance because of the failure to settle the protracted conflict that has not only destroyed many lives and property but also deprived progress and prosperity, which appeared at hand some decades ago, when real peace and hope prevailed amongst many people. The foreign donor community was anxious to help in the recent past and the development process would have accelerated, if only a reasonable political solution jointly agreed by the main parties in the government and opposition had been presented. Now the Environment Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka from the Jathika Hela Urumaya, the political party led by Buddhist monks wants national development to be based on Buddhist principles. Why not base the entire governing system on Buddhist principles? Had this been done real peace, social justice and equality of all citizens would have been the hallmark of the blessed island. Does the presumed supremacy of ethnic majority tally with Buddhist principles? The violations of human rights, rule of law, procedures for good governance and honest and consensual politics defy the Buddhist philosophy. Apparently, the nationalists or majoritarians do not believe in the ‘Middle Path’.
Irrelevant and questionable arguments

H.L.D. Mahindapala: former Editor, Sunday and Daily Observer (1990 - 1994) presently residing in Australia in his recent two-part article –“ The Hidden History Of Jaffna” - has blamed the Tamil political leadership for the ‘separatist politics’. He has said: “By 1956 the Tamil leadership had prepared the ground and sowed the seeds for communalism to sprout, raising its ugly heads in the north. The political pendulum that swung from the English-speaking, Westernized elite to the grassroots end of the political spectrum in 1956 was inevitable and necessary to redress the imbalances of colonial history. Bandaranaike’s task was to give the Sinhala people the heritage they lost under nearly 500 years of foreign rule.” Was there no other way of redressing the imbalances without denying the legitimate rights and opportunities to the Tamils? When SWRD promised the electorate ‘Sinhala Only’ in 24 hours on the eve of the general election was the main motive to give the Sinhalese people their lost heritage? The cost of this impetuous move has been colossal as subsequent developments showed.

The racial prejudice against Tamils is glaring almost every where in his analysis. S. J. V. Chelvanayakam and C. Vanniasingham left the Tamil Congress led by G. G. Ponnambalam only after the UNP government disenfranchised the Tamils of recent Indian origin. The agreements SJV reached with two Prime Ministers, namely, SWRD Bandaranaike and Dudley Senanayake required only some minor changes to the administrative system. It needs reminding here, the Jaffna people rejected Chelvanayakam’s federal concept and he was also rejected by the Kankesanthurai voters in the 1952 general election which he contested as leader of the Federal Party. The trust in the Sinhala majority rule declined after 1956 when the Sinhala Only language Act was introduced and the sequence of tragic events that followed to intimidate and subjugate the ethnic Tamils are the relevant ones to understand the reasons for the demand of self-rule by the oppressed Tamils.

The two nation concept was propelled by the perpetual neglect of the concerns and aspirations of the ethnic Tamils. Mahindapala like other Sinhala dogmatists has also ignored the circumstances that led to the 1976 Vaddukkodai Resolution. It was meant to convey the extent of the frustration among the Tamils, especially the agitated youth denied of higher learning and employment opportunities. In fact the TULF later willingly accepted the District Development Councils but the system failed because of the then government’s lack of sincere commitment. He has said: “This theory of two nations could be made credible only by, first, drawing geographical boundaries that no one knew existed before and, second, by filling the space within the imaginary boundaries with a narrative that was not known to the ancient, medieval or modern historians. Unable to fill their ‘homeland’ constructed in 1976 they filled it with concocted theories”. The ancient history of Sri Lanka is full of emotive stories conveying the imaginations and apprehensions of the writers. The different versions raise doubts about their veracity.

According to Mudaliyar C. Rasanayagam (Ancient Jaffna, 1926) Vijaya was not a Sinhalese and the Naga tribe spoke a language similar to Tamil. Yalpanam Vaipava Malai (1736), Yalpanam Charithiram (1878) and Yalpanam Vaipavam (1884) presented versions rejected by modern Sinhalese scholars. According to Ponnambalam Arunachalam the Dravidian race was an ancient and pure race while the Sinhalese were mixed unlike the Tamils. The late C. Suntheralingam who was the MP for Vavuniya before the ascendance of Federal Party also claimed in 1957 that except for a period of 22 years (reign of Parakramabahu 1st and 6th) the Island always had regional rulers and that Jaffna Kingdom was independent of Sinhalese rulers. The legendary story of Rama and Sita and the abductor Ravanan, the king from Lanka and a devotee of Lord Siva can also be considered as part of the island’s ancient history. There is no sense in going back to periods that lack an authentic and comprehensive record of events in the entire island.

Modern history, which is confirmable reveals only after the second half of the nineteenth century under British colonial rule, the administrative unification of the island happened. The north of the island, inhabited mostly by Tamils was fully linked to the rest of the country with the construction of the railway line from Colombo to Jaffna and later to Kankesanthurai, the most northerly town by the British colonial government The 1848 Kandyan rebellion was the last attempt of the Kandyan Sinhalese chiefs to assert their separateness. The Kandyan Sinhalese population had their own social customs and laws. Their homeland was in the hill country. The close links they had with royalty in South India now Tamil Nadu is also real. At the time Portuguese landed in the island, there were three separate kingdoms - those of the Tamils of Jaffna; of the lowland Sinhalese in Kotte; and of the highland Sinhalese in Kandy. It is recalled, it was not the Tamils but the Kandyan Sinhalese who first demanded a federal system on the eve of independence. There is absolutely no proof for a section of Sinhalese historians to claim that the entire island was the haven of the Sinhalese and the Tamils and Muslims were intruders.

Seeking national unity under Sinhala majority rule

President Mahinda Rajapaksa, addressing the 63rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York September 24, quoted the following remark made by Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan at a public meeting in Colombo in September 1904. ‘I have been to many countries in the world. But, nowhere have I seen such a friendly race as the Sinhalese who also uphold high moral values.’ President Rajapaksa told the Assembly: “Such was the harmony between the Tamils and the Sinhalese. But a malicious group has turned all of this upside down”. He also spoke a few words in Tamil at the beginning of his address, elaborating on how Sinhala and Tamil unity could be strengthened.

It is a well known fact that the ethnic unity, understanding and peace that prevailed before independence was remarkable. The living standard of the islanders was also considerably higher than of others in South Asia. All these were shattered soon after independence by ‘a malicious group’ of politicians whose main interest was seizing power regardless of the long-term consequences. It is this political class portraying as the protectors of the Sinhala nation not from any foreign power but from a minority ethnic group in the same island-nation that started the process of destruction. Their political philosophy is rooted in ‘majoritarian nationalism’ and not the enlightened ‘emancipatory nationalism’ (Ref. ‘Whither post-war Sri Lanka?’ Tamilweek 21 – 27 September 2008).

Many Tamils will readily admit that there are still many liberal and humane Sinhalese, the kind Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan described in 1904. They gave protection to many Tamil civilians during the 1983 anti-Tamil pogrom (Black July) and rushed to assist the Tamils and Muslims battered by the 2004 Tsunami. The post independence history of Sri Lanka or indeed Jaffna will be misleading, unless the sequence of events that led to the violent rebellion is considered objectively. An eye witness account of the happenings in Jaffna at the time of setting on fire and destroying the Jaffna library by organized Sinhalese gang (the organizers were not the Sinhalese outside the government machinery) presented by Dilip Kumar (September 27 Sri Lanka Guardian) should not be ignored in the history of Jaffna, particularly when the causes of the ethnic problem are discussed.

President Rajapaksa also said that the government could not let an illegal and armed terrorist group -- the LTTE -- hold a fraction of the population, a part of the Tamil community, hostage to such terror in the northern part of Sri Lanka, and deny those people their democratic right to dissent and free elections. He said: “Our Government has always been ready to address the causes of these issues and effectively implement political and constitutional solutions to meet the aspirations and rights of all communities.” These statements would have been credible, if the government had not tried to suppress political dissent in the South and made serious effort towards reaching a southern consensus on the political settlement of the ethnic problem.

All peace-loving, law abiding and humble Sri Lankans want a democratic rule that is not dominated by a power-hungry class in one community. What is preventing the government to practice what it is preaching? From the standpoint of constitutional reform, it is important to differentiate between, (i) the ethnic conflict, that developed as a result of the discriminatory policies and practices against the minority Tamil-speaking people and the regions mainly populated by them and (ii) the armed conflict between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan state, which the government is determined to settle militarily. The burning issues in Sri Lanka require political and constitutional changes that will remove the causes. Who is preventing the initiation of the reform process? Certainly, not the Tamils; the LTTE leader has been saying repeatedly that the Sinhalese leaders will never grant the Tamils their due rights.

In conclusion

The present system because of its inaptness, failed to lay a strong foundation for nation building. This vital process has been completely ignored by successive governments. Not surprisingly, for the reasons mentioned before the sense of belonging to one nation among all citizens has eroded. In this regard, the developments in India are remarkable. Renaming the southern Indian state as Tamil Nadu and the capital Madras as Chennai has not encouraged any agitation for secession In fact, in my opinion the attachment of Tamils there to India has strengthened. Even after 1956, despite enduring the discrimination and humiliation because of discriminatory State policies and actions including instigated attacks against Tamils and their property, no Sri Lankan Tamil wanted to abandon the Sri Lankan Tamil identity. Even those who fled to Tamil Nadu, because of the civil war are anxious to return to their homeland in Sri Lanka. I am aware even Sri Lankan Tamils permanently settled in other countries do not like to be branded as Indians or Pakistanis.

On October 2 Mohamed Saleem, President of the Sri Lanka chapter of the Mahatma Gandhi Centre is reported (The Hindu 5 October 2008) to have said: “Even after 60 years of Independence, the citizens of Sri Lanka have not been given a political environment to claim that the country belongs to all, and that in the country they can pursue their own life goals without fear of discrimination and marginalisation. The country has failed to derive complimentary benefits from the diverse ethnic, lingual, cultural and territorial strengths. Sixty years of self-rule has only brought to this country fear, suspicion, distrust and uncertainty. The people have become pawns in political games. They cry out for a miracle to change their pitiable condition. They cry out for a new environment of peace, equality and justice.” The omissions and mistakes that led to the national crisis cannot be expressed plainly in any other way. The statement also indicates the kind of remedial actions needed.

Jehan Perera of the National Peace Council in his article aptly titled “To whom does the Country belong?” (Daily Mirror 7 October 2008) has stressed the need for a political solution and that it should not be based on military victory and Sinhalese supremacy. “A viable political solution can only be based on the position that Sri Lanka belongs equally to all its citizens, be they from the ethnic majority or minorities, and finding ways to accommodate all of their reasonable aspirations”. Assurances alone are not enough, if the sense of belonging to one nation of all the citizens is to be realized. The reason for this is the utter failure of ‘majority rule’ because of the misconception that in democracy minorities must accept the agreed majority decisions.

As mentioned at the outset, the Tamils and Muslims (Tamil speaking people) have been living in the North-East part of the island for centuries and they are the majority ethnic group there even now, despite the calculated moves by the Sinhala majority governments to settle Sinhalese in districts like Trincomalee, Amparai and Vavuniya. The argument that the ethnic minorities unfairly occupy one-third of the land that has two-third of the island’s coast when 75 percent of the total population are Sinhalese also ignores the fact that this was how the different communities chose to live before independence. Many Sinhalese preferred to live inland and this is how the overall settlement pattern emerged

Despite the Portuguese, Dutch and English occupation, Tamil homeland did not lose its features. Names of some places in the North-East have changed. The Dutch renamed the islets in the North as Leiden, Kayts and other cities in the Netherlands. Yalpanam is known outside the Tamil community as Jaffna; Parithithurai as Point Pedro; Mattakkilappu as Batticaloa; etc. The Tamil homeland was not endangered by such naming. But the motive behind Sinhalisation of Tamil names like Manal Aru becoming Welioya is different. It is to strengthen the claim that the entire island belongs to the Sinhalese.

This process is continuing, disregarding the feelings of Tamils. The Defence Ministry website has already given modified names to captured Tamil areas in Wanni. Piramanthalkulam has been spelt as Piramanthalkulama. Vannivilankulam has been spelt as Vannivilankulama and Mankulam as Mankulama and Pankikkankulam as Pankikkankulama. Many names in the East have Sinhala version of Tamil names like as Tampalagama for Tampalagamam. This change is pronounced in the Trincomalee district. This is also the district where the ethnic composition has changed markedly in recent years. Instead of erasing the historical names and other hostile actions, sincere ways of winning the hearts and minds of the Tamil speaking people recognizing their right to be partners in self-rule will definitely be more productive in achieving lasting unity and peace.

Giving recognition to the existence of Tamil homeland in the Constitution is the sure way to secure stability and lasting peace needed for Sri Lanka to catch up with other developing countries that have overtaken us in all aspects of national development. Importantly, this will also assure the security of not only all the Tamil and Muslim communities but also the Sinhalese. Tamil homeland in the island will not be threat to the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka. On the contrary, it will serve as a protector. If the present dogmatic thinking that the entire island is the homeland of the Sinhalese and the ethnic minorities are welcomed guests prevails, there is no hope for regaining the past glory of Sri Lanka.

The permanent resolution of the ethnic problem hinges crucially on the method of integration and governing system suggested here. This is also essential for building mutual trust between different ethnic communities, confidence in the governing system and a vibrant democratic nation capable of meeting the new challenges in the changing world.

[The writer is Former Additional Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, Sri Lanka and UN Advisor, Development Economics/Planning]