Conflict and community in Sri
Lanka
History Today; London; Jul
2002; William Clarance;
Abstract:
Clarence explores the
origins and complexities of the Sri Lankan Civil War. The war, which began in
1983, involves the Sinhalese-Tamil controversy over who arrived first in Sri Lanka and therefore who
has the better claim to be its founding race.
THE SINHALESE-TAMIL controversy over who arrived
first in Sri Lanka and so has the better claim to be its `founding race' has
done much to contribute to the bitterness of intercommunal tensions which, in
July 1983, erupted into the present civil war in the north-east of the island
between the Sinhalese-dominated forces of the central government and the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
The Sinhalese claim derives largely from the
Mahavamsa - the most important of their early chronicles which recounts the
island's history from the time of the North Indian colonisation in the fifth
century Bc, particularly as regards Vijaya, an Indo-Aryan prince, who together
with 700 followers landed on the western coast of Sri Lanka to the north of
present day Colombo. Traditionally, he was the founder of the Sinhalese race to
whom Buddha entrusted the protection of his religion. But prehistorical
archaeology has established that the island had been settled long before the North
Indian migration, doubts have been expressed as to whether Vijaya was in fact a
historical person, and the proximity of the northern Lankan coasts to South
India makes it likely that the Dravidian forebears of the present-day Sri
Lankan Tamils also arrived at a very early date.
Recently, it has been argued that this dispute is
in fact a `non-issue', largely on the basis that neither the classics of Tamil
literature of two millennia, nor their folk tradition reflect a fundamental
hostility between the two communities and that there was an almost
uninterrupted friendly co-existence between the Sinhalese and Tamil populations
over the centuries. This leads to the conclusion that the traditional hostility
between the two races which was reflected in the Mahavamsa - particularly in
the story of how Elara, the Tamil king of Anuradhapura, was slain by the
Sinhalese Dutugemunu in a duel in which each was mounted on an elephant - was a
political construct which was kept alive and used from time to time by the Sinhalese
leadership for political purposes.
Moreover, it is pointed out that the numerous
wars throughout the millennia in which the rulers were respectively Sinhalese
and Tamil were more often the product of local dynastic rivalry than of ethnic
animosity. And in the British colonial period of the early twentieth century,
the significant social and political divisions related to caste and class
rather than the largely ethnically based issues of language and religion. This
was still a time of relative harmony when the communities considered that they
were both `founding races' and the Western educated elite was united in
pressing the colonial administration to introduce an elective element into the
legislature.
|
||||
|
Above: D.S. Senanayake (left), prime minister of
Ceylon 1947-52, in London for the Dominion Premiers' Conference in 1948, with
his son Dudley (right) who succeeded him as prime minister. |
||||
Thus, when an `educated Ceylonese' constituency
was established in 1911, the seat was won by a Tamil, Ponnambalam Ramanathan,
against his principal (Sinhalese) opponent who suffered from caste rivalry
within his own community. Nonetheless, there were already signs of communal
tension and this first timid move towards elected representative politics was
soon to disrupt much of the traditional harmony. By 1926, the Governor Sir Hugh
Clifford was reporting to the Colonial Office in London that the differences
between the Sinhalese and the Tamils were accentuating with the latter suspecting
the former of plans to dominate the political situation by their weight of
numbers, while the Sinhalese resented the Tamils' reluctance to accept their
position as a minority in a Ceylonese nation.
When in the following year the Donoughmore Commission was appointed to review the constitution, its most pressing problem was how to reduce such intercommunal dissension and distrust over constitutional and particularly electoral development. On communal representation, the Tamil leadership was divided, with the idealistically all-island nationalist Jaffna Youth Congress strongly opposed to it and in favour of universal suffrage, while some of the old guard Tamil nationalists took the opposite position.
|
||||
|
Sir
Ponnambalam Ramanathan (18511930), solicitor general of Ceylon, who with his
brother Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam campaigned for political reform in
general, and the rights of the Tamil community during and after the First World
War. |
||||
|
||||
|
The
tar-brush campaign: Sinhalese activists deface Tamil and English lettering on
noticeboards in July 1958. |
||||
In the event, however, the commissioners rejected
communal representation as standing in the way of the necessary realisation by
the diverse population of their common kinship and obligations. They therefore
proposed radical changes both in central government institutions and in the
composition of the electorate. These included a State Council with executive as
well as legislative competence operating on committee system lines, as in the
League of Nations and London County Council at that time.
The Donoughmore constitution which came into
effect in 1931 was widely condemned and deeply unpopular, especially among the
Tamils. Yet it provided valuable experience of governance for community leaders
and tended to encourage a spirit of compromise. But the bold step of
introducing universal franchise in one go, although intended to move political
life on healthily from caste, communal and class allegiances towards a broader
national identity - was only partially successful. Although much good work was
done to improve education and social conditions and services, the Sinhalese
leadership was entrenched in a position of unassailable majority power and the
island's pattern of communal politics was not dissolved, rather stimulated and
strengthened.
|
||||
|
The remains of a car stands in front of its Tamil
owner's burned-out house during the communal riots of July 1958. |
||||
Was Ceylon put on the wrong road by the
introduction of universal suffrage at a time when party political life was
embryonic? Undoubtedly the decision was taken with the best of progressive
intentions by the Labour Government of the day and its Fabian colonial
secretary, Lord Passfield (a.k.a. Sydney Webb). But in Britain itself, which
had benefited from widening the franchise gradually over most of the previous
century, the final step to universal suffrage had only been taken a couple of
years before. In Ceylon, however, the previous election had involved no more
than 4 per cent of the population and universal suffrage had hardly featured in
the evidence given to the Commission.
It is easier to criticise than to see what else
could have been done short of continuing with communal representation in some
form, which the commissioners feared would have impeded progress towards
responsible government. There was no politically feasible solution that could
have effectively fixed the intercommunal faultline in 1931. For the British,
committed to developing the country constitutionally towards responsible
government, this was a dilemma with acutely sharp horns.
During the Second World War, Ceylon was promised
full responsible internal government under the Crown with the exception of
defence and external relations. D.S. Senanayake, the (Sinhalese) Leader of the
State Council, had a draft constitution prepared with the technical assistance
of the British constitutional expert, Ivor Jennings, which incorporated his
ideas of cabinet government on the Westminster model, together with some safeguards
for minorities. Consequently, a commission, headed by Lord Soulbury, was sent
from London to review it.
Again, there were deep misgivings among the
minorities, especially the Tamils, whose leader G.G. Ponnambalam had long been
campaigning for the so-called `fifty-fifty' formula for balanced representation
in the legislature whereby no one community could on its own dominate the
others. But the Soulbury commissioners rejected that plan on the grounds that
it would be reintroducing communal representation by the backdoor. They did,
however, recognise the need for minority safeguards and so recommended an
enhanced package designed to facilitate the election of minority candidates,
togeyther with a clause (Section 29(2)) to protect minorities from legislative
discrimination.
The commissioners went through some
soul-searching as to whether British parliamentary democracy was an appropriate
framework within which the deep divisions of a new unitary state could be
peacefully resolved. Noting that this was what most politically active
Ceylonese wanted, however, they recommended a constitution in line with the
British practice, which on the whole worked well, at least at that time.
But Section 29(2) proved to be largely
ineffectual, in that discrimination against minorities in everyday life related
mostly to public administration. Even so, with the extended period of
self-government which had originally been intended, the Soulbury constitution
might have provided substantial, although not total, protection within a
framework headed by an impartial Governor.
But from the end of the Second World War, the
tide of history was running out fast in South Asia and taking the British with
it.
India and Pakistan became independent in August
1947 and Burmese independence had been promised for January 1948. Ceylon's case
for accelerated progress towards independence was anyway strong, owing to its
contribution to the war effort and its good relationship with Britain. It
became an independent country on February 4th, 1948.
|
||||
|
Prime minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike announces
the nationalisation of the port of Colombo in 1958. He adopted a broadly
socialist and non-aligned programme in government, but was unable to contain
the Sinhalese-Buddhist popular pressures which brought him to power. |
||||
In Ceylon, the British were proud of their
excellent relationship with the political elite and its impact on the process
of nation-building. But the country was thereby deprived of the compulsive
pressure of a mass movement for independence, which in the struggle to get the
British out, might have helped forge a more robust national identity. Ceylon is
not alone in having been a model colony that on independence found itself
facing the consequences of unresolved internal tensions. But among the many
political complexities that have contributed to the obduracy of its conflict,
this is the most cruelly ironic.
Signals of the coming storm began to appear shortly
after independence and recurred with increasing urgency until it finally broke
with the events of July 1983. In 1948-49, the United National Party government
led by D.S. Senanayake passed legislation which effectively deprived nearly one
million Tamil plantation workers of Indian origin of their citizenship and
voting rights. Apart from its manifestly discriminatory nature, it upset the
balance provided by minority weighting in the legislature which had been a key
element in the political compromise on which the Independence constitution had
been accepted. Thereafter, it was much easier for a major Sinhalese party to
ignore the wishes of the Tamil minority and yet win a majority in parliament.
Then the Tamil Federal Party was formed in 1949,
under the leadership of SJ.V. Chelvanayakam with the objectives of achieving a
federal union of the two Tamil-speaking provinces and the seven Sinhalese
provinces, the termination of all state-aided colonisation by Sinhalese in the
north-east, the unity of all Tamil-speaking peoples in Ceylon and for both
Sinhala and Tamil to be recognised as state languages.
Meanwhile, within the Sinhalese community,
populist pressures of language and religion had been gaining strength,
particularly among the discontented but influential constituency of those
educated in Sinhalese who felt themselves to be seriously disadvantaged by the
use of English for official business and so opposed the agreement to grant
Tamil equality with Sinhalese as an official language. In this way, the
`Sinhala Only' movement had developed and, under the influence of the Sangha
(Buddhist clergy), had become linked to the issue of state support for
Buddhism. The political opportunities afforded by such a movement did not pass
unnoticed by the ambitious and frustrated S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, who broke away
from the ruling United National Party(UNP) and founded the Sri Lanka Freedom
Party (SLFP) in 1951, which encompassed greater sympathy for Sinhalese cultural
sensitivities while paying less attention to Tamil interests.
Religious pressures continued, particularly with
the celebrations in 1956 of Buddha Jayanti, the 2,500th anniversary of Buddha's
attainment of nirvana. When The Betrayal of Buddhism, a report prepared by the
unofficial Buddhist Committee of Inquiry, appeared in February 1956, it
bitterly lampooned the elite and governing UNP politicians, saying that they
neither knew Sinhala nor cared about religion.
|
||||
|
Prime minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike's body
lying in state in the House of Representatives after his assassination in
September 25th, 1959, by a Buddhist monk. |
||||
The effect on the Kotelawala UNP government was
devastating. Shortly afterwards, the SUP formed an antiUNP coalition which
Bandaranaike led to a sweeping victory at the polls, whereupon he immediately
introduced proposals for an official language (the so-called `Sinhala Only')
act which declared that Sinhala was `the one official language' and made no
reference to Tamil. When the parliamentary debate began and the Tamil Federal
Party under Chelvanayakam's leadership staged a nonviolent demonstration
opposite the parliament building, they were attacked by hoodlums, while the
police stood by. Mob attacks on Tamils followed in Colombo and in various Tamil
settlements in which more than 150 people, mostly Tamils, died. These were the
first of a series of increasingly deadly intercommunal riots that were to recur
in 1958, 1961, 1974, 1977, 1979 and 1981, culminating in the devastating events
ofjuly 1983.
|
||||
|
Buddhist pilgrims climb the sacred rock of Sigiriya
in the 1950s. |
||||
In reaction, the Federal Party organised marches
throughout the north-east to converge on Trincomalee where it held a convention
which adopted resolutions requesting parity of status for Tamil and Sinhalese,
the cessation of state aid for Sinhalese colonisation in traditional Tamil
homelands, regional autonomy within a federal framework for the Tamil-speaking
provinces and the restoration of citizenship and franchise rights of the hill
country Tamils.
The Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact of 1957
reflected an effort on both sides to reduce intercommunal tension and partially
met Tamil concerns on language, colonisation, autonomy and the status of the
Indian Tamils in the hill country. But the Tamils were frustrated at the
slowness of its implementation and there was mounting Sinhalese hostility.
The UNP - now in opposition exploited the
situation, claiming that the Pact was undermining the unity of the country and
the status of Sinhala as its only official language. Its leader, J.R.
Jayewardene, the future president, led a Buddhist march to Kandy, which
inflamed matters. But the most serious increase in intercommunal tension came
when the Ministry of Transport sent nationalised buses to Tamil areas with
'Sri' in Sinhalese lettering on their number plates and the Federal Party
responded by launching Anti-Sri' campaigns to tar over and replace the
lettering with Tamil script.
Bandaranaike soon ceded to strong pressure from a
group of Buddhist monks who, together with a minister in his cabinet, gathered
on the lawn of his residence and refused to move until they had obtained
abrogation of the Pact in writing.
Tension mounted, as the Federal Party resolved to
launch a nonviolent campaign of direct action and Sinhalese extremists
organised anti-Tamil rioting on a much larger scale than in 1956 in which over
a thousand people were killed and a lot more made homeless. From this moment
the Tamils realised that they could no longer rely on the state to protect
them.
However, Bandaranaike made a further attempt at
reconciliation passing the Tamil Language Act, which provided for regulations
to enable Tamil to be used for administrative purposes in the north-east. Then,
in September 1959, he was assassinated by an extremist Buddhist monk.
By putting the Tamil Language Act on the statute
book, Bandaranaike had plotted a possible route out of the minefield of
confrontational language politics into which he had led the country. But when
his widow, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, led the SUP to victory at the polls in July
1960, she not only ignored this Act, but pressed on with implementation of the
Sinhala Only Act to the full.
|
||||
|
Village women queue up to vote in the general
election of March 1960, in which the United National Party, led by Dudley
Senanayake, won the largest number of votes but was unable to form a
government. |
||||
In response, the Federal Party launched yet
another campaign of non-violent action in 1961 which included the organisation
of a parallel postal service, the persuasion of Tamils to conduct their
business and correspondence with the mostly Sinhalese government officials in
Tamil and the massing of crowds to block entrances to the government offices in
Jaffna and Trincomalee. These were dispersed by the security services with
brute force, resulting in many injuries.
After the second government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike
swept to power in 1970, Sinhala-Tamil relations deteriorated still further. One
of the new government's first steps was to turn the lower house of parkament
into a constituent assembly in order to adopt a new constitution strongly
orientated in favour of Buddhism and the Sinhala language.
The legislature was supreme, the courts lost
their power to review legislation and even the puny minority safeguard of
Section 29(2) in the Independence constitution was dropped.
|
||||
|
Sirimavo Bandaranaike campaigning for the Sri Lanka
Freedom Party in March 1960, following her husband's assassination six months
earlier. After a second election in July the same year, she became the
world's first female prime minister. |
||||
Tamil views of the state and their relation to it
changed radically during the years 1970-74. Initially, the Federal Party had
been at pains to emphasise that its objectives did not go beyond the
achievement of a federal constitution within a one-island entity. But the
impact of the 1972 constitution was powerfully conducive to the closing of
ranks among moderate Tamil groupings. In a meeting in Trincomalee in May 1972,
the Tamil United Front (TUF) was formed to embrace the Federal Party, the
All-Ceylon Tamil Congress and, although it was later to withdraw, the hill
country Tamil Ceylon Workers' Congress of S. Thondaman. The TUF made six
demands for the parity of Tamil with Sinhala, guarantees of full citizenship
for all Tamil-speaking peoples who had made Sri Lanka their home, a secular
state with equal protection for all religions, guarantees of fundamental
rights, provision for the abolition of caste and untouchability and the
acceptance of a decentralised structure of government as the basis for a
participatory democracy.
When Chelvanayakam resigned his seat in
parliament in protest at the imposition of the new constitution, he said that
the Tamils had the right to determine their own future, whether as a subject
race or as a free people. The government had exacerbated the situation by
introducing measures of a discriminatory nature, notably in regard to standards
for admission to the universities and employment in the public service two
areas of great sensitivity for Tamil youth.
Separatist sentiment continued to harden among
the Tamils and in 1975 the Tamil United Front changed its name to the Tamil
United Liberation Front (TULF). At its first national convention the following
year, it adopted the Vaddukoddai resolution, which accused Sirimavo
Bandaranaike of having ignored its last attempt to win constitutional
recognition of the Tamil nation without jeopardising the unity of the country,
and called on the Tamils in general and in particular their youth to come
forward and `throw themselves fully in the sacred fight for freedom and to
flinch not till the goal of a sovereign socialist state of Tamil Eelam is
reached'.
From its foundation in 1949 until the mid-1970s,
the Federal Party had tried to defend the Tamils against the ravages of
resurgent Sinhalese nationalism by a combination of parliamentary tactics
whenever it was possible and by non-violent protests and civil disobedience
whenever it was not. Admirable though this policy was by universal liberal
standards, it had manifestly failed to meet the needs of the Tamil community,
particulaly its youth.
Although the Vaddukodai resolution had implied
that parliamentary tactics would be superseded by youth militancy, it was some
years before this came about. Following the death of Chelvanayakam in 1977, the
mantle of the TULF leadership fell on A. Amirthalingam, who also functioned as
the leader of the opposition and was trying to negotiate with the government
for a measure of autonomy while at the same time maintaining a relationship
with the militant youth.
The Tamil Students Movement formed in 1970 to
protest against the introduction of standardisation for university admissions -
provided a focus for bright young Tamils who could take their education no
further and thus acted as a nursery for leaders of the future groups. It was
later renamed Tamil New Tigers and, in 1975, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
(LTTE).
Thirty-six militant groups emerged. Overlapping
of membership, temporary alliances and internecine warfare characterised the
groups in the early days, out of which, through exceptional ruthlessness as
well as superior levels of discipline and leadership, the LTTE was already
distinguishing itself as the most deadly. During the 1976-83 period, operations
included the assassination of police informers and perceived quislings, bank
robberies and attacks on the security forces and police stations. On July 23rd,
1983, the LTTE ambushed an army patrol, killing thirteen soldiers.
The high human cost of the antiTamil violence
which followed in Colombo and spread through the south and east was without
precedent. The official death count was some 400. But a reputable Tamil source
quotes an estimate of between 2,000 and 3,000 deaths.
Within Colombo almost 100,000 Tamils were
displaced from their homes and an estimated 175,000 fled abroad as refugees.
It was widely believed that the LTTE ambush was
the pretext for, rather than the cause of, what followed. There was evidence
that some of the violence was organised and systematic and what the government
said - and indeed did not say - at that time tended to bear out the view that
it was in some measure complicit. Militancy was now decisively strengthened at
the expense of constitutional and non-violent action - a development
unwittingly assisted by the government when it passed the Sixth Amendment to
the constitution requiring Tamil MPs to take an oath of allegiance to the
unitary state. The TULF leadership refused and decamped to Madras, leaving the
constitutional Tamil constituency unrepresented in parliament. Meanwhile young
Tamils were flocking to join the militant groups which were soon to benefit
from military training in India on a massive scale.
|
||||
|
Young members of the Tamil Tigers at a training camp
in the north of the island. |
||||
Large numbers of well-educated and articulate
refugees fled abroad and formed influential lobbies supporting the militant
struggle, particularly through the LTTE. Moreover, the events of July 1983
helped to forge the complex ambivalence of the Tamils towards the LTTE, with
many deploring the cruelty of its methods yet implicitly accepting the need for
a formidable movement.
The war continued for most of the past nineteen
years despite the unsuccessful Indian attempt at peacemaking under the 1987
Peace Accord, the 1989-90 ceasefire and talks under President Premadasa and the
corresponding process in 199495 under President Kumaratunga, daughter of
S.W.R.D. and Sirimavo Bandaranaikes. But on February 22nd, 2002, both sides
signed a Norwegian-facilitated ceasefire.
What chance of success is there this time around?
First, there is the function of the Norwegians as impartial facilitators.
Second, there is the ceasefire agreement, setting up an international
monitoring mission to defuse volatile incidents on the ground. There is
increasing international focus on making life more difficult for organisations
which indulge in terrorist activities, while a greater readiness to acknowledge
shortcomings at the heart of Lankan democratic governance has improved the
climate for negotiating a form of federalism.
|
||||
|
The Jaffna library, one of the finest in South Asia,
was burnt in 1981 by a police unit acting with some political instigation. |
||||
There may be difficulties on the LTTE side: there
will certainly be opposition from hardline elements in the South and probably
also constitutional problems. But with a propeace mood among the majority, this
unprecedentedly shrewd and statesmanlike government holds several trump cards,
including its ability to speak openly about the suffering and problems the war
has caused on both sides.
|
||||
|
A train destroyed by a Tamil militant group in April
1985. |
||||
[Reference]
FOR
FURTHER READING
C.R. de Silva Sri Lanka, a History (New Delhi, 1992); A.
Jeyaratnam Wilson Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism (London, 1999); Rohan Gunaratna
War and Peace in Sri Lanka (Colombo, 1987); Devanesan Nesiah Tamil Nationalism
(Colombo, 2001); S.R. Ashton Oxford History of the British Empire: The
Twentieth Century (Oxford, 1999).
[Author note]
William
Clarance represented successive UN High Commissioners for Refugees in Colombo
1988-92. His Beyond No Man's Land: the Protection Challenge in Sri Lankan and
Other Civil Wars will be published in 2003.