posted January 27, 2001 04:33 PM            

As the minutes roll by, the intransigence of the vast majority of the Sinhalese on the Tamil Problem is getting stronger or worse. Indeed, in some quarters, and surprisingly at the higher echelons of society, one could perceive, today, a marked and naked hatred of the Tamils displayed by the Sinhalese.

Intransigence of the Sinhalese is not of recent origin. I would say that it has been there for the last 75 years and perhaps was the cause of the rise of the Tamil Problem. This must be clearly understood by the international community, if they are to play some part in helping to sort the crisis in Sri Lanka. And, it is this same intransigence of the Sinhalese that is preventing "Peace with Justice" in Sri Lanka even at the moment.

When exactly did the intransigence of the Sinhalese start to rear its head? Historians say that, way back in 1922, Sir James Pieris and Mr. E.J. Samarawickrema gave a written undertaking to Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam that he would be supported for the special seat to be created for the Tamils in the Western Province. These two Sinhalese gentlemen went back on the written undertaking given to Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam and Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam left the Ceylon National Congress in disgust, and refused to work with the Sinhalese from then on. The Sinhalese gentleman receded from the agreement on the basis that they did not want to have communal electorates. But when it suited the Sinhalese, they thought it fit to carve out a Sinhala electorate in Amparai and another in Seruwila all to themselves and salved their conscience by making the contiguous Pottuvil and Mutur electorates multi-member constituencies for the Tamils and Muslims.

In January 1936, under the Executive Committee system of the Donoughmore Constitution, the Sinhalese thought it fit to set up a Pan-Sinhala Board of Ministers, a cabinet comprising exclusively of Sinhalese. This effectively shut the Tamils from the decision-making process in the Island's government.

The reaction to this type of intransigence of the Sinhalese was the demand, in June 1936, for balanced representation in Parliament, which was affectionately referred to as the 50-50 cry, where the proponent demanded that whilst 50% of the seats in the supreme legislature could be given to the majority Sinhalese. the other 50% must be reserved for all the minorities put together, namely, the Tamils, Muslims, Indians, Burghers, Malays and the Europeans. By this way, the proponent expected to thwart any attempts on the part of the Sinhalese to make laws to the detriment of the minorities. This was seen, then, as the only way to effectively counteract the establishment of the Pan- Sinhala Board of Ministers.

In May 1944, President Jayewardena brought a resolution in the State Council that Sinhala should be made the only official language of the country. This further underlined the intransigence of the Sinhalese, which was now assuming the coloring of racism. Ironically, it was Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike who seconded an amendment to the J.R. Jayewardena resolution moved by Mr. V. Nalliah to the effect that both Sinhala and Tamil should be the official languages of Ceylon. I say 'ironically' because it was the self-same Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike who, a dozen years later, in order to become Prime Minister and in a fit of bravado, thought it fit to make Sinhala the only official language of the island "within 24 hours" and brought the now infamous Sinhala Only Bill in June 1956 which had the effect of creating a watershed in the history of the country and putting the clock so far back that it has today almost truncated the little island.

Anyway, President Jayewardena's racist resolution in May 1944 again had its attendant reaction, in that. the All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC) was set up quickly in August I 944 in order to take stock of the situation and play the role of the watch-dog of the Tamils.

The intransigence of the Sinhalese was further glorified in 1948 when, soon after independence, the D.S. Senanayake Government thought it fit to bring the Ceylon Citizenship Act No. 18 of 1948 which decitizenised the Tamils of recent Indian origin, the very people who made Ceylon economically what it is today, being still dependent largely on tea, rubber and coconut. From then on, the ill- effects of that grotesque act was sought to be mitigated by successive governments as a result of Tamil agitation and this process has still not been satisfactorily resolved - nearly 50 years after the devastating event.

An equally devastating and intransigent act was the passing of, what is popularly referred to as the Sinhala Only Act - the Official Language Act. No. 33 of 1956. When the move to make only one language - Sinhalese - the only official language of the country was mooted by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the other main party, the United National Party (UNP), not to be outdone jumped the bandwagon and, at its Kelaniya Convention of 1956, adopted a resolution to make Sinhala the only official language of Ceylon. This type of intransigence on the part of the Sinhala party had its necessary reaction in that the self- respecting Tamils, who till then were members of the UNP, abandoned the party forthwith. Of course, the caliber of Tamils then was different from what it is today. Today, Tamil representatives can be slammed by the government as being dishonest and good for nothing and you will get those self- same Tamils putting their tails between their legs and supporting the same government with greater devotion and servility!

Anyway, the Sinhala Only Act was passed notwithstanding Section 29 of the Soulbury Constitution of 1946, the constitution that was in operation at that time. Section 29 was the only provision in the Constitution that gave some degree of protection to the minorities and was incorporated only because the Soulbuiy Commissioners did not want to accept the 50 - 50 demand put before them. Though Section 29 was expected to give some sort of a safeguard, the wisdom of the 50-50 demand itself was seen very clearly in 1956 - only a decade after the promulgation of the 1946 Constitution and the rejection of the 50- 50 demand - in that a Sinhala majority Government was able to pass a law that was detrimental to the Tamils.

There were members of the Left community who, in 1956, stoutly opposed the Sinhala Only Act and clamoured, together with the Tamils, for parity of status for the Sinhala and Tamil Languages and even prophetically came out with the now famous words "One language, two Nations; two languages, one Nation".

The liberal attitude one expected from the Left did not last for long. Because, very soon after 1956, even those of the Left who spoke of the "one language, two Nations" theory could not resist the galloping intransigence of the Sinhala Nation and startlingly abandoned their stand for parity of the two languages and instead adopted the "Dudleyge bade masala vadai" slogan which, politically, meant that Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake had sold the Sinhala Nation to the Tamils.

In June 1956 when the Sinhala Only Bill was due to be presented in Parliament, the more ardent of Tamils decided to show passive protest and performed 'satyagraha' on Galle Face Green, a promenade close to Parliament. Sinhala goondas were used to turn 'violence on the Tamil satyagrahis who were mauled so mercilessly that some had blood all over their head and face whilst others had to run and seek sanctuary in a nearby hotel when they were stripped naked. Such was Sinhalese intransigence then. A Tamil could not even show protest by silently sitting down!.

It was about this time that we saw the rise of the political phenomenon that has characterised the Island's politics and glorified the intransigence of the Sinhala Nation. I refer to the phenomenon that whenever an incumbent government wanted to do something politically that would assuage, even to a very small extent, Tamil sentiments or aspirations, the Sinhala opposition would cry from roof -tops that the government had sold the Sinhalese to the Tamils. This would put the fright of Moses into the Government leading to the unashamed abandonment of the measure contemplated.

We saw this first in the case of the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam pact (B-C Pact) in 1957. Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike sought to mitigate the rigours of the Sinhala Only Act by signing a Pact with Mr. S.J.V. Chelvanayakam, the leader of the Tamil Party that enjoyed the support of the vast majority of the Tamils at that time. This Pact was resisted and ridiculed by the intransigent Sinhala opposition led by Mr. J.R.Jayawardena of the UNP and Mr. Bandaranaike was constrained to unilaterally abandon the B-C Pact.

Incidentally, at that time, the Tamils were talking and wanting "concessions" from the Sinhalese. The intransigence of the Sinhalese was such that they were not prepared even to consider or grant "concessions" to the Tamils. Today, the situation has changed. Today, the Tamils want many of their "rights" recognised and their "aspirations" conceded.

In August 1958, the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act No. 28 of 19g8 was passed. This provided for regulations for the reasonable use of Tamil in the North and East. Sinhalese intransigence prevented this law being implemented.

In 1965, another Pact was signed, this time between Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake and Mr. Chelvanayakam. It was called the D-C Pact and it sought to set up District Councils as a solution to the Tamil Problem. The District Councils system was a concept which was even less than the Regional Councils system that was sought to be created under the B-C Pact. Mounting opposition to even the District Councils system forced Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake to unilaterally abort the D-C Pact and abandon the District Council Bill midstream. Even here, the Leftists opposed District Councils with a vengeance. This was, then, an instance of Sinhalese intransigence that did not permit a solution that was, admittedly, even less than the solution that was mooted about a decade before then.

Regulations under the Tamil Language Act of 1958 were formulated and published, for the very first time, in the Government Gazette on 2nd March 1966. Sinhalese intransigence prevented even these being implemented.

In 1972, Sinhalese intransigence saw to it that a system of standardization was introduced by the SLFP - led United Front Government that had the effect of requiring a Tamil student to obtain more marks to gain admission to the universities than his counterpart in the Sinhala Nation. It was the system of standardisation that led to the youth of the Tamils to come to the fore in political agitation and to the rise of Tamil militancy and the side- lining of the conventional moderate Tamil leadership.

1972 also saw the birth of a new Constitution for Sri Lanka where the very person who spoke of "'Two languages, one Nation; one language, two Nations" thought it fit to even do away with Section 29 of the 1946 Soulbury Constitution, which was the only safeguard given to minorities by the departing British Colonial masters. Not only this, he brought in the word "unitary" into a constitution for the first time and also took away the right of the courts to pass judgment on the legality of laws. This was again another instance of Sinhalese intransigence. The Sinhalese component of the National State assembly, rejected every amendment put forward by the Tamil representatives during the deliberations of the new constitution.

In 1974 when the International Association of Tamil Research was to hold its Conference in Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan government wanted the Conference held in Colombo instead of the only logical place, which was Jaffna. This attempt was resisted by the Tamils. When the government could not do anything, it sought to prevent foreign participation by making it difficult for them to obtain visas. When there was widespread Tamil protest and international opinion was turning against the Sri Lankan Government over this matter, the Government gave in. One could see Sinhalese intransigence even in the matter of a Tamil cultural event. But during the mass rally on the final day of the Conference, the police, for some obscure reason, fired at the electricity wires that ran over a section of the crowd, which wires naturally snapped and fell on the people, leading to the electrocution of nine Tamils in the gathering. This incident became a political rallying point and an impetus to Tamil youth militancy.

These cumulative acts of Sinhalese intransigence finally led to the Tamil-youth engineered demand for the separate state of Thamil Eelam, which was given a formal status in May 1976, at the Tamil United Front's Convention at Pannakam in Vaddukoddai.

In 1978, when another new Constitution was drawn up for Sri Lanka, the UNP, reflecting Sinhalese intransigence, refused to bring back Section 29 of the 1946 Soulbury Constitution. What is more, the 1978 Constitution provided for a 2/3 majority in Parliament and a Referendum for any amendment of the Constitution which made it next to impossible to get any amendments that favored the Tamils to be passed. This Constitution also brought the flag into it for the first time and in that process, surreptitiously substituted four Bo leaves in the four corners of the Lion Flag in place of the four lines that were there! Such was Sinhala machination.

Those who received a mandate for the setting up of the separate stale of Thamil Eelam, inexplicably capitulated and without receiving a mandate to abandon their stand for a separate state, agreed to the setting up of District Development Councils (DDC) as a solution to the Tamil Problem on the basis of their famous but notorious "thangu madam" theory - the "stepping stone" syndrome. In other words, the District Development Councils were seen, by the TULF, as a stepping stone to the ultimate separate state!.

At the 1981 DDC elections, Tamil youth protest over the DDC system saw much violence and the Sinhala Sri Lankan Government retaliated by burning down the famous Jaffna Public Library which contained a collection of invaluable Tamil books.

This act created a blot for Sri Lanka in the eyes of the international community which, I hope, has still not been erased. And, it is my hope and wish that it will never be erased because it shows to what extent Sinhalese intransigence can descend to teach the Tamils a lesson. If there was one stand-out incident which justifies the demand for a separate state for the Tamils, it was surely this.

When the DDCs started functioning, widespread complaints came from the Chairmen and members of the DDCs in Tamil areas, that the Government was not providing adequate funds to work the DDCs properly and very soon the DDCs in the Tamil areas came to a grinding halt. Such was Sinhalese intransigence. The Sinhala administration strangled DDCs in Tamil areas by not giving money.

In 1983 the Sri Lankan Government brought the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution which made it an offense to espouse the creation of a separate state. This tried to put paid to the freedom of speech and association of the Tamils to articulate a political cause. Though this Act, again, underlined Sinhalese intransigence, it certainly did not drive the then Tamil members of Parliament away from Parliament. I say this because of the dishonest attempt by the TULF to claim for themselves a favorable position as a result of the Sixth Amendment : They say that piece of legislation drove them out of Parliament. Nothing can be further from the truth. The TULF had decided on Saturday, 22nd July, 1983, at their Mannar Convention, not to go to Parliament after 22nd July 1983 because the 1982 Referendum had immorally extended the life of Parliament. This decision was taken, therefore, before the holocaust of 1983 and long before the Sixth Amendment. If the TULF is taken to be honest, then surely, it must be this decision of theirs not to go to Parliament after 22nd July 1983, that did drive them out of Parliament and not the Sixth Amendment! Further, when the Sixth Amendment was brought in Parliament, on 8th August 1983, no TULF MP was there to protest. For, the more high profile of the TULF MPs had abandoned the Tamils for the comfort and safety of Tamil Nadu, whilst the less well known of them remained with low profile in Mannar and the Jaffna Peninsula.

The whole of 1984 was taken up by President Jayewardena's All Party Conference (APC) which sought a solution to the Tamil Problem. It was at this Conference that the Tamils first put forward their demand for Provincial Councils for the merged Tamil Linguistic North East Province. After talking for 12 long months, the APC ended in a fiasco with a Report which was prepared to grant only District Councils to the Tamils.

President Jayawardene summed up the respective positions of the Sinhala and Tamil Nations with the momentous words, "Sinhalese say District Councils and no more, whilst the Tamils say Provincial Councils and no less". Even at the point where the island was literally torn asunder by violence and its attendant bitterness after the 1983 holocaust, Sinhalese intransigence prevented it from considering something more than its position in 1981, which was District Development Councils.

From 1984 another totally new phenomenon emerged that showed Sinhalese intransigence. That was that, we in Sri Lanka would talk for a whole year about seeking a solution to the Tamil Problem without more! This is literally what took place in 1984 at President Jayewardena's APC.

1985 was also taken up by President Jayewardene's Political Parties Conference (PPC). Talk and nothing achieved.

The Thimpu Talks in July and August 1985 were very important. For the first time, the Tamils wanted four basic principles to be accepted by the Government. They were, that the Tamils were a nation, that they had a traditional homeland, their right to self determination, and their right to equality and citizenship. The government refused to accept these principles. further emphasizing Sinhalese intransigence.

1986 was largely occupied by behind the scenes talks and maneuvers with P. Chidambaram of India and with meetings at Bangalore where President Jayewardena, P.Chidambaram and V. Pirabakaran figured.

In mid 1987 the Indo Lanka Agreement was sprung on the political firmament of Sri Lanka as a surprise both to the Sinhalese and the Tamils. That this Agreement was kept a closely guarded secret from the Sinhala Nation itself shows that even the powers had accepted the intransigence of the Sinhalese and were afraid that if the terms of the Agreement was made public or put up for discussion by the people, it would not see the light of day. Indeed, that is what really took place. When the provisions of the Agreement had to be made public after its signing, the Sinhala masses refused to accept the Agreement and they took to the streets and there was violence, vandalism and distruction.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution gave legal status to the Indo-Lanka Agreement and led to the setting up of Provincial Council. Even after a completely lopsided elections in 1988, the North-East Provincial Council was unceremoniously dissolved in 1990 by way of two dubious pieces of legislation, only a year and a couple of months after Provincial Councils were set up. In fact, the only Provincial Council for the Tamil areas, the system which was set up due exclusively upon Tamil agitation, was dissolved to accommodate Sinhalese intransigence. True, in this instance there was agitation from Tamil quarters also for the dissolution of the North-East Provincial Council. But a honest Sinhala government should have resisted it and taken steps to do away with the matters on which the Tamil quarters had complained of, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

1988 was largely occupied by electioneering by the Sinhala parties who were looking forward to the Presidential Elections in December of that year and the General Elections in February 1989. But some of us lesser mortals drafted the Democratic Peoples Alliance (DPA) Manifesto with which today's Prime Minister went before the People at the Presidential Elections of 1988. This Manifesto was drafted by representatives of eight political parties over eight long months. The political parties concerned were the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP), the Janatha Vimuktht Perarnuna (JVP), the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC), the Eksath Lanka Jathika Peramuna (ELJP), the Liberal Party (LP), the Democratic Workers Congress (DWC) and the All Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC).

Days after Madam Srimavo Bandaranaike lost the Presidential Elections, today's pompous Deputy Minister of Defense, Ratwatte, told me to throw the DPA Manifesto out of the window. And this was said in the immediate presence of Madam Bandaranaike. So much for justice; so much for peace; so much for a political solution from today's regime and so much for Sinhalese intransigence!

The circus started all over again in 1989. This time it was under the patronage of President Premadasa. In April 1989, President Premadasa's All Party Conference commenced and I think it went on till the time of his death in May 1993. Thank God the ACTC bailed out of these meaningless talks quite early in its tortuous route which was sometime in 1990. Here, too, it was just a question of talking all the time with nothing achieved. The Sinhalese could not afford to have a solution. If it did, it has to face the wrath of the Sinhala masses.

In 1990 started the Parliamentary 8elect Committee sittings chaired by Mr. Mangala Moonesinghe. This, too, went on from 1990 till 1993. The only point this PSC decided was that the Eastern Province should be separate from the Northern Province. This consensus satisfied Sinhalese intransigence, because it was a step backwards. From a point where we had one Council for the North and East, this PSC decided that we should have two Provincial Councils. A case of jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

After President Premadasa came President Wijetunga in 1993. Sinhalese intransigence till a new level during his time. He, it was, who started the Sinhalese off on the now fashionable position that there is no Tamil Problem and that there is only a terrorist problem. It was he who came out with the position that Sri Lanka is a Sinhala land. It was he who said that the Tamils were only creepers on the Sinhala tree. And it was he who said that the Tamils had been given a plate full and that nothing more need be given because the Tamil plate could not hold more!

It was President Wijetunge who started the Sinhalese off on the question as to what were the grievances of the Tamils. After a problem that was existing for almost the last 75 years, President Wljetunga had the audacity to query, "what are the grievance of the Tamils?". Could Sinhalese intransigence hit a higher watermark? It soon became the fashion of the day for most Sinhalese to ask, simply and innocently, "what are the grievances of the Tamils?". We see this strain even today. One has only to open the center pages of the Island's "The Island" English daily news paper to know what I mean.

There are a whole horde of Tamils in Colombo who buy "The Island" only to see the center pages and sigh over the Sinhalese intransigence and venom spit out on those pages.

What is the position after President Kumaratunga came into power in 1994? The situation has not changed. We still see the golden thread of Sinhalese intransigence running right down the political fabric of Sri Lanka. Where does today's Head of State and Head of government stand? Described as the "Dove of Peace", more by the Tamils than by the Sinhalese, what has she done? In an interview to the Tamil daily "Virakesari" on 1st May 1994, President Kumaratunga said that her proposals on a political solution to the Tamil Problem were being drafted. Yet, at the General Elections of 1994 nor at the Presidential Elections of 1994 did her manifesto have a word about the proposals.

After she took office as Executive President, she told in a number of interviews, to the press and television, that her proposals would be out soon. If there were any proposals, and if those proposals were for a solution of the Tamil Problem, and if they were primarily for the Tamil People, as President Kumaratunga has always been saying, why did she not make the proposals public immediately after l9th April 1995? Was that not the real test of her honesty, sincerity and transparency? Her proposals finally came out on 3rd August 1995, three weeks after a war was started against the Tamils. The Tamils were running helter skelter trying to dodge the bombs that were being dropped from high heaven. Could one reasonably expect a single Tamil to have the inclination or opportunity to consider any proposals under those circumstances? Can one find a more startling example of Sinhalese intransigence? President Kumaratunga, then, presents a legal draft of those proposals in January 1996 when the Tamils were literally on the road and on the now-abandoned rail tracks, both coming into this world and dying under trees by the roadside, and going through many similar hardships. Could any reasonable human being expect the Tamils to be studying the draft legal proposals in the situation in which they found themselves? But it suited President Kumaratunga to put these proposals out when she did because it was done not to solve the Tamil Problem but to court the international community and to, thereby, not only get them to publicly voice their support for the Government but also to get their second hand military equipment to use against the Tamils. She succeeded in both.

What is now taking place in Sri Lanka is a military solution to a political problem. Can one get a more glaring example of Sinhalese intransigence than this? But this is the run-of-the-mill situation and most Tamils, who have their head on their shoulders, have learnt to live with Sinhalese intransigence. But what the Tamils cannot live down is that the Tamil guardian - angels who are warming the seats of the legislature and who cry from roof-tops, still, about a "political solution", have, today, not only acquiesced in the military operations in the North-East Province of Sri Lanka, but also are lending active support in the operations, whilst some others are secretly very happy that a path is being cleared for them to go to Jaffna! This is the tragedy of the Tamil Nation.

That the Sinhalese do not want a political solution to the Tamil Problem was shown by the fact that Sinhala parties like the MCP boycotted the Parliamentary select Committee on the constitution on the days set apart for them between the 7th and l0th May 1996. The Sinhala dominated Parliamentary Select Committee showed its own indifference to a solution of the Tamil Problem by not having a quorum on three out of the four days set apart for its sittings

Sinhalese intransigence was again highlighted when the PA Government's and President Kumaratunga's hand-picked Minister Mangala Samaraweera, the principal executive on ethnic matters, gave an interview to "The Sunday Island", on l2th May 1996. that "a political dialogue for peace on a resolution of the Tamil Problem can only be on the Government's terms and within its own strategies and that there are further steps to be taken" - whatever that means! This attitude displays exactly what some non-servile Tamils were always articulating and were afraid of, namely, that once the military option showed it had achieved something, then the intransigent Sinhalese were going to tell the Tamils to go to hell. This fear has been proved correct by Minister Samaraweera.

The intransigence of the Sinhalese is shown in another matter as well. Some foreign countries have, over the course of so many months, offered their good offices to mediate on the Tamil Problem. Perhaps the most important factor on the side of the Tamils - the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) - too, has, time and again, requested foreign mediation. But, successive Governments in Sri Lanka, the Premadasa and Kumaratunga Governments, have completely rejected this avenue. In fact, as recent as on 16th May 1996. President Kumaratunga told a press conference in Japan that Sri Lanka will solve its own problem. As if this is not bad enough, there has been two occasions on which Buddhist and Sinhala organisations in Sri Lanka have objected to, and protested against, Tamil quisling political parties in Colombo even meeting representatives of foreign missions in Colombo! Can one get a more intransigent set of people? Sri Lanka will never solve the Problem which she has had on her hands for the last 75 years nor will she allow anybody else to help solve it.

posted February 09, 2001 02:34 PM         

The entry of Mr. G.G. Ponnambalam (Jr) into this debate is desirable because he represents, more than any of his
contemporaries competing to be "the sole representative of the Tamils", that long line of politics which pursued communalism
and casteism as the be-all and end-all of Jaffna politics.

All said and done, G.G. Ponnambalam (Snr) was a formidable force in Jaffna politics until the arrival of his arch rival , S.J.V.
Chelvanayakam on the political scene. Both were of course like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Both peddled communalism
and thrived on casteism. Both were committed to exact the maximum from the South. Their politics had no redeeming features.
Their communalism attacked the bogey of the South and casteism attacked their own people. The rivalry of the Tamil
leadership was not on basic ideological differences but on a clash of inflated egos.

The importance of Mr. Ponnambalam (Jr.) lies in the fact the he symbolizes the ingrained communal politics of Jaffna. Like all
his predecessors he follows the rabid racist line. Whether the Jaffna leadership emerges from Cambridge, Oxford or Harvard
they all follow the identical racist line. They use the sophisticated argument of western academics and intellectuals essentially to
convince the world that the ultimate goal of liberalism is to enthrone Tamil racism in one corner of Sri Lanka.

They disguise the racism and the caste fascism of the Jaffna "priviligentia' as the deserving cause of an "oppressed minority".
When their hypocritical mark is removed they reveal themselves as the only naked oppressors of their own people. The tragedy
of the Jaffna elite is that in their struggle for leadership they could not escape the atavistic pull of racism. One of these tragic
figures is Sir P. Arunachalam who, despite all his liberal and broad perspectives was sucked in by the gravitational pull of Tamil
communalism in his last days.

Their communalism increased in virulence when this 12 per cent minority developed a "Majority complex." It was
Ponnambalam (Snr) who gave a concrete shape and expression to this "Majority complex" of a minority when he demanded
"balanced representation" or "50 - 50" which is the appropriate mathematical equation for balanced representation. This cry not
only deepened the communal divide but also drew the battle lines for the future.

The fifty-fifty demand was essentially a colonial legacy based of the arrogant belief that the Tamils were in reality a majority and
not a minority. Up until 1920 the Tamils had near parity of status in the Legislative Council. Though a minority their numbers in
the Council were almost as the same as the Sinhalese. Besides, the "preferential treatment and concessions" granted by the
British to the Tamils of Jaffna made them feel that they were as important, if not more important, than the majority or any other
community.

Above all, as pointed out by Prof. K.M. De Silva, even Governor Manning and an enlightened leader like Sir Ponnambalam
Arunachalam never accepted that the Tamils were a minority community. Their parity of status under colonial times led them to
believe that they were on par with the majority community and this misplaced belief, which was shattered with the coming of
constitutional changes that introduced the universal franchise in 1931 was to have a serious consequence in subsequent politics.

This majority complex inherited from unfair and unjust imbalances imposed by a colonial administration, is documented by Prof.
K.M. De Silva, in his second article on The Ceylon National Congress in Disarray published in The Ceylon Journal of
Historical and Social Studies, (Vol II No.2 July-December 1972). Prof. De Silva's research illustrates the misplaced belief in
Tamil superiority . "Arunachalam's use of the term "minorities' in his speeches before his departure from the Congress in
1921.... did not include the Tamils which is not surprising since Arunachalam shared the prevailing opinion that the Tamils were
not a minority but were one of two majority communities (p 115)...... There was besides the fact that the Tamils were regarded,
not least by Manning himself, as a majority community." (P 107),

Is it surprising therefore that they should revive this concept of a "Majority Community" by insisting on fifty fifty? The fifty-fifty
demand was basically a political move to retain their colonial status of a minority placed on equal footing with the majority in the
Legislature and the administration. That it was unfair, unrealistic and quite disproportionate to their numbers or even the
numbers of all the minorities put together - never occurred to the arrogant leadership of the Tamils. In the guise of pleading for a
minority or minorities (T.B Jayah the Muslim leader did not want to have bar of fifty-fifty) Ponnambalam (Snr) was bent on
regaining their colonial supremacy through fifty-fifty.

Their superiority complex was also derived from being the "administrative overclass" (TIME , August 5, 1966 - p.49) installed
by the British. In the early decades of this century, says Prof. S. Arasaratnam there were over 10,000 Tamil public servants in
the British administration. I remember K .C Nithyanada, the dynamic trade union leader telling me one day "You Sinhalese
govern but it is we Tamils who rule." He meant that the Tamils have a dominant place in the administration to rule whoever
governs the country - and he wasn't far wrong either.

At the slightest sign of accommodation with the south rival Tamil parties were waiting in the wings to exploit it as capitulation to
their enemies in the south. Even nominal north south accommodation did, in fact, swing the Jaffna electorate to extreme
positions as seen in the breakaway of S.J.V. Chelvanayakam from Ponnambalam (Snr).

Their clash of egos exploiting Tamil chauvinism resulted in pushing the Jaffna electorate to a more extreme form of fifty-fifty.
Ponnambalam (Snr) fifty-fifty was power sharing at the center. Chelvanayakam, representing the typical Tamil hubris dragged
Jaffna deeper into the mire of racism by creating his Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi.

So the internal dynamics of Jaffna, spinning on personal rivalry and demanding the maximum from the south led them at each
successive stage, to rabid Tamil racism. The following passage from Robert N. Kearny illustrates this: "The Tamil Congress
emerged from the 1947 election as the only successful party in the Ceylon Tamil areas of the north. Within two years the Tamil
Congress had allied itself with the U.N.P Government and acquiesced in legislation excluding most Indian Tamils from
Ceylonese citizenship and the franchise .(Mr. Ponnambalam (Jr) please note). In protest against Tamil Congress association
with the UNP government a group of Ceylon Tamil M.Ps abandoned the Tamil Congress and founded the Federal Party (or, in
Tamil the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi). The Federal Party appeared more adamant and unyielding than the Tamil Congress in
its determination to maintain the separate existence of the Tamil community and to resist the perceived threat of Sinhalese
domination..." (p 457, Chapter XIII in Collective Identities: Nationalism and Protest in Modern Sri Lanka edited by Michael
Roberts)

All these point to the salient fact there were two strands of communalism one in the north which originated long before the south
even dreamt of it and the other in the south which came in the wake of 1956 and clashed with the established northern
communal forces. The outstanding feature of the pro Sinhala Buddhist cultural wave that began in the colonial times is that it
was never directed against the Tamils. All scholars from Prof A. J. Wilson to Prof. S Arasaratnam agree that Sinhala-Buddhism
arose and developed as an anti-Western and anti-colonial force and not as an anti-Tamil force.

True, it got out of hand in the aftermath of 1956. But the redeeming quality was symbolized in the utopian character of S. W. R.
D Bandaranaike. His intellectual stature, far exceeding that of the misguided Marxists, was in recognizing the powerful
undercurrent of Sinhala Buddhist cultural forces surging to find a political outlet. Eventually, he became its shining symbol.

Simultaneously he recognized the parallel forces running in the north and when it got twisted in the days of the State Council he
did not hesitate to blast the "outrageous demands" of the Tamils. His life-long battle was to balance the two competing forces
and though he failed in his initial attempts, no credit is given to him for taking the initiative to assuage and allay the perceptions of
fear by the Tamil communalists.

Beginning from S.W. R. D. Bandaranaike to his daughter Chandrika Kumaratunga, the Sinhala leadership has showed a
genuine willingness to resolve the north-south conflict. The fact that the earlier leaders failed does not mean that the Sinhala
leadership was as intransigent as the Tamil communalists. The critics particularly those in the foreign-funded NGO circuit
highlight only the failures and not the initiatives of the Sinhala leadership who had risked their lives. both political and personal in
trying to resolve the differences.

Here they resort to denigrating Sinhala Buddhism as the main factor and not extreme Tamil racism. There are three critical
stages in the rising trajectory of Tamil racism which negate the accusations against Sinhala Buddhists. First was when the Tamils
asked for a special seat in the Western Province in 1920 for Sir P. Arunachalam. In a detailed analysis of this issue Prof. K. M.
de Silva points out that the Sinhala leadership went out of their way to offer the seat to Sir P. Arunachalam despite the initial
bungling but he turned it down and sadly retired into communal politics .

The second was when Ponnambalam (Snr) was raving and ranting about fifty-fifty. The Sinhala Board of Ministers offered a
ratio of 57 to 43. I asked again, which majority of 75% had ever offered 43% to 25% of the population in any other part of the
world?

As Prof. Arasaratnam states it was "a tactical blunder" on the part of the Tamils to have rejected that offer and the issue could
have been settled in the times which were so tumultuous had the Tamil leadership been more realistic and genuine in seeking a
solution without letting their egos and racism ride high. With each phase the Tamil chauvinists have been raising their stakes,
demanding more and more. There was no way of appeasing their increasing demands. And by the time Chelvanayakam took to
the politics of "Separate State" (Federal or otherwise) the communal climate had changed radically in the south.

The north-south conflict had entered the critical third stage where the Tamils had gone to such extremes that they could not
retreat from it. By this time the "outrageous demands" of the Tamils were rousing the worst fears of the south. Besides, the
crumbling ancient regime in the north was desperate. They were deliberately opting out of the democratic framework to
embrace violence .

Prof. A. J. Wilson describes this tactic graphically when he wrote: ".A second tactic is to destabilize the internal political
situation. Political murders, acts of sabotage, and inflammatory and provocative speeches are the established forms and these
have been tried. The Sinhalese masses and their lower-level ethnic leadership are needled by such acts and urge their rank and
file to take retaliatory action. Nothing is more satisfying to Tamil militants (p 301 Sri Lanka and its future: Sinhalese versus
Tamils).

As shown by Prof. Wilson the Tamil manipulators would not hesitate to kill their own mother and father to gain political
mileage. Chilling isn't it?

However, for obvious political reasons it is only the Sinhala Buddhists who are portrayed as provocateurs of communal
violence. The interplay of the two communal strands and in particular, the provocative nature and instigation of Tamil
chauvinism has been either underplayed or ignored, because neither could reap the benefit of political sympathy from the gullible
international community. These crimes of the Tamil leadership committed against their own people are unforgivable.

Only a Gabrial Garcia Marquez could depict the horrors bred by the evil elite of Jaffna. Mr Ponnambalam (Jr) who is a direct
descendant of this evil elite that showed no mercy to their own people could be a character walking out of the pages of
Marquez - the undisputed master of comic horrors in S. American decadence.