Because, (a) a broad front would have taken a long time, (b) it would need a lot of troops, I did not have that, (c) it would have meant a lot of destruction and civilian casualties, that would not be acceptable to either to my government or to me, and (d) we did not want the civilians to leave Jaffna.

Our objectives were different to that extent. We had gone there to assist their rehabilitation, not to uproot them. So therefore, if we were to go and reduce Jaffna in the conventional manner, they would have been homeless for all time to come after that! "

I will now sketch how these old atavistic memories and irrational fears embedded in the psyche of the Sinhalese leaders and people because of their belief in the truth of this falsified Sinhalese-Tamil past history, prevented the grant of even nominal concessions, by reference to the attitudes and assertions made by the Sinhalese Parliamentarians to the then Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake's innocuous proposals for District Councils, presented as a White Paper to the House in 1968.. "

1968 June 5: A White Paper on proposals for the establishment of District Councils under the direction and control of the Central Government is tabled in the House of Representatives:

According to a draft bill attached to the White Paper, the government Agent of the District would be the Chief Executive Officer and all employees of these Councils would be public servants under the control of the Government Agent. The District Councils would not be local authorities but would be extensions of the Central Government taking over some of the functions now performed by the Kachcheries. The Councils, to be constituted in each Administrative District, would consist of ex-officio Councillors consisting of (a) elected M.P.s for each electoral district which lay within such administrative districts, (b) appointed M.P.s, (c) Mayors of Municipalities and Chairmen of local bodies within the administrative district. There would also be not more than 3 nominated Councillors. The Councils would function under the language laws of the country. The record of the Councils throughout the island would be kept in the official language (Sinhala). In the Northern and Eastern provinces, records would be kept in Tamil also. Correspondence with the central government would be in the official language.

1968 June 8: Walk-out in Parliament. Burning of copies of the White Paper on District Councils. Beginning of Sinhala- Buddhist campaign against District Councils The entire opposition in the House, with the exception of three members, walk out of the house burning and tearing copies of the White paper within the Chamber as P.M. Dudley Senanayake rose to initiate the debate on the White Paper ... As they were marching out of the Chamber, some members tear the document and throw the pieces in the air, while a leading member of the S.L.F.P., T.B. Tennekoon, burns his copy ... The members who had earlier walked out, led by the leader of the opposition Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike, gather outside the precincts of the Parliament building and make a bonfire of the copies before they disperse.

1968 June 11: Debate on the White Paper. Opposition coalitionists led by Mrs Bandaranaike continue to boycott the debate, but a Vice-President of the S.L.F.P., R.G. Senanayake, defies the party's decision to keep away and launches an attack on the White Paper. He says he saw in the District Councils the distinct possibility of the division of the Island into two or three parts. The expelled F.P. member, V. Navaratnam on the other hand, says that the proposal now before the House was a very wide deviation from the agreement that the Party had entered into with the P.M. Not only did it not do any justice to the Tamil people, but it contained "obnoxious and pernicious sections" detrimental to the Tamils. The most vehement attack on the District Councils proposals came from a Tamil member on the Government side, G.G. Ponnambalam, the leader of the Tamil Congress. He calls the proposals a "hideous hybrid monstrosity" and said that the establishment of District Councils would lead to the eventual segregation of the Sinhalese and the Tamils, while the F.P. Members accuse Mr Ponnambalam of betraying the Tamil people.

1968 June 13: Winding up the debate P.M. Dudley Senanayake lashes out at the opposition for "carrying on a false propaganda and spreading communal hatred." He quotes from the speeches of opposition leaders and points out how they had earlier favoured the establishment of District Councils and even incorporated the idea in numerous Throne Speeches. They could not now face the house and "ran away from the debate." He says most people spoke very glibly of communal amity; the communal harmony which his cousin R.G. Senanayake was talking about was "the biggest sham perpetrated on the people of the country." The unity some people want is the subjugation of the rest, subjugation of another's culture, language and aspirations, to their dominant force .... May the country be saved from those who speak of national unity, and then do their utmost to prevent it from being achieved."

Commenting on the bitter attack against each other of the Tamil Congress and the F.P., Mr Senanayake says: "The tragedy of the Tamil race is the existence of a set of self-seeking sycophants making the sweet speech of saviours. If the Tamils are ever to regain their birthright in Ceylon, they should sent away the present saviours of the Tamil Congress and the Federal Party."

The P.M. does not indicate when he proposes to introduce the legislation in Parliament, which is prorogued after June 18. Despite efforts made by Dudley Senanayake to dispel what he called the false propaganda against the proposed District Councils Bill, the campaign both in the Press and on platforms against the Bill increases in tempo.

A section of the Press reports under banner headlines that an influential section of the Government parliamentary group would shortly issue an ultimatum to the P.M. either to give up the controversial District Councils Bill or to face a revolt within its ranks. The S.L.F.P., in a circular to its supporters describes the proposed Bill as the consequence of a "secret pact" between the P.M. and the Tamil leader Chelvanayakam. Mass rallies are organized to whip up opposition to the Bill. It is alleged that the Bill was a "device to divide the country to the detriment of the Sinhala people."

The Buddhist Mahanayakes of the Malwatte and Asgiriya Chapters, as well as a deputation of the All Ceylon Buddhist Congress meet the P.M. to make known their opposition to the proposed District Councils. Various local bodies in the Sinhala areas as well as Sinhala political, social, religious and cultural organizations pass resolutions demanding that the Government give up the proposal. With the mounting, orchestrated campaign against it, it becomes doubtful with every passing day whether the DC Bill would get into the parliamentary agenda.

1968 July 7: No firm commitment is made on the controversial district Councils Bill in the Speech from the Throne - the policy statement of the Government for the current session of Parliament delivered by the Governor-General to the joint session of Parliament today. A watered-down reference that fullest consideration would be given to the view expressed on the White Paper, is widely interpreted in the country to mean that the Government has already bowed to pressure.

1968 July 25: Winding up the debate on the Speech from the Throne, P.M. Dudley Senanayake declares that the District Councils proposals would be abandoned if a majority of the people did not want them. He adds that he had tried to bring together the different communities and that he would continue his efforts." The District Councils episode and the fiasco in which it ended brings into focus the significant realities of the Tamil problem or the national question.

Firstly, it epitomizes the resort of the opposition Sinhalese politicians to "false propaganda and the spreading of communal hatred", as in the words of Dudley Senanayake, on any measure even remotely connected to or ameliorative of the enslaved and deprived of "birthright" condition of the Tamil people.

Secondly, that false propaganda will accuse the proposer of any such measure as the author of a scheme "to divide the country to the detriment of the Sinhalese", in order to heighten the controversy over it so that the proposer himself would jettison it, as did Dudley Senanayake.

Thirdly, the vociferous Buddhist lobby consisting of the Mahanayakes, Bhikkhus and the A.C.B.C. have become the keepers of the conscience of the Sinhalese nation and the custodians of the Sri Lanka Government's positions over the Tamil problem, which the two have created in the country.

Fourthly, the ultimatum threat of an influential section of the Government Parliamentary Group to the P.M. to give up or face revolt shows that the Sinhalese politicians do not divide on party lines on the Tamil problem but on racial or ethnic lines and therefore it is not possible for the P.M. to shore up support for his proposals even within the ranks of his own party parliamentarians.

Fifthly, living up to Dudley Senanayake's predatory wish, the Tamil people have "sent away ... the Tamil Congress and the Federal Party", but have yet not regained their "birthright in Sri Lanka."

Lastly, and most importantly, the new status quo of the Sinhalese and Sri Lanka Government - Tamil position of rulers/ruled, overlordship/subjugation has come to be cast in such a rigid, impenetrable and immutable mould that the Tamils have been left with no choice but to break that mould by force to free themselves to be counted as humans; otherwise, it was slavery, revolting to any civilized conscience." ( Tamils Right to Self Determination entitled to international recognition - Justice Satchi Ponnambalam, Judge of the Supreme Court of Belize, Central America, July 1991)

That territory is their national inheritance, their national patrimony, their separate homeland, their motherland to which they are bonded in all the strength and attachment as the native people. They possess all the patriotic love and yearnings and all other conscious and unconscious bindings of any indigenous nation of people to their own land, and, in particular, in no way less and in no different manner from the indigenous Sinhalese people to their part of the country.

The Tamils right and claim to the Eelam territory has to be bluntly, irrefutably and crisply stated: the Eelam lands are inviolate and Tamil nation's sovereignty over that territory is non-negotiable."

"Though the Government of Chandrika has been cheating the world with its theory of peace, in practice it is conducting a brutal war against the Tamil people. …The military atrocities occurring in the occupied areas and the anti-Tamil persecution taking place in the South have exposed the real racist face of the Government. Compared to previous Sinhala Governments, it is Chandrika's regime which has inflicted a deep wound in the soul of the Tamil nation…

"Having unleashed an intense propaganda campaign categorising our liberation movement as a "terrorist" organisation and our freedom struggle as "terrorism" this Government is making every effort to ban our organisation locally and abroad…. The Government may entertain a notion that it has gained military hegemony by the occupation of Tamil lands and that this position could be used as a mode of pressure to its advantage in the peace talks. As far as we are concerned, peace talks under such conditions cannot be free and equal…We cannot gain our rights by pleading with the Sinhala rulers. We must fight and win our rights. History has not recorded any liberation struggle that has been won without fighting,... without sacrifices."