Nineteen ninety eight is the
50th year of Sri Lanka's independence from British
rule. It is perhaps, an appropriate occasion to ask a
simple question:
Q. Why is it that in Sri Lanka, for five
long decades since 'independence', we have always had
a Sinhala Buddhist as the executive head of
government?
Sinhala Sri Lanka President D.B.Wijetunga put
the matter in his own forthright fashion when speaking
at Anuradhapura, the old Sinhala capital on 2 February
1994:
"Our children should be able to claim that
this country is the Sinhalese land (Sinhala Deshaya).
There are no races according to Buddhism, but every
country has a majority race. However much I try I
can't become the Prime Minister of England. Neither
can I be the leader of Japan, India or even Tamil
Nadu. They have their majority races." (Sinhala
owned Sri Lanka Island, 3 February
1994)
There are those who may want to dismiss
President Wijetunga's
remarks as simply the pre election chauvinism of a
Sinhala political leader, bent on garnering votes. But
that is to miss the point.
During the past 50 years and more, ethnic
identity has in fact
determined the way in which both the Sinhala people and
the Tamil people have exercised their political right
of universal franchise. In this period, no Tamil has
ever been elected to a predominantly Sinhala electorate
and no Sinhalese has ever been elected to a
predominantly Tamil electorate - apart, that is, from
multi member constituencies.
The political reality is that the practice of
'democracy' within the confines of an unitary state has
led to rule by a permanent Sinhala majority. A Tamil
'however much he may try' cannot become the executive
head of government in Sri Lanka.
The Sinhala people are not simply an ethnic
group. Cultural identity and political aspirations have
fused to give birth to a Sinhala national
consciousness. The Sinhala people constitute a
nation.
What is a nation?
A nation is rooted in kinship and grows through a
process of differentiation and opposition. A nation
exists with other nations - and because other nations
exist. A nation is a togetherness cemented by struggle
and suffering. A nation is a political togetherness
directed to secure the aspirations of a people for
equality and freedom - and to secure the institutions
necessary for that purpose.
The Sinhala nation is rooted in kinship and
has grown through a process of differentiation and
opposition. And it is this that the website opened by
the Sri Lanka government, to herald the 50th
anniversary of Sri Lanka's independence, proclaimed in
December 1997:
"The history of Sri Lanka goes back to
pre-historic times with a recorded history of over
2,000 years... documented history
began with the arrival of the
settlers from North India (Prince
Vijaya). They introduced the use of agriculture
through a rudimentary system of irrigation. They also
introduced the art of government. Of the ancient
settlements, Anuradhapura grew into a powerful
kingdom under the rule of Pandukabhaya. According to
traditional history he is accepted as the founder of
Anuradhapura.
During the region of King Devanampiya Tissa,
a descendant of Pandukabhaya, Buddhism was introduced
in 427 B.C. by Arahat Mahinda, the son of Emperor
Asoka of India. This is an
important event in Sri Lankan history as it made the
country predominantly Buddhist influencing its way of
life and culture.
In the mid 2nd century B.C. a large
part of North Sri Lanka came under the rule of an
invader from South India. From the beginning
of the Christian era and up to the end of the 4th
century A.D. Sri Lanka was governed by an unbroken
dynasty called Lambakarna, which paid great attention
to the development of irrigation. A great king of
this dynasty King Mahasen (3rd century A.D.) who
started the construction of large 'tanks'
(reservoirs) which in turn fed smaller reservoirs.
Another great 'tank' builder was Dhatusena, who was
put to death by his son Kasyapa, who made Sigiriya a
royal city with his fortress capital on the summit of
the rock.
As a result of invasions
from South India the Kingdom of
Anuradhapura fell by the end of the 10th century A.D.
Vijayabahu I repulsed the invaders and established
his capital at Polonnaruwa in the 11th century A.D.
Other great kings of Polonnaruwa were Parakrama Bahu
the Great and Nissanka Malla, both of whom adorned
the city with numerous buildings of architectural
beauty.
Invasions continued
intermittently and the capital was moved constantly
until the Portuguese arrived in 1505, when the chief
city was established in Kotte, in the western
lowlands. The Portuguese came to trade in spices, but
stayed to rule until 1658 in the coastal regions, as
did the Dutch thereafter. Dutch rule lasted from 1658
to 1796, in which year they were displaced by the
British. During this period the highland kingdom,
with its capital Kandy, retained its independence
despite repeated assaults by foreign powers who ruled
the rest of the country. In 1815 the Kingdom of Kandy
was ceded to the British who thus established their
rule over the whole island...."
A month after the website was opened, the
capsule history was shortened (and sanitised, somewhat)
to read:
"Sri Lanka is an ancient land with highly
developed prehistoric human settlements. Recorded
history begins from about the 4th century BC when
people settled down in Anuradhapura. The King of
Anuradhapura embraced Buddhism in 427 BC.
Invasions from South India continued
and in the 11th Century AD, after repeated threats
from South India, the Sinhalese Kingdom moved its
capital to Polonnaruwa and then southwards. This
resulted in the abandonment of the highly developed
tank (reservoir) irrigated rice cultivation system,
which the Sinhalese had developed and resulted in the
decline of the Sri Lankan agrarian Economy.
The remains of the civilization from 500 BC
to 1300 AD are the spirit and inspiration of the
people of Sri Lanka. (Sri Lanka Web
Window)
It was this capsule history which also
appeared in an advertising supplement sponsored by the
Sri Lanka government in the Washington Post on 4
February 1948. Ex President D.B.Wijetunga and current
Sri Lanka President Chandrika Kumaratunga are at one in
regarding the history of the island as the history of
the Sinhala people - with the Tamils cast in the role
of 'invaders'. In this they echo the words of D.C.
Vijayawardhana in 1953:
"The history of Sri Lanka is the history of
the Sinhalese race... The Sinhalese people were
entrusted 2500 years ago, with a great and noble
charge, the preservation... of Buddhism..." (The
Revolt in the Temple, by D.C. Vijayawardhana,
1953)
The views of the Sinhala historian and
Cambridge scholar, Paul Peiris though it may appeal to
common sense, finds no place in the history that the
Sri Lanka government has chosen to propagate in
cyberspace on the 50th anniversary of the Sinhala
people's independence from British rule:
`..it stands to reason that a country which
was only thirty miles from India and which would have
been seen by Indian fisherman every morning as they
sailed out to catch their fish, would have been
occupied as soon as the continent was peopled by men
who understood how to sail... Long before the
arrival of Prince Vijaya (from North India),
there were in Sri Lanka five recognised isvarams of
Siva which claimed and received the adoration of all
India.
These were Tiruketeeswaram near Mahatitha;
Munneswaram dominating Salawatte and the pearl
fishery; Tondeswaram near Mantota; Tirkoneswaram near
the great bay of Kottiyar and Nakuleswaram near
Kankesanturai.Their situation close to these ports
cannot be the result of accident or caprice and was
probably determined by the concourse of a
wealthy mercantile population whose
religious wants called for attention...' (Paul E.
Pieris: Nagadipa and Buddhist Remains in Jaffna :
Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch
Vol.28)
Neither do the observations of British
Colonial Secretary, Sir Hugh Cleghorn, find a place in
Sri Lanka's encapsulated history in
cyberspace:
"Two different nations, from a very ancient
period, have divided between them the possession of
the Island: the Sinhalese inhabiting the interior in
its Southern and western parts from the river
Wallouwe to Chilaw, and the Malabars (Tamils) who
possess the Northern and Eastern Districts. These two
nations differ entirely in their religion, language
and manners." - Sir Hugh Cleghorn, British
Colonial Secretary, June 1879
Here, there is a need to separate myth from
historical fact. Ex President D.B.Wijetunga and current
Sri Lanka President Chandrika Kumaratunga are wrong to
promote the view that the island was first 'settled' by
the Sinhala people and then 'invaded' by the Tamils -
wrong, because that is
a myth.
However, nations often do resort to myths to
reinforce their identity and legitimacy. That they do
so does not have the result that that nation does not
exist.
The capsule history promoted by Sri Lanka in
cyberspace is right to the extent that it points out
the growth of the Sinhala nation through a process of
differentiation from the Tamil people and in opposition
to them.
Here, the question is not whether the Sinhala
people were the first settlers in the island or not.
The undeniable fact is that Buddhism did survive in the
island of Sri Lanka though it did not survive as a
major religion in India, the land of its birth. The
undeniable fact is that most Tamils are Hindus and that
Sinhalese as a language grew in the island of Sri Lanka
but was not known in India. The interlinked growth of
Sinhalese and Buddhism within the protective environs
of an island is a fact - and the Sinhala Buddhist
national identity is no myth.
To the Sinhala people, the Tamils in the
island (both in the north-east and in the plantations)
as well as over 50 million Tamils in Tamil Nadu across
a narrow strip of water, are all Tamils - alien
Dravidians who speak a foreign tongue, who profess a
different religion and who, most importantly, trace
their origins to different roots. The Sinhala people
see themselves as a minority in the region and fear
invasion and subjugation by an alien Tamil majority and
a dominant Tamil
culture.
Some 6 years ago, on 29 December 1991,
the Ven. Madihe
Pannaseeha Mahanayaka Thera gave expression to
fears such as these, in the context of certain
proposals submitted by Minister Thondaman for the
settlement of the conflict in the island:
''Minister Thondaman's proposals... are formulated
on the basis of a 'traditional Tamil homeland' and
self-determination for Tamils.
'Traditional Tamil homeland' would best be
introduced to the world as an amusing bit of fiction
...
Anyone who has any love for this country and puts
the interest of this country beyond his own and his
own narrow racial group, has accepted that any
devolution of power should guarantee
the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Sri Lanka. These, in other words, are not
negotiable.
Mr Thondaman's proposals go against these. A few
illustrations would prove this... If Trincomalee,
Kankesanthurai, Talaimannar and Palaly are handed
over to the North and Eastern provinces, how can the
Central Government ensure the defence, security and
sovereignty of the country?...
Will not the LTTE declare Eelam immediately after
they have built their own invincible armed forces.
Can the LTTE be trusted at any cost in view of their
past records?
After declaring Eelam, will they keep
quiet? Will they not push their boundaries
south until they envelop the hill country? The
Government armed forces would not be able to resist
them, once the two thirds of the coast of this
country with all harbours and ports there, are given
on a platter to them.
Mr Thondaman's proposals will sow the seeds of a
permanent war between the Sinhalese in the South and
the Tamils in the North and East until the
Sinhalese are completely subjugated and reduced to
the position of a minority in the whole of Sri
Lanka...?
The error in dismissing these fears as being
rooted in 'myths' and in a 'majority minority
complex' is that such an
approach promotes the belief that reason will dissolve
the 'myth' and that with appropriate 'psychotherapy'
the 'complex' will disappear . 'It is all the fault of
the Buddhist monks'. 'Evil Sinhala political leaders
were 'hoodwinking' the Sinhala masses by exploiting
irrational fears.' The political reality is that the
Sinhala Buddhist identity is not simply a creation of
the Mahavamsa - rather, the Mahavamsa was a reflection
of that identity and helped to consolidate
it.
In the 1950s some
Sinhala Marxists who subscribed to the 'majority
minority complex theory'
directed their efforts to curing the Sinhala masses of
their 'complex'. After years of failure, Dr.Colvin R.De
Silva (a declared Marxist and a leader of the Lanka
Sama Samaja Party) accepted appointment as Minister of
Constitutional Affairs in Mrs.Srimavo Bandaranaike's
government in 1970. Rejecting the proposal for a
federal constitution, he urged the Sri Lanka
Constituent Assembly on 15 March 1971:
"Mr. Chairman, there is a Unitary
Constitution in Sri Lanka. This has been there for a
very long time... If we were to divide the country and unite once again
we will face many problems as evidenced by
our history.. .. I submit this proposal for
a Unitary Constitution for approval by all sections
of this Assembly."
It was the same Dr.Colvin R.de Silva who 15 years
earlier had declaimed eloquently in Parliament:
"Do we want a single state or do we want two? Do
we want one Ceylon or do we want two?.. These are the
issues that in fact we have been discussing under the
form and appearance of the language issue... if you
mistreat them (Tamils), if you ill treat them.... if
you oppress and harass them, in the process you may
cause to emerge in Ceylon, from that particular
racial stock with its own language and
tradition, a new nationality to which we
will have to concede more claims than it puts forward
now... If we come to the stage where instead
of parity, we through needless insularity, get into
the position of suppressing the Tamil ... federal
demand... there may emerge separatism."
(Dr Colvin R. De Silva, Sinhala Opposition Member
of Parliament, Hansard, June 1956)
That was in 1956. In 1972, another Lanka Sama
Samaja Party leader, Leslie Goonewardene, (also a
declared Marxist) rationalised his party's support for
Mrs.Bandaranaike's 1972 Constitution. He explained his
party's shift
from 'parity' to the entrenchment
of the 'Sinhala only' law in the new 1972 Constitution,
by saying that his party had earlier failed to
recognise that it was the Sinhalese who were in a
minority in the region.
In an important sense, Leslie Goonewardene was
right. The fears that the Sinhala nation had (and
continue to have) are not irrational - they are rooted
in fact. State boundaries do not a prison make. Fifty
million Tamils across 20 - 30 miles of water is no
Mahavamsa myth. It is a continuing political
reality.The growing togetherness of more than 70 million Tamil people living
in many lands is also a continuing political
reality. And, that particular river is not about to
flow backwards.
The Sinhala people seek to defend their island
home against alien rule and to protect their Sinhala
Buddhist national identity. In their fear of
assimilation by the Tamil majority in the region, they
themselves adopt an assimilative approach to the Tamils
in the island of Sri Lanka. They see this as a
necessary step in defending their 'island home' against
alien domination.
It is this reasoning that leads them to deny,
at every turn, the existence of a Tamil homeland in the
island - and at the sametime, deliberately attempt to divide and
colonise it. It is this reasoning which led them to
disenfranchise
the Tamils in the plantations soon after
independence in 1948, because to them they were all
Tamils. It is this which led them to impose the Sinhala Lion
Flag as the 'national' flag of newly independent
Ceylon and later in 1956, impose Sinhalese as the only
official language.
It is the same reasoning, which led the
Sinhala people in 1972 to call the island by its old
Sinhala name 'Sri Lanka', repeal the Constitutional
safeguards afforded to minorities and secure a
privileged position for Buddhism in the Sri Lanka
Constitution.
It this reasoning which led the Sinhala people
to cry 'separatism' when the Tamil Federal Party
campaigned for a federal constitution. Professor
Marshall Singer was wrong (and somewhat patronising)
when he declared to the US Congress in November
1995:
"One of the tragedies of Sri Lanka is that
the Sinhalese have never understood the meaning of
federalism. To them it meant creating a separate
country on the island, which they simply could not
abide." (Professor
Marshall Singer - US Congress Committee on
International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific Hearing on Sri Lanka, November
14,1995)
The Sinhala people have always understood the
meaning of federalism. After all, Dr.Colvin R.De
Silva's knowledge of constitutional law (and political
science) was not second to that of Professor Marshall
Singer. The Sinhala people were aware that federal
structures have helped some countries to stay united.
But they fear that in Sri Lanka, federalism will be a
stepping stone not simply to a division of the country
but to a pan Tamil state which may threaten the very
existence of the Sinhala nation. If the island of Sri
Lanka was situated near the South Pole, a genuine
federal structure may well have come about several
decades ago.
It is not without reason therefore, that
Sinhala political leaders cry separatism at the mere
mention of the word 'federalism'. They know that their
cry will strike a responsive chord not only in the
hearts but also in the reasoning
minds of the Sinhala people, concerned as they
are to safeguard their own Sinhala Buddhist national
identity against alien Dravidians. They rely not simply
on the past but on the present as well - they rely not
simply on history but on geography. Sinhala political
leaders do not seek to 'hoodwink' the Sinhala masses -
they seek to 'tune into' the reasoned concerns of the
Sinhala people.
Again, it was not without reason that the
Tamil Federal Party called itself the Tamil Arasu
Katchi - which directly translated means Tamil Kingdom
Party or Tamil Government Party. It was not that there
was no equivalent Tamil word for 'federal'. There was.
It was not that Tamils did not understand the meaning
of 'federalism'. They did. But the Federal Party
directed its appeal (in Tamil) to a growing Tamil
national consciousness rooted in the Tamil heritage and
consolidated by the 'assimilative' approach adopted by
the Sinhala majority - with its attendant discrimination and
oppression.
The Tamils in the island of Sri Lanka have
sometimes responded to Sinhala fears of a pan Tamil
state by emphasising the separateness of their 'Eelam
Tamil' or 'Eelavar' identity from that of Tamils in the
South of India. But despite such Eelam Tamil
protestations, the Sri Lankan government and the
Sinhala people have continued to act on the basis that
the Tamil people are one. And so has the New Delhi
government. Indian Foreign Secretary Dixit comments in
his book titled 'Assignment
Colombo':
"It was also my considered opinion that the
LTTE's insistence on the creation of a separate Tamil
state in Sri Lanka, based on ethnic, linguistic and
religious considerations, would have far-reaching negative implications for
India's unity and territorial integrity too..."
And in 1992, New Delhi banned the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
not on the ground of 'terrorism', but
on the ground that the LTTE's demand for a Tamil
homeland was a threat to the integrity of
India.
However, as both Colombo and New Delhi
have continued to act on the basis that all Tamils are one, the Tamils
have become increasingly
one.
Tamils in the plantations in the island of Sri
Lanka have begun to empathise with the struggle for
Tamil Eelam - and so have the ordinary people of Tamil Nadu. The
actions of Colombo and New Delhi have fertilised the
growing
togetherness of more than 70 million Tamil people
living in many lands. Tamil political leaders in the
plantations and in Tamil Nadu have begun to see the
need to recognise the strength of this rising Tamil
consciousness. Distress is binding ordinary Tamil
people together.
Here, it needs to be said that this growing
Tamil togetherness is directed not to the
disintegration of India but to the growth of a greater,
stronger and freer Indian union - an Indian union where
the several nations of India may associate with each
other in equality and in freedom. The Tamil people are
also Indians.
Again, the growing togetherness of the Tamil
people is not directed against
the Sinhala nation. A self confident Tamil nation will
have no need to conquer and rule the Sinhala people. It
is the weak who fear and who in their fear seek to
subjugate and assimilate, so that they may feel
secure.
The Sinhala nation fears the growing
togetherness of the Tamil people and so it lives a lie.
It is a nation that dare not speak its name. To pursue
its assimilative agenda, the Sinhala nation masquerades
as the Sri Lankan nation (albeit with a privileged
position for Buddhism and in practice, for the Sinhala
language as well).
The attempts of Sinhala political
leaders to deny the masquerade often exposes the lie
they live.
Sri Lanka President Chandrika Kumaratunga,
speaking in July 1995, declared:
'The Sinhalese Buddhist majority should
merge with the Sinhala
Christians, Tamil Hindus, Tamil Christians, Muslims
and others to form one Lankan nation. This is the
greatest task we are facing today'
She glossed over the political reality that
when a 75% ruling majority 'merges' with smaller
'minorities', the result is that which is usually known
as 'assimilation'. President Kumaratunga buttressed her
'assimilative' merger theory
by recourse to 'history'. She declared:
'Our ancestors succeeded in forging one
nation. Even those communities who retained their
separate identities lived with the Sinhala Buddhist
majority as one
nation."
In claiming that her ancestors had succeeded
in forging one nation, President Kumaratunga was
following in the footsteps of ex President
J.R.Jayawardene who too claimed in 1983 that the
country had been a united
nation for 2500 years, moving the International
Commission of Jurists to comment:
"... (the President's) statement that the
country had been united for 2,500 years flies in the
face of history. There was for some centuries an
independent Tamil kingdom and the chronicles report
frequent wars between Sinhalese and Tamil kings.
Separate Sinhalese and Tamil communities existed on
the island from the precolonial era until the
administrative unification of the island by the
British in 1833." (Supplement to Professor
Virginia Leary Report on a Mission to Sri Lanka
1981-83 published by the ICJ)
It is to the same 'one nation' theme that
President Kumaratunga returned in her message to
mark Sri Lanka's 50th year of independence on 4
February 1998. She proclaimed:
``At this decisive moment in the history of our
country, while we take pride in our achievements, let
us have the humility to accept our failures... We
have failed to forge together the diverse communities
of our peoples into one coherent and strong Sri
Lankan nation. We have faltered along for 50 years,
permitting the differences to emerge and dominate our
social fabric, rather than nurture the
commonalities".
President Kumaratunga was right to admit that after
50 years of independence from British rule, there was
as yet no 'coherent Sri Lankan nation'. But then the
historical fact is that there never was a 'coherent Sri
Lankan nation' - after all the Sinhala people and the
Tamil people were brought within the confines of one
state for the first time in 1833 by an alien British
conqueror. And nations cannot be created by
Presidential fiat.
The words of
Tamil leader, Nadarajah Thangathurai uttered in
February 1983 (a few months before he was murdered
whilst in the custody of the Sri Lanka government)
serve to underline this political reality:
"Allegations are made that we are asking for
separation, that we are trying to divide the country.
When were we undivided after all? Our traditional
land, captured by the European invaders has never
been restored to us. We have not even mortgaged our
land at any time to anyone in the name of one
country. Our land has changed hands off and on under
various regimes, and that is what has happened...
What we ask for is not division but freedom.
"
Again, President
Kumaratunga's own speech reflected the lack of
'coherence' that she decried - and served to expose the
'one nation' masquerade. On the one hand, President
Kumaratunga spoke of the need
to nurture the 'commonalities', on the other
hand, she addressed her message to a 'great nation
with an ancient civilisation nurtured in the traditions
of Buddhism'. She declared:
"The silent majority watched in horror, while a
great nation with an ancient
civilisation...nurtured in the traditions of the
noble Buddhist philosophy of peace, tolerance
and love veered off into a terrifying era of ethnic,
political and social violence"
And it was the remains of this ancient Sinhala
Buddhist civilisation, that President Kumaratunga
proclaimed in cyberspace as 'the spirit and inspiration
of the people of Sri Lanka':
"The King of Anuradhapura
embraced Buddhism in 427 BC. Invasions from South
India continued and in the 11th Century AD, after
repeated threats from South
India, the Sinhalese Kingdom moved its capital
to Polonnaruwa and then southwards. This resulted in
the abandonment of the highly developed tank
(reservoir) irrigated rice cultivation system, which
the Sinhalese had developed and resulted in the
decline of the Sri Lankan agrarian
Economy.The remains of the
civilization from 500 BC to 1300 AD are the spirit
and inspiration of the people of Sri Lanka"
(Sri Lanka Web Window)
That the Tamil people do not trace their
origins to a 'civilisation nurtured in the traditions
of Buddhism' (leave alone being 'inspired' by it), that
the Tamil people by and large profess a different
religion, that the Tamil people speak a different
language and trace their history to a different origin,
are facts that President Kumaratunga ignored and would
have her audience ignore - ignore, so that the
masquerade may continue.
And, so we return to our simple question.
Q. Why is it that in Sri Lanka, for five
long decades since 1948, we have always had a Sinhala
Buddhist as the executive head of government
?
A. Because, a Sinhala Buddhist nation
masquerading as the Sri Lankan nation, will
always have a Sinhala
Buddhist as executive head of government.
Behind the masquerade lies the political
reality - and it is this political reality that will
need to be addressed, if the conflict in the island is
to end.
