"Tamil Nationalists Have Left The Tamil People Badly Isolated
by Prof.S.Sivasegaram
I fear that the attitude of supporters of the Tamil cause towards Latin America is rather subjective, and that their approach is still sentimental. I will come to that later in my response, but, before that, the Tamil nationalist, especially pro-LTTE, claims need to be studied with care.
Firstly, accepting the right of Tamils in Sri Lanka to self-determination is correct. But the national question is far more complex than supporters of the Tamil cause in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere in India are made to understand. I have elaborated on this in my long essay which Radical Notes published as a book. Secession is still not the answer and the call for secession in 1976 was thoroughly ill-considered.
Secondly, the history of Tamils in Sri Lanka is being willfully distorted. A most objective version of ancient history exists in the recent work of Dr K Indrapala, a Tamil, now in Australia. The point that comes out is that there is evidence of Tamil settlements in the island much earlier than acknowledged in the past. But that does not mean that the present-day Tamils are their descendants. The Jaffna Kingdom on which Tamil nationalists lay their claim to Tamil statehood is something of the Second Millennium A.D. which ceased to be nearly 5 centuries ago. There were, however, Tamil chieftains and despotic rulers in the Vanni who survived until the British moved in early in the 19th Century. Part of the Vanni was under the ‘Sinhalese’ Kandyan Kingdom.
The Sinhalese have had a longer history in terms of kingdoms ruled by ‘Sinhalese’. (Not all rulers were really Sinhalese. At least one was from Kalinga. Several were Tamils or Telugus). But what does all of this prove? Not a lot.
The reality is that in the course of modern history, two Sinhala-speaking polities that had a separate existence for 450 years merged into one to serve certain class interests. Tamil-speaking polities ended up as three nationalities with distinctions in many ways and with problems for which Eelam was not an answer. The attitude of the Tamil elite in early 1900s alienated the fisher folk of the west coast of the island and let them accept a Sinhala identity. In course of time the Tamil identity of the Colombo Chetties and the Paravar communities was lost. The main reason for these was that the Tamil leadership (of Jaffna mainly to which the Vanni and the East got added much later) was dominated by the Vellala Saivaites (equivalent of the Pillai/Mudaliyar etc. of Tamil Nadu, Nayar/Pillai/Menon of Kerala, Patels of Gujarat etc.)
To talk of a Tamil nation comprising 25% of the population is incorrect. The Tamil nationalists nominally represent about 10%, but they truly represent the interests of a fraction of it. When the armed conflict escalated in the 1980s, the elite fled and it was the oppressed that bore the brunt of intensifying chauvinist oppression and war. The elite are abroad, living in comfort, and want to prolong the conflict to pursue their pet project of ‘Tamil Eelam’. The vast majority of the Tamil Diaspora has been misled by a few nationalists (pro-LTTE and now the vociferous pro-government groups). What I like to stress is that history has been successfully distorted on all sides to serve narrow interests and to divide the people.
Thirdly, the LTTE was on the one hand the only remaining armed resistance to state oppression. But on the other they systematically failed the people. Their dominance of Tamil politics came about mainly by brutal repression of all opposition, rivals and potential rivals. That continued until their ultimate fall. The genuine left still treated them with some deference for being the only defence that the Tamil people had against state repression; but the LTTE was undemocratic, acted to please imperialism (especially since antagonizing India), never believed in people’s struggle, and relied on military victory led by their army. They recruited children by force especially as their fortunes faded. They let the rich get away by paying off while the poor had to send their children to join the LTTE ranks. All these are factors that contributed to their defeat. But that does not in any way justify any of the cruel and at times barbaric acts of the state.
Yet, failure to criticize the LTTE for its attacks on civilians (not just Sinhalese) has done a lot of harm. Rivals of the LTTE with Indian and Sri Lankan state patrons have been just as guilty. A section of the genuine left criticized the LTTE’s faults while defending the struggle and denouncing state oppression.
Fourthly, leaving alone the anti-democratic and even terrorist acts against civilians, the LTTE and its supporters among the Diaspora have much to answer for the failure of the peace talks (although the government is the main culprit); its reliance on the US (which used the peace talks to get the better of India in Sri Lanka while undermining the LTTE in collaboration with the UNP leadership); and its failure to protect the people.
The LTTE cannot escape the charge that it led 30,000 to the slaughterhouse and 300,000 to what are open prison camps. That tragedy could have been averted had the LTTE let the people go after the fall of Kilinochchi in December 2008.
If they did not drag along with them the 100,000 or so from the Kilinochchi District, the government forces could not have advanced fast without clearing the District, and that would have allowed the LTTE leadership to change their strategy. Also there would have been political issues that would have arisen preventing the government from taking people out of their homes. That was water under the bridge when the people were taken to Mullaitivu and compelled to live a life of misery, with the government curtailing if not blocking the supply of essentials. But what justification was there to forcibly prevent the people from leaving when they could not bear the agony anymore? I have heard from people who escaped before the fall of the LTTE about the anti-people methods used by the LTTE to keep the people with them?
Did they seriously think that they could reverse their military fortunes? Did they expect meaningful foreign intervention? If so, in what form? There is substantial circumstantial evidence that they were given false hopes by a section of the Tamil elite among the Diaspora about some form US/UN led intervention (to save the LTTE leadership even if not to save the Tamils). Many such questions are being carefully avoided by the Tamil nationalists.
Thus the blame lies with firstly the Government, secondly with the Tamil nationalists as a whole and the LTTE in particular, and thirdly the forces of foreign intervention (the US and India especially) for the tragedy of 2009.
To turn to Latin America
Objectively, Latin America is increasingly facing US-led threats (The Honduras coup and the Colombian bases are additions to an existing threat). Human rights have consistently been used by the West to undermine defiant states. The US, which uses one set of rules for the Palestinians, a different set of rules for the Kurds of Turkey, and a slightly different one for the Kurds of Iraq, also encourages secessionist forces in the wealthy parts of Bolivia and Venezuela). Latin America sees the issues in terms of a global reality that it faces.
The UNHRC resolution was a pre-emptive response to an anticipated resolution that the US, UK, Germany and Mexico (of all countries!) were planning. Why did Sri Lanka become an issue to them? It was to punish Sri Lanka, not for killing Tamils or denying Tamils their basic rights, but because the government was drifting out of US control. (Indo-US rivalry too has been a factor). USSR and China even during their socialist days had steered clear of UN intervention (and have hopefully learnt from their mistake of allowing meddling in Afghanistan and let the invasion of Iraq pass).
The basic guideline for countries confronting US imperialism is to do what is possible to prevent US meddling in any form. To imagine that a resolution denouncing the Sri Lankan government would have brought relief to the Tamils is fantasy.
Then there are subjective reasons, which cannot be ignored.
Leading Tamil nationalists of all shades have cared little for struggles for justice internationally. (Anton Balasingham, the LTTE ‘theoretician’ had even denounced the struggle in Kashmir as trouble making as he did the resistance in eastern India).
The LTTE has not denounced the oppression of the Palestinians or US aggression anywhere, much in line with their political forebears in the Federal Party who denounced the Vietnam struggle as communist trouble making. The SLFP had an anti-imperialist past, but had been dodgy after the 1980s. Of late, the government has occasionally stood up for the Third World on important issues; the role of Dayan Jayatilleka (whose politics is not necessarily genuine) during his short spell as Sri Lanka’s UN ambassador has made an impression in Latin America.
I do not think that the Tamil nationalists have had a moral right to ask for support from any country outside the imperialist world and India whom they loyally served. The tragedy is that they have left the Tamil people badly isolated.
By isolating themselves from the left governments, the Indian, especially Tamil, friends of Latin America will achieve nothing. They should have sought to discuss the matter with some of the Latin American embassies before jumping to conclusions. Taking decisions one-sidedly without reference to their friends is not healthy practice. It will be the progressive forces of India who will lose most by such kneejerk action
(This article appeared in Radical Notes Journal, India, of November 23 and Socialist Resistance, UK of Nov 30th as A Rejoinder to Ron Ridenour’s essay on Sri Lanka which condemned the role of Cuba and the ALBA states in helping Sri Lanka.]
12 Comments
The diaspora let the Tamil people down. Also I agree with Sarath Fonseka that Tamil Nadu Politicians are jokers. The silly speeches they made on November 27th in Canada and UK are proof of that. These type of people have to be neutralized before we can do something constructive for our people.
This analysis is quite correct in that due to the actions of ideological factions and external parties it is the ordinary Tamil people who have faced the brunt. Even today the India, Tamil Diaspora and Nationalist occupy the center stage but the lot of the ordinary Tamil in the camps and villages has not improved. They tend to be the pawns or victims of the power game played by Politicians and External parties.
Perhaps it is best for the Tamil people that all parties should consider the plight of the Ordinary Tamil first and then only Ideology and Political objectives.
The Tamil "elite" nurtured by the British colonialists did leave Sri Lanka as their privileges were being lost, claiming discrimination. The serfs imported from Tamil Nadu and Kerala were left to their own devices, lacking a nationality and a problem to be solved by the Sri Lankans. The ordinary Tamils like their Sinhala counterparts were left to pick up the bill. We are still paying the price, and shall for a long time to come. The Tamil "nationalism" that misled those masses based on distortion of history and fantasy, had considerable support and led to the war that followed.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 2, 2009 11:17 PM,
Are you trying to insult our intelligence? Claims of discrimination?
How about the numerous racial riots that were organised all the way upto into the 1980s from the 1950s?
Several people i know were murdered in these riots. Others who business burnt down and later fled the country.
My grandfathers family lived in constant fear in colombo in the 1950s and onwards. 2 decades of satya graha (peaceful protest) and all the tamil community got was violent abuse in return.
There were even riots during the British occupation by sinhalese thugs who could not resolve any issue with the muslim or hindu communities without rampaging down the streets with weapons.
And you talk of the disenfranchisement of the hill country tamil community in a very mocking way. Who do you think was responsible for this vile act on them?
This is the reason the LTTE came into existance and the reason why they would get support.
As long as people like you keep trying to brush away the root causes of the problem, there will never be any real unity in the country.
Author of this article,
Be careful about bringing up ancient Sri Lankan history.
There was buddhism thousands of years ago BUT NOT sinhalese language.
The Sinhalese language was created much later by the various buddhist communities who
decided to create a common language to unite the buddhists in the Island. Tamil was already well established there.
2 of the ancient kings that are called 'sinhalese' were not sinhalese. They were Buddhists. E.g Dhaiva Nambeeya Theesan (Devanam piya tissa) and Thusta Kaimun (dutugemunu).
The former was a tamil speaking Hindu who converted to Buddhism. The latter i am told had a tamil speaking father called Kaaka Vanna Theesan.
The Army commander Sarath 'This is a sinhalese country' fonseka actually has ancestors from present day Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
Hardly making him a descendant of some divine aryan race that some sinhalese like to call themselves. They dont look in the mirror enough. They are far more dravidian than Aryan whether they like to admit it or not.
Prof. Sivasegaram,
Thank you for the most thoughtful article.
Sri lanka has been exposed to and accepted and absorbed many hues of opinion, religions over the centuries due to her central position. Many academics and scholars have analysed the words grammar in Sinhala and have proposed many theories to explain the origins, Prof Indrapala being one of the most respected.
There have been competing groups in South Asian theatre who managed to hold Sri Lanka in control at various times. Some of the KIngs like Nissanka Malla of Polonnaruwa who ruled a city of very mixed ethnicity not unlike Colombo today, is said to be of foreign ancestry, but he has left more messages in stone, in Sinhala outdoing the the Sinhala Kings, a Kadiragamer of the day.
I have also read Mudaliar Rasanayagam's thesis that Jaffna was a Sinhala city in the 15 th century but the rise of a minor warlord 'Sankili' in the Portugese times reduced the status of its Sinhala population to landless serfs designated as 'Koviars'. Apparently KKoviars became even smaller in percentage with the large scale import of more numbers from Tamil Madu to work on the Dutch tobacco plantations in the 18th century.
TOday we have to look forward the new vistas opened by the defeat of terrorist high command, where all can share the bounteous nature of the country and face the challenges of the 32st century, with rising sea levels, warmer climate etc. The genetic composition is no doubt important, but that is mosty for health purposes, to know any pre disposition to deseases.
Our Tamils bretheren have historically proved to be the most adaptable, intelligent, corrageous and industrious
and your optimistic note is most heart warming in these times.
Much of what Sivasegaram says about Tamil nationalism is true, including Indrapala's history. But he, like most knee-jerk Marxists, takes refuge in leftist orthodoxy--that Tamil nationalists served US "imperialism" and India and did not seek support of leftist governments.
Suppose Tamils had gone to leftist governments for support. Would they have been in a position to help? The so-called leftist states like China and Russia are in fact indulging in oligarchic crony capitalism even as they mouth slogans against "capitalist" America and the West. They had no need to come to the aid of a small community in a faraway country with no strategic value to them.
Even as Marxists rail against the West, they often come to the West to study and send their children there. The former Chinese President's son studied at Drexel University in Pennsylvania and went back to China to become a capitalist bigwig, while his father presided over the communist party and the country. Sivasegaram himself studied in the UK and worked at Imperial College, London, for many years.
Some questions Sivasegaram should think about--
How many Tamil refugees have these communist countries taken in?
Why is it that Tamil refugees, yes even those steeped in Marxist ideologies, rarely end up in such countries, preferring North America, Europe, Australia and India?
Tamils never ever liked or embarased communism or any leftist leanings in mass If you looked up the history of election results since 1948. Except they only supported principle of Self determination/autonomy/devolution which were articulated by the left leaders.The armed revolution started by Tamils has evolved by the experience the Tamils learned by the sucessive SL governments and Sinhala peoples actions.If you look at their culture ,dowry system, thesavalami laws ,religious believes,extended families, they are Capitilistic tendencies.
Tamils never ever liked or embarased communism or any leftist leanings in mass If you looked up the history of election results since 1948. Except they only supported principle of Self determination/autonomy/devolution which were articulated by the left leaders.The armed revolution started by Tamils has evolved by the experience the Tamils learned by the sucessive SL governments and Sinhala peoples actions.If you look at their culture ,dowry system, thesavalami laws ,religious believes,extended families, they are Capitilistic tendencies.
Dear learned Prof.S.Sivasegaram,
What do you mean by Tamil Nationalism ,First 30 years of Democratic non violent politics conducted by SJV,GGP,Amir and co or the armed liberation conducted by militants which was defeated by not just by Srilanka but with the help of at least 20 countries. We are fully aware that the world is not rotating on the axis of human justice. Every country in this world advances its own interests. It is the economic and trade interests that determine the order of the present world, not the moral law of justice nor the rights of people to determine the order of the present world, not the moral law of justice nor the rights of people
There are many millions of Tamil people now in the distant lands of the world with a burning desire to achieve what the Tamil nation needed. And the history of man kind teaches us no force can suppress a NATIONS /Peoples.
Prof.S.Sivasegaram should ,seek a deeper understanding of the factors which drive this (Sinhala) intransigence. A clue to this is to be found in a speech by S W R D Bandaranaike, the founder of the Sinhala Maha Saba and the architect of the Sinhala Only policy of 1956 which marked the beginning of the Tamil struggle for self-rule. According to the Daily News of 8, November 1955, Bandaranaike made the case for the Sinhala Only bill by arguing that "With their books and culture and the will and strength characteristic of their race, the Tamils (if parity were granted) would soon rise to exert their dominant power over us” It was not just the Mahavamsa inspired notions of 'primacy' that have been the impetus, but also something else-the fear of domination...A political solution to the conflict in Sri Lanka requires re examination of previously held views so that all parties involved in this conflict can realise their goals by agreeing on political structures to enable the two nations in the Island of Sri Lanka coexist as equals and free of the fear of domination of one by the other. "
"..In the words of President John F. Kennedy, "those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
"non-violence, so often recommended.. has never 'worked' in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason to suppose it ever will. It has never, largely on its own strength, achieved the political objectives of those who employed it... There are supposedly three major examples of successful nonviolence: Gandhi's independence movement, the US civil rights movement, and the South African campaign against apartheid. None of them performed as advertised. The notion that a people can free itself literally by allowing their captors to walk all over them is historical fantasy..." Nonviolence: Its Histories and Myths - Professor Michael Neumann, 2003
The small but generally well-to-do Colombo Chetty community, unable to identify themselves as easily with other communities that came from South India - and fearful of their future with the coming of the Buddhist Sinhala upsurge (1956) over the years merged with the Sinhala and Burgher communities where the common factor was religion. My mother used to tell me the Colombo Chetty ladies in her days wore the pottu, the thali and the saree in Indian style. While most of them also spoke Tamil at home with the children chosing Tamil and Christian first names. They cannot be blamed for making a choice which they felt was in their wider interest in a country that was in the process of being split up on race and religion. While some of the Paravas (they prefer to call themselves Bharathas) went the same way those many who had family connections in the littoral regions of in the Tuticorin District, continued with their Tamil identity todate. Some of them in the Negombo-Chilaw District also merged into the Sinhala-Burgher identity (e.g. Jeyaraj Fernandopulles) as some in the Colombo District did. The Professor's claim there was a de-link of the Tamils from the 2nd millennium till about the 16th century is open to debate. Among the more pronounced evidence of continued and uninterrupted Tamil presence from ancient times to now are the Eeswaram Temples in Mannar, Trincomalee - among others. Prof Gananath Obeysekera's observations of strong evidence of Tamil in the folksongs and forklore of the gypsies in the area also is suggestive of a strong - and continous - Tamils presence in the region.
ISS
Scietific professionsls should be scientific, open minded, balenced and objective .Very unfortunately the so called marxisists and leftists wants their theories only accepted , when the world is moving fast with new ideas and solutions. S. tals aboutvarious factors when the whole community is had become refugees and nobodies , nameless and faceless, while enjoying everything in life in non combatant zone, without experiencing any thing of present and preaching , finding fault for what had happened which and the likes supported and cheared, and catalised the destruction of the community, and thorising the escape route for what they are resposible , and answerable by misdirecting the whole thing through their proxies. Detail, investigations, and research into everyones roles individually and groups collectively of any shades colours and mindless self oriented phillosophy / ers,from within, will come out and world will understand how a group of peace loving , cultured people were distroyed by the outside and from within. New chapter will unfold, when these people will be in the swage pits