‘Reconciliation initiative – the bigger picture’: A response

Rear Admiral (Dr.) Sarath Weerasekera, MP

Dr. Nirmala Chandrahasan (NC), in her article “Reconciliation initiative – the bigger picture” published in The Island of 25 November, recommends measures for “reconciliation” effort of the government. At the beginning she says, “To my mind, the most important question to be resolved is whether this country is to be regarded as a Sinhalese Buddhist state, where all the other ethnic, religious groups are treated as guests, or as a multi-ethnic, multi-religious secular country where all citizens have equal rights”.

First of all, let me ask NC whether she knows of any citizens in this country, belonging to any ethnic group, who don’t enjoy the same rights as others? If so, she must submit it with proof in her next article.

The majority community in SL are Sinhalese (74%) and majority Sinhalese are Buddhists (80%). The Sinhalese have protected Theravada Buddhism in its pristine form throughout the history.The Sinhalese have lived in Sri Lanka, and during all the invasions, starting from Kalinga Magha/Cholas to British, it was the Sinhalese Buddhists who fought against the invaders. Under the colonial rule all those who were brutally murdered, hanged, raped, lost properties were the Sinhalese Buddhists.

In an aeriel view of the island shows thousands of pagodas, temples built by the Sinhalese thousands of years ago. It bears testimony that this has been a Buddhist country right throughout.

During the war, even pregnant mothers and infants were massacred by terrorists in Gonagala, Ampara. When the Temple of the Sacred Tooth in Kandy was attacked or more than 200 Buddhist worshippers (mostly women) at Anuradhapura Sri Maha Boddhi were mercilessly killed by terrorists. But the Sinhalese never took revenge.

Some Tamil MPs claim that Sinhalese have no right to live in North while living safely and happily with the Sinhalese in Colombo. A few TNA MPs with the help of a mob forcibly stopped the renovation work of 2000-year-old Kurundi Temple at Mullaitive, and prevented the Chief Prelates from even offering flowers to the ancient dagoba. But those TNA MPs could come to Colombo, attend the parliament and return to Jaffna safely. We also know that most of the lucrative trades/businesses are dominated by Tamils/Muslims and the customers are mainly Sinhalese.

If the Sinhalese Buddhist majority had been bigoted people, the situation would have been different. They are, in general, a tolerant people and if they say this is a Sinhala Buddhist country, it is in that spirit only, and they have no intention of marginalising or the other ethnic/religious groups.

NC then goes on to allege that on the pretext of archaeology and Buddhist ruins, Tamil speaking farmers in the area are being dispossessed of their lands. In fact, these very valuable archaeological sites are destroyed using bulldozers and are lost forever to the nation. It is all because those “Tamil speaking farmers” that NC is talking about, do not consider them as their heritage.

NC also complains about “Sinhala Only” Act of 1956 and says it was one of the root causes of ethnic tensions in SL. There was nothing called “Sinhala Only” Act but an “Official Language” Act (No. 33 of 1956). It was meant to return the status of Sinhala Language that the three colonial invaders usurped for 443 years!

Sinhala had been the official language used before the colonial rule while Buddhism was the state religion. Tamil was never an official language during the rule of kings; nor was it the language of administration during British rule. Hence it cannot be argued that in making Sinhala the official language, the Tamils were discriminated. The demand to make Sinhala language the official language after Independence was solely to rectify the injustices the Sinhalese had suffered at the hands of foreign invaders and had nothing to do with denying Tamils as Tamils never enjoyed official status for Tamil language ever.

This Act proclaimed that Sinhala language shall be the one official language of Ceylon. The act was to come to effect on 1st January 1964 while provisions were made for the reasonable use of Tamil language by special provision Act of September 1958.

SWRD Bandaranaike, a Sinhalese, brought the “social disabilities “Act 1957 to prevent such discrimination against the Tamils belonging to the socially disadvanged castes. Anyone trying to blame the Sinhalese for discriminating against Tamils on the “Sinhala Only” issue, must first explain why some Tamils opposed the 1957 “Social Disabilities” Act, which criminalised caste-based discrimination.

The reaction of the Tamil leaders to the 1956 Official Language Act was very mild compared to their strong objection to the Social Disabilities Act where the Tamil leaders even travelled all the way to UK to urge the UK government to annul it!

If the Official Language was the root cause of the Sinhala Tamil conflict, why should Bandaranaike/ Chelvanayagam pact in 1957 continue to maintain Sinhala as official language but promote only devolution? This was how devolution brought in as a “solution” to a bogus “ethnic problem”. In actual fact Tamil leaders started demanding a separate Tamil state from British Empire way back in 1947, well before the 1956 Official Language Act.

NC says the passage of a law disenfranchising the upcountry Tamils was proof of harassment of Tamils by the Sinhalese.

The colonial invaders started many plantation projects and they brought in indentured labourers mostly from South India, referred to as Indian Tamils. The argument that the Indian Tamils were disenfranchised was wrong because they were not citizens of SL in the first place. SL awaiting Independence did not wish to keep them and India (Nehru) did not wish to take them back because 3.5 million indentured Indian labourers scattered all over the world would have also had to be brought back.

SL had every right to decide how to keep people belong to another nation. Under the citizenship Act of 1948, only 5000 out of about 800,000 Indian labourers were able to show two generations residence in Ceylon. Then came the Indian and Pakistan Residents citizenship Act of 1949, where they only had to show seven to 10 years residence in Ceylon. Even then only 134,000 qualified out of original 800,000. In Neru/Kothalawala pact in 1954, Sirima/Shasthri pact in 1964 and Sirima/India pact in 1974, India agreed to receive more than 50% Indian Tamils back to India, implying official acceptance of India that she was responsible for the Indian nationals in SL. However, repatriation was under way till it was stopped by JRJ and practically every remaining Indian Tamil became a citizen of SL.

Because of citizenship, matters improved for the upcountry Tamils. They got better schools, social benefits and opportunities outside the estates.

Therefore, the whole argument of disenfranchisement of Tamils is invalid. In fact, for whatever reason, we have treated them better than some other countries under similar circumstances. There are up to one million ethnic Koreans living in Japan today, almost half of whom do not have Japanese citizenship. A large proportion of this population are descendants of migrant workers brought over as cheap labor during World War II.

NC compares the civil war in USA with the 30 years of war against terrorists in SL and says that like in the aftermath of USA civil war, a war memorial should be built for the LTTE as well, as a measure of reconciliation!

The American civil war was between Northern states of the Union and the Southern states, which formed a confederacy by the states that had seceded. The economy of the confederacy was based on slaved labour as against the industrialised Northern states. The confederacy wanted to perpetuate slavery and to be independent from the Union, and the Union wanted slavery abolished. White people fought on both sides. It is ridiculous if someone tries to compare the American civil war in 1860 with the fight we had with LTTE, which resorted to terrorism to create a separate state in the North. The LTTE mercilessly massacred not only innocent Sinhalese (including pregnant mothers and infants) and Muslims, but also moderate, educated Tamil scholars and politicians who opposed them. The mere suggestion of a war memorial for the dead terrorists is an insolent insult to all of them.

In Malaysia Bumiputra concept is in force. It recognises a special position of the Malay majority provided in their constitution, in particular Article 153.

The Malay majority in Malaysia is 69% and Malay Reserve Land can only be owned and controlled by Malays and it is impossible to be legally released to non-Malays. All Malays are Muslims. In today’s Malaysia, state funds, including tax payers money, is used to further the cause of Islam. There are Islamic schools, Islamic courts and Islamic finances.

In SL the Sinhalese majority is more than 72% and there is nothing similar to Bumiputra concept where the Sinhalese Buddhists are given special provisions or preferences over other communities.

But yet they are blamed of discrimination! In fact, if there is any discrimination, it is the other way a round. The Sinhalese and the Muslims cannot buy any land in Jaffna and it is a fact. But a Tamil is free to buy any land anywhere in the country and no one protests. There had been “ethnic cleansing” in the North in which all the Sinhalese and the Muslims who lived there were driven away and not allowed to return. What about the equal rights of them, NC?

The Tamil leaders had been struggling for a separate state well before 1956 Official Language Act and 1983 riots. They created an ethnic based political party, “All Ceylon Tamil Congress” in 1944 implying that they didn’t want to live in harmony with other communities. In 1936, they demanded 50-50 representation on parliament (for which Soulbury commission responded as “mockery of democracy”) and Chelvanayagam formed ITAK in 1948 with the objective of forming a “separate Tamil State”. In 1977, the TULF asked the Tamils for a mandate to secede as a separate state of Tamil Elam and armed militancy began in the early 70s. A separate state was their dream even before we got independence from British. Hence a” grievance” like “Tamils have no other option other than asking for a separate state or a federal state because, they don’t see themselves as equal citizens in this nation” is not real.

If reconciliation is re-establishing friendship/friendly relations and harmony between communities, what has been the contribution of Tamil politicians towards reconciliation so far? Is it by portraying Sinhalese Buddhists majority as selfish, dishonest, incorrigible group of people who don’t like to grant equal rights to minorities? Or, is it by continuing to harp on “federalism” ? Or, is it by maliciously preventing building a Buddha statue at the famous Nagadeepa Temple at Nainativu island in the North, to mention a few.

I agree with NC on her statement that “reconciliation cannot be a one-sided effort and both communities must be willing to make the effort”. True, both communities must contribute towards it. So for a start, I would like to suggest that Dr. Chandrahasan, who is supposed to be a strong supporter of “reconciliation initiative”, request all Tamil schools and preschools in the Northern Province to include at least one Sinhala cultural item (a song or a dance ) in their school cultural functions like others do with a Tamil item in almost all the Sinhala schools and preschools. It would definitely go a long way!