Sri Lankan Tamils

"In Sri Lanka only a Sinhalese Buddhist can become the President ensuring that a Tamil is never an equal in his own country though he is born there."

I call bullshit. ANYONE can become the president of Sri Lanka as long as they win the Presidential election.


"It should allow Tamil as an official language "


Tamil is ALREADY an official language of Sri Lanka.



"if they had concluded that they could correct the under-representation of Sinhalese through affirmative action instead of barring Tamils from official positions,"

Affirmative action WAS used. Tamils were never "barred" from official positions.


Jesus, how misinformed are you?

Good analysis - unique in the fact that there is empathy and reasoning. Very strong argument points. There are few factual errors, but that does not blur the fundamental values you have tried to explain.

You will encounter quite a few that will fail to comprehend though. Good luck.

Kalugu.com

From that IP:

"Sam2" has posted 1 comments
"FirstWorlder" has posted 1 comments

[Also, personal attacks not tolerated. See guidelines]

Good that the LTTE has been taught a lesson. The tamils must enjoy their space within Sri Lanka. India has nothing to do with it.....

Dear Sujai,

Isn't there an inherent contradiction in your argument? On the one hand you are arguing in favor of secession based on a certain characteristic, such as a language, culture or religion. On the other hand you don't want a unified state. Isn't the second a direct result of the first? In other words, if Sri Lanka (or India in case of Kashmir) were to allow such a secession, wouldn't the Tamils be in majority in the newly created state? And guess what culture and language will prevail in such a state.

I don't think splitting nation states into homogeneous entities is the solution to the problem. Instead we should seek a fairer society wherever we live. It is a tough thing to do, but ghettoization is certainly not the answer.

Ravi

I am disappointed with this post...

You start out saying, "I strongly support Sri Lankan Tamils’ desire and aspiration to establish a separate Tamil state on that island."



Now, is it right to ask that distinct groups with different languages and religions and also different historical roots all need distinct nations?


If people are not willing to live together, then how can there be peace?

It is one thing to speak out against discrimination and persecution and another to say that things have become so impossible, there is no chance we will ever live together.

My feeling is, as long as India, especially people here at Tamil Nadu keep off Lanka, things would be fine.

Sorry, that is the way it looks.

Baskar:

Now, is it right to ask that distinct groups with different languages and religions and also different historical roots all need distinct nations?

Not always. But if such a distinction leads to discrimination, marginalization, and targeting, one can make a case.

If people are not willing to live together, then how can there be peace?

If people are not willing to live together, it is better to let them live separately than forcing unity upon them.

It is one thing to speak out against discrimination and persecution and another to say that things have become so impossible, there is no chance we will ever live together.

If trying to live together is so costly that it will result in mass murder, bloodshed, killing, rape, and torture, then it is better to live separately.

In India, we have Hindus, Muslim, Christians, Jains all living peacefully together for the most part in most places. If India were to be divvied up so that each group becomes a separate entity, then all of them would be worse off. This would be even more true of minorities since they wouldn't enjoy the benefit of synergism and common resources (water, land, etc).

The US is one example of how many different ethnic groups (whites, blacks, Latinos, etc) all live more or less harmoniously without civil wars, etc. Imagine if all these various groups started demanding secession from the US. Do you think it would do any of them any good?

During the 80's, most Sikhs had come to believe that they could never co-exist peacefully with the Hindu majority. Within a decade, the thinking had entirely changed, and Khalistan is now a relic of history.

The problem with your line of argument is you assume that relations between ethnic groups is static, and distrust and enemities last for ever. This is not always the case. In less than a generation, there could be dramatic changes in mindsets of the populace. Post-WWII Japan and Germany are examples.

Agreed, Sri Lankans had discriminated against Tamils in the past, but it could be set right within the current framework, without the need for a separate nationhood. There could be some devolution of powers, but creating a separate nation would come at a cost. For example, what about the Tamils in the south and west, like Colombo? Would they have to be relocated to the north? If they stay behind, will they be subject to even more discrimination by the Sinhalese? How will the two nations share critical resources like water? Trying to solve one problem might unexpectedly create others. There is the possibility of the two countries going to war eventually over such matters. All these possibilities need to be considered. Creating nations for each culturally distinct group is not a magic solution.

Ledzius:

In India, we have Hindus, Muslim, Christians, Jains all living peacefully together for the most part in most places.

That’s the point. India has been able to deal with different languages, religions, and even castes by ensuring their interests are protected. Sri Lanka did not. They were intoxicated by the idea that majority should prevail over minority.

When the majority starts imposing itself onto the minorities, either by imposing Hindi as a national language or conceding that Hinduism is the state religion, there is a chance that they will NOT be living peacefully anymore.

If India were to be divvied up so that each group becomes a separate entity, then all of them would be worse off.

Though I would not like to see each group divided up to become a separate entity, there is no reason to believe that they would be worse off, unless the separated entity goes onto suppress its minorities the way Sri Lanka (or Pakistan) has done. According to me it’s a miracle that India is still united. Given our penchant for vested interests there is a good chance we could have broken up long ago. I think the strength of India lies in accommodating various groups without blurring the identities, though that is being challenged now.

This would be even more true of minorities since they wouldn't enjoy the benefit of synergism and common resources (water, land, etc).

Just because you have been born in a big country you seem to think that way. In Europe, each of our states would be a nation.

The US is one example of how many different ethnic groups (whites, blacks, Latinos, etc) all live more or less harmoniously without civil wars, etc. Imagine if all these various groups started demanding secession from the US. Do you think it would do any of them any good?

I think Europe is a better example to compare (than US). And I think you understand that.

During the 80's, most Sikhs had come to believe that they could never co-exist peacefully with the Hindu majority. Within a decade, the thinking had entirely changed, and Khalistan is now a relic of history.

Yes. That is success of India. People of Punjab feel that their identity is respected.

The problem with your line of argument is you assume that relations between ethnic groups is static, and distrust and enemities last forever.

I don’t think that way. If I thought that way, I wouldn’t have recommended a federal state for Tamils within Sri Lanka. I am assuming that Sri Lanka can still make amends and ensure Tamils’ interest are protected within their nation’s framework â€" now that LTTE is defeated and so much blood has already been spilled. Enmities need not last forever. We can make amends and set right examples to bring different ethnic groups together. We have done that in Punjab. It requires both parties to come to terms. Sri Lanka has an opportunity to do that with Tamils. But I strongly suspect if they would. There is no precedent in Sri Lanka which suggests that.

In 1980s when LTTE was not a strong enough force, Sinhalese were bent upon marginalizing Tamils further instead of making amends.

The current celebration on the streets is not a good indication either. I don’t know if Indians celebrated on the streets when they defeated Khalistan.

Agreed, Sri Lankans had discriminated against Tamils in the past, but it could be set right within the current framework, without the need for a separate nationhood.

Agree. But I have strong suspicions (as indicated above).

Creating nations for each culturally distinct group is not a magic solution.

It is not. But yet, most countries on the planet are aligned along those culturally distinct groups. USA and India are exceptions, not the norm.

Many tend to approach this problem from a moral and emotional perspective. (Each one has their own moral scale by the way. Example some tend to approach the problem from Kashmir perspective) In real world morality does not decide the course of human progress (with very few exceptions). The fittest will survive.

Plan A of Tigers have failed but have provided them with some benefits. But their Plan B is well in progress and will deliver what they wanted. Loss of life is something that does not disturb the Tigers at all. They are willing to die the next day they join the movement. The top brass of the group is even more resolute on this.

Prabakaran has done his part very well. He has passed the baton of the struggle to some leaders who have good networks with the right parties.

Rajapakse is the least smart leader from the Sinhalese population. He does not have the kind of education previous Sinhalese leaders had. He does not realize the disaster he has created and fell for a biat that will bring him down. He will be ditched by Sinhalese when his failures are exposed. It will take some time for this to happen. So until then there is some pain to endure.

Life without pain is a cursed life. Societies that do not undergo pain, will never progress and will be a dependent society like most Indian communities are.

India did play its role very cleverly which many media personalities do not understand.

Kalugu

Dear Kalugu,

I am not sure I understand your point. Are you advocating further violence and continuing the path adapted by LTTE? I sure hope not, because that approach has failed and it has not brought any peace or prosperity for the affected Tamils in Sri Lanka. I fail to understand how Indian Tamils (I don't know if you are one) can continue to support the likes of Prabhakaran, in light of what he did to his own people and to our prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. I have seen this line of argument from many Indian Tamilians and it is a dangerous trend.

Our approach needs to be forward looking. Let us talk about providing succor to the suffering in Sri Lanka. Let's talk about building the nation again. I agree that both sides have made mistakes, definitely Srilankans more in the last few decades. But instead of trying to prove one's point, one should see what is the fastest path to peaceful co-existence. It is possible and the expat Tamils from Sri Lanka should encourage reconciliation rather than further confrontation. I think the international community had enough of it and will not be supportive of what you are suggesting.

Regards,

Ravi

Sujai - I appreciate your patience. Your reasoning has clarity. Some are unable to come of their limited knowledge (no offense) and think outside the box. Kashmir and Pakistan issue is world for them.

Ravi - The violence part of the struggle is over (I think). LTTE does not need to fight another war. They will resurrect their military after their freedom.

Yes, I am an Indian Tamil basically from Chennai. Even though most Indian Tamils view LTTE as freedom fighters, not all were considering the Sri Lankan issue as a prominent issue (for elections). There were other priorities for them. The attempts by folks such as Seeman did have its result - which is the defeat of 4 (or may be 5) prominent Congress personalities and a see-saw borderline victory for Chidhambaram (which was the big disappointment - because that is where they put their most effort. But many smell fraud by Congress/DMK since Chidhambaram has a lot to contribute/make as a cabinet minister).

However, LTTE anticipates only limited support form Tamil Indians. That is all they need. The more they get better. Folks like Ram (The Hindu) and others are focusing excessively on the Lankan issue - there is a reason for the same. Try to understand what they are not saying and you will realize certain facts about the future.

The reason Sinhalese went to the extreme in killing Tamils is their fear on them. It is this fear that has made them go to extreme ends (some what barbaric).

When I said endure more pain - I meant in United Sri Lanka. Yes. Sinhalese will use this time to break the will of the Tamils by adopting excessive torture. They may succeed also in convincing local Tamils to settle for less.

All of what I have stated are just my speculation based on what I have studied about the LTTE. Yes, at the outset it may look very primitive. But the more you understand their principles - you will realize that they have cracked one of the most effective survival tactics.

I think I have written enough. If you are interested follow some interesting discussions at my site.

@Sujai, you say "India has been able to deal with different languages, religions, and even castes by ensuring their interests are protected. Sri Lanka did not." this is not entirely true, India has a checkered track record when it comes to protecting Muslims, Sikhs and Christians (North East).
Going by your definition (..that Tamils constitute a distinct group with a different language and religion and also different historical roots compared to the majority which happens to be Sinhalese Buddhist speaking people.), the north east should have been allowed to secede from India in the 60-70s. But they could not because of strong and often unwarranted force used by the Indian army.

Sri Lanka is now in the situation India was when it defeated the Khalistan movement in Punjab and the North East secessionist movements. Unless you support also support the secession movements in Khalistan, Kashmir and the North East, this post amounts to hypocrisy.

Ajay

"India has a checkered track record when it comes to protecting Muslims, Sikhs and Christians"

And what is that checkered track record, if I may ask. I can understand, if by that, you mean congress bending over backward to 'protect' moslems and xians. Ultimately, what these groups think as India's track record is what counts, not your take on it.


"north east should have been allowed to secede from India in the 60-70s. But they could not because of strong and often unwarranted force used by the Indian army."

wow! Allowed to secede from India? Unwarranted force? Wow! At least India is consistent in not tolerating any sucessionist movements in India. And if it has to become hypocratical about it, so be it.

Well, heres an idea, if tamils want a land of their own, go back to tamil nadu, or find your own land. Sinhalese are willing to share. Turn on lankan TV - half the channels are Tamil, tamil language is taught in schools & most wealthy business men (eg gold smiths) are tamil.
You people alienate yourselves because your all brain washed. Sinhalese people are happy to share the land just like we share the tiny island with Muslims and other minorities.

If you morons go to a Buddhist temple you will see figurines of Hindu gods there. Again, STOP ALIENATING yourselves.

according to this ideal, what would happen to a country like Australia where multiculturalism is working so harmoniously. To all tamils: stop being so selfish and accept to live harmoniously with everyone else just like we (sinhalese) are happy to live harmoniously with you.

That is really the main difference. The secessionist movements in India are indigenous while the Tamils in Sri Lanka were brought in by the British to work the plantations. A very tenious claim to the land indeed. The same cannot be said for the Kashmir, Khalistan or North-East issues.

Kerty,

In case you didn't know Indian Air Force bombed the city of Aizwal in 1966. Aizwal is in Mizoram and the bombing was in response to Mizoram's secession declaration. This was excessive and unwarranted force.
I am not saying India is hypocratical (sic), I meant the author was dabbling in hypocrisy.

MBI Munshi,

Good point about the claim being tenuous.

Not only that the Indian army used the 1971 war to massacre Mizo tribes people opposed to India. India was in fact fighting two wars - one against Pakistan and another against the secessionist movement in Mizoram.

MBI Munshi,

Your understanding that Tamils in Sri Lanka are from India, has been clarified a million times.

The Tamils who went to Sri Lanka (and lived there for 200 years) during the British period were disenfranchised and sent back to India (India welcomed them happily -what else can you expect???). Some are still there. But the Tamils who have been living there for more than 1000 years are the ones that are facing a survival threat. When the Dutch arrived in Sri Lanka (prior to the British) there was a Tamil Kingdom with Jaffna as the capital. There are several references in Sri Lankan history regarding wars between Tamil and Sinhalese kingdoms.

Sinhalese have always lived with a fear of Tamil invasion. That is the reason for their inferiority complex and barbarianism.

When you say that Indians are reporting about Nepal without knowing the truth, I think its fair for others to expect that you would not do the same. :)

In #13, Ajay writes:

Unless you support also support the secession movements in Khalistan, Kashmir and the North East, this post amounts to hypocrisy.

In #17, Ajay writes:

I meant the author was dabbling in hypocrisy.

When you do not where I stand on Kashmir, Khalistan or North-east, how did you conclude I am ‘dabbling in hypocrisy’?

My stand on Kashmir is on Desicritics [You can check it up].

I did not write about Khalistan. It is a dead issue. Also, I believe that India has made amends in this case. If there is a reason to believe Khalistan needs to be revived, I may be able to express my opinion on it then.

Coming to North-east, I do believe that there could arise a case where India has to deal with those regions where demand more power or more autonomy or even secession. I do not take an absolutist stand that India should never tolerate secession. At the same time, I do not assume that the first sign of disagreement should lead to secession.

#16, MBI Munshi:

That is really the main difference. The secessionist movements in India are indigenous while the Tamils in Sri Lanka were brought in by the British to work the plantations.

There are two sets of Tamils, those who were taken to that island as plantation workers in the last three hundred years and those who are living there for more than two thousand years. Some of the plantation workers were given Indian citizenship.

Tamil presence in that island is recorded even before Christ.

There was a Tamil Kingdom in Jaffna after the invasions of Indian kingdoms of Cholas and Pandyas, nearly 800 years ago.

Then who are the original inhabitants of this island. If we are to make comparisons with Israel at least the Jews were one of the original inhabitants of Palestine. Did the Tamil's originate in Sri Lanka or Tamil Nadu regardless of how many thousands of years they have been there. How long have the Muslims and Christians been there and what proportion of the population do they constitute? How many of these groups are indigenous to the island like the Jews to Palestine or the Assamese to Assam or the Mizo to Mizoram or the Naga to Nagaland. There must be some cut-off point where we say secessionism is unjustified. Since the Tamil have a homeland in Tamil Nadu I do not see what all the fuss is about.

There must be some cut-off point where we say secessionism is unjustified.

I think you are trying to find a simplistic solution to a complicated problem called humanity.

A good column but not without issues. The writer seems to be less informed (first hand) about my country, Pakistan.
Pakistan is stronger then before despite all issues and wars going on outside and inside of its borders. Its still certainly better off India despite US war policies in last 35 years has damaged its economy a lot. One day US has to leave and that will make Pakistan run on its own wealth (its quite rich in resources) instead of $ aid which is several times less then the cost Pakistan is paying for becoming US police man in the entire region.
I will rather invite the writer to visit Pakistan and analyze things first hand and see the dynamics operating here.

Thanks

Sujai,

You say that Khalistan is a dead issue because India has made 'amends'. I agree, so give Sri Lanka a chance to do the same. Sri Lanka is where India was 25 years ago.

I did not 'conclude' your stance on Kashmir, Khalistan and NE. I said if you did not support those causes then it would result in hypocrisy.

"Coming to North-east, I do believe that there could arise a case where India has to deal with those regions ..."
It had already risen back in the 1950-70s and India with a heavy hand quashed it.

"At the same time, I do not assume that the first sign of disagreement should lead to secession."

Agreed, but if you think the secessionist movements in India were due to just a first sign of disagreement, you are mistaken and are trivializing their cause.

Since you categorically start off by supporting LTTE's secessionist cause with the basis you stated. You should apply a similar yard stick to all secessionist movements, dormant or active, in India.

Ajay

'if you think the secessionist movements in India were due to just a first sign of disagreement, you are mistaken and are trivializing their cause"

Not only they be trivialized, they must be ridiculed, parodied, made fun of, and kicked in their sorry behinds.

"You should apply a similar yard stick to all secessionist movements, dormant or active, in India"

No, India would not.

#26, Ajay:

Since you categorically start off by supporting LTTE's secessionist cause with the basis you stated. You should apply a similar yard stick to all secessionist movements, dormant or active, in India.

I do not support every secessionist cause with same vigor because not all secessionist cause operate with the same vigor.

I do agree in principle that a secessionist movements should not be suppressed just because it is one.

I believe that India should make amends when such secessionist feelings arise: it should address the issues of those people. Even after repeated attempts by both parties if things don't work out secession may be the only way out. It is better part ways than to obliterate one another.

I don't provide a blanket support to all secessionist movements. At the same time, I do not believe that ever secessionist movement should be suppressed with brute force.

A mature democracy should make provisions to deal with such issues without having to resort to force. India has not been the best example. And yet, it has been better than some of its neighbors.

#26, Ajay:

Since you categorically start off by supporting LTTE's secessionist cause with the basis you stated. You should apply a similar yard stick to all secessionist movements, dormant or active, in India.

I do not support every secessionist cause with same vigor because not all secessionist causes operate with the same vigor.

I do agree in principle that a secessionist movement should not be suppressed just because it is one.

I believe that India should make amends when such secessionist feelings arise: it should address the issues of those people. Even after repeated attempts by both parties if things don't work out then secession may be the only way out. It is better to part ways than to obliterate one another.

I don't provide a blanket support to all secessionist movements. At the same time, I do not believe that ever secessionist movement should be suppressed with brute force.

A mature democracy should make provisions to deal with such issues without having to resort to force. India has not been the best example. And yet, it has been better than some of its neighbors.

SRILANKAN TAMILS ARE ANTI INDIAN TAMILS. WHY ARE NO INDIAN TAMILS IN US, UK, CANADA, AUSTRALIA SUPPORTING THE PROTESTS. BECAUSE SRILANKAN TAMILS ARE RACIST AND ANTI INDIAN TAMILS!!!!!!!

Sujai,

"I do not support every secessionist cause with same vigor because not all secessionist cause operate with the same vigor."

The support you declare for secession is based on an ambiguous variable called 'vigor'. I would love for you to elaborate on what levels of vigor would graduate to a support for secession.

"I don't provide a blanket support to all secessionist movements..."

Why not, doesn't this being to amount to hypocrisy?

"At the same time, I do not believe that ever(y) secessionist movement should be suppressed with brute force. "

So some movements should be suppressed with brute force?

These comments of yours are further diluting your already tenuous argument for Tamil secession.

Secession may be considered where the separating group would be able to constitute a viable state and have all the attributes of nationhood. With a large Christian and Muslim minority in the North who have no desire for secession this may be difficult to justify.