08th, September 1996

By V. Suryanarayan

Known to the Arab travelers as Serendib, the island of happy fortune, Sri Lanka today is neither happy nor fortunate. In fact, in the era of decolonisation, Sri Lanka was generally referred to as the "model colony." The transition to independence was smooth: there was no prolonged and bitter anti-colonial struggle as in India, Indonesia and Vietnam.

On the eve of independence, Sri Lanka was relatively a peaceful country, compared to the orgy and violence that accompanied the birth of its northern neighbors, India and Pakistan. D. S. Senanayake, first Prime Minister was not only the leader of the majority Sinhalese community, he had also the tacit support of the other minority groups. Most commentators felt that the new born state would be politically stable and the major ethnic groups would be integrated into one nation. Four decades and eight years later, not only the political system has undergone a fundamental transformation, the island is also in the vortex of a protracted debilitating ethnic conflict. The loss of thousands of lives, the displacement of lakhs of people, the savage violence of the LTTE and the brutal response of the armed forces have turned this once peaceful country into one of the most notorious "killing fields'' of the world. The hopes following the victory of Ms. Chandrika Kumaratunga first as the Prime Minister in August 1994 and subsequently as the President in November 1994, are slowly being dashed to the ground. In her policy statement to Parliament in January 1995, Ms. Kumaratunga interpreted her mandate as a "loud and clear" pronouncement of the people's "deep and genuine yearning for peace and an end to the war in the northeast." Her Government, she added, would bring about "a change from oppression and terror to a truly operative democracy;" the change would also bring about "sustainable economic development, increase production and employment, decrease inflation and provide social justice and equity."

The Sri Lankan Army and the LTTE had their share of successes and failures. The fall of Jaffna was a stunning defeat for the LTTE and equally a major victory for the Sri Lankan armed forces. The consequent euphoria among large sections of Sinhalese that an outright military victory was on the anvil has turned out to be a pipe dream. The LTTE has bounced back to the centre stage by some daring attacks. The fall of the military garrison in Mullaitivu, according to many perceptive observers, was the worst debacle that the Sri Lankan Army suffered since the commencement of the ethnic conflict in 1983. Only 30 soldiers are reported to have survived; the LTTE left the scene with a huge haul of ammunition and weapons. The fall of Mullaitivu numbed the Sinhalese, the clumsy manner in which Colombo shared the information with the people compounded the tragic situation. After the debacle in Mullaitivu, the Sri Lankan Army has adopted a "go-slow" policy as far as the capture of the LTTE controlled Kilinochchi town is concerned. The LTTE has also kept up the guerrilla attacks not only in the Jaffna peninsula, but also on civilian targets in Sinhalese areas. The attack on a suburban train near the Dehiwela station in Colombo in July is an illustration of the LTTE's capacity to strike even in the Sinhalese heartland. The response from the people to join the armed forces. Colombo wants to recruit an additional 10,000 soldiers is also lukewarm.

The LTTE is also having major problems. While its capacity to launch surprise attacks cannot be underestimated, it cannot also, at the same time, build up a conventional army. It is not in a position to reoccupy the Jaffna peninsula. It has also embarked on a recruitment drive and most of its recruits are boys and girls in their teens. The international isolation of the LTTE continues. There is absolutely no possibility of either the LTTE or the Army achieving a military solution.

The escalating defense burden, combined with a high rate of inflation, the failure of the monsoons, the drop in tourist arrivals and a spate of strikes have adversely affected the welfare programs and the high PQLI (Physical Quality of Life), which made Sri Lanka the envy of Third World countries.

It is also necessary to point out that the Sinhalese-Sri Lankan Tamil conflict has tended to brush aside problems of minority groups like the Muslims and up-country Tamils of Indian origin. The Sri Lankan Tamils rightly point out that they have been subjected to many acts of discrimination by successive Sinhalese-dominated Governments. At the same time, the LTTE has also resorted to "ethnic cleansing" in Tamil-speaking areas. Hundreds of Muslims have been killed by the LTTE in the East, including 140 Muslim worshippers in a mosque in Kattankudy, in Aug. 1990. In Oct. 1990, the LTTE ordered Muslims living in Jaffna, Mullaitivu, Kilinochchi and Mannar districts to leave the area or face the consequences. As a result, 1,20,000 Muslims have become refugees in their own country. Whereas all parts of Sri Lanka have mixed population in varying degrees, the Jaffna peninsula alone, because of the LTTE intolerance has become ethnically homogeneous. Similarly, the political aspirations of the up-country Tamils can be fulfilled only if power is devolved from the regional councils to village councils. But at the present moment, such an arrangement is not in the agenda of the major political parties.

A major contributory factor to the deepening ethnic crisis is the character of the Sri Lankan state. The highly centralized unitary state enabled the UNP and the SLFP to dominate national politics at the expense of minority groups.

For the first time in Sri Lankan history, Ms. Kumaratunga asserted that if the minority aspirations were to be fulfilled, Sri Lanka must go beyond a unitary state. As a consequence, the devolution package, which aims to restructure the Sri Lankan political system, provides for substantial autonomy to the Regional Councils. Unfortunately, the PA-UNP conflict has cast its long shadow on the devolution proposals. The need of the hour is a Sinhala consensus: but the leaders of the two major political parties are competing for narrow political ends. As Aldous Huxley remarked, "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach." - Hindu

The writer is Director, Centre for South and Southeast Asia Studies, University of Madras, Madras.)

H. L. D. Mahindapala replies

Before I come to the funny-ha-ha parts and the funny - peculiar parts of Mr. Sivasithamparam's response let me recapitulate some of the main aspects that I covered in my last article (Sunday Times August 25, 1996):

1. I emphasized - and it cannot be emphasized enough that northern communal politics had an independent origin in 1920 and gathered a momentum of its own as it rolled down the century like a juggernaut, destroying everything in its path. By projecting their virulent communalism and violence as an offshoot of Sinhala Buddhism the Jaffna communalists managed to escape all responsibility for the turn of events which has ended in a blood bath;
2. Communalism and casteism were the only "isms' that flourished in the mainstream of Jaffna politics after Sir Arunachalam Ponnambalam;
3. Communalism was a bogey raised by the oppressors of the dying vellala caste to divert attention from their internal crisis to an external enemy - i.e. the Sinhala Buddhists;
4. The caste fascism of the vellala elites institutionalized slavery to exploit their own people as a sub human race for over three centuries an abominable slavery unknown to other communities;
5. The communal bogey helped the vellala caste fascists to maintain their political and social dominance through the interplay of casteism and communalism;
6. The Vaddukoddai Resolution of 1976, endorsing violence by the Jaffna elite, confirmed that it was a Revolt of the Privileged who were hoping to ride on the back of the 'boys' and retain their power.
7. The oppressive caste fascism of the vellalas bred the political fascism of the non-vellalas who in turn bred the Pol Pot of Jaffna;
8. There was no pan-Tamil movement either on a regional (Indian Tamils) or on a linguistic (Tamil speaking Muslims) basis and the cry of 'discrimination" and "oppression" originated and was orchestrated only by the most privileged community in Jaffna;
9. The only meaning of the "liberation" struggle of the non-vellala violent movement is in getting rid of the vellala yoke that enslaved the people of Jaffna from the time of the Dutch;
10. The combined impact of these forces, which increased the pace and virulence of Tamil communalism since 1920, is primarily responsible for the worsening of the inter-ethnic relationship.

These, I think, are serious issues for scholars to pursue even for Ph. D. theses - and I tried to deal with these issues, within the very limited space available. Unable to meet the thrust of these new arguments Mr. Sivasithamparam blames the Sinhala Buddhists (nothing new about that) or me, or comes out with a funny ha ha or a funny-peculiar. Isn't it funny that he blames me even for debating the Tamil problem?

Frankly, I didn't ask him to join issue with me. Every reader knows that he is the one who took up cudgels with me when I was debating with Mr. V. L. Wirasinha. Besides, he knows that Sri Lankans are not governed by Pol Potists regime (from which he was driven out) and everyone has a right to debate any issue. The Eelam lobby organizes debates on this issue in all parts of the world.

Why should he try to gag only the Sinhala Buddhist point of view? Furthermore, is it his contention that the entire world should accept his point of view without debating it?

It is this intransigence and arrogant attitude of the Tamil leadership that has prevented any meaningful debate or dialogue that can lead to greater understanding of the problem. The Tamil lobby has always resisted the entry of the other point of view purely because they want to control the debate and define their own terms of what is fair without taking into consideration a concept of fairness which is acceptable to all communities.

From the demand of a 'special seat for the Tamils in the Western province' in 1920 they have escalated their demands to a two-thirds of the coastline and one-third of the land mass. Is that fair? Clearly, they have managed to black out the point of view which does not support their extremist demands. They can't go to the Western diplomats in Colombo, or go round the world saying that they are the victims of Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism if they are seen as the originators of rabid communalism and perpetrators of the most inhuman cruelty which persecuted their own people for over three centuries.

Consider again his funny-peculiar statement. He claims that the Tamil problem is "a matter of life and death" for the Tamils. Is it not a matter of life and death for the Sinhalese, Muslims, Burghers and all others embroiled in the bloody mess created by unrelenting Tamil communalism which began in 1920? Furthermore, Mr. Sivasithamparam's treatment of the obscene caste fascism organised by the vellalas of Jaffna makes me think that there are elements of both funny ha ha and funny-peculiar in it. What else can I think when he tries to paint caste fascism of Jaffna as a rose garden with a few thorns in it? It is the most oppressive caste system in the whole of S. Asia and he tries to compare it with the Sinhala caste system which did not allow the padu caste man to wear a shirt in public. Get real Mr. Sivasithamparam!

Everyone knows that there were caste systems in the hydraulic societies of Asia. The question is: Did any of these societies oppress and exploit their own people under a fascist social regime run by a highly educated elite like the Jaffna Tamils? Can you answer that, Mr. Sivasithamparam?

There are iniquities in all societies but compared to the unspeakable oppression perpetuated by the Jaffna Tamils until as late as the seventies we Sinhala Buddhists can proudly stand up and say that even in our iniquities we were never never so brutal and inhuman as the Jaffna Tamil caste elite.

On the contrary, I accuse the Jaffna Tamil elite of being the most barbaric fascists who refined their own religious institutions as an instrument of cruel oppression and persecution of their own defenseless people for three centuries - a record which even Hitler could not achieve when he persecuted the Jews.

Another funny ha ha is when he blames me for raising the caste issues when I was merely responding to his bogus cry of "oppression" by the Sinhala Buddhists. He also objects to my detailed description of the inhuman slavery in Jaffna when I was merely quoting Jane Russel and H.W. Tambiah. In any case, why are the Sivasithamparams so scared of the truth being told when they have without any compunction distorted history to denigrate the Sinhala Buddhists for decades? Can't take it, eh?

But it is time they learned a bit of their own sordid history. So let me quote Prof. Bryan Pfaffenberger of the Syracuse University in America, who, incidentally is one of the leading authorities on the caste system in Jaffna:

"An artifact of a colonial plantation economy, the caste system of Jaffna could be maintained only by force - and force has indeed been used ... These (caste) restriction had the force of law under Dutch and the early British regimes and even into the 1960s. In Jaffna in the 1940s and 1950s, for instance, Minority Tamils (i.e. oppressed castes) were forbidden to enter or live near temples; to draw water from the wells of high caste families, to enter laundries, barber shops, cafes, or taxis to keep women in seclusion and protect them by enacting domestic rituals; (forbidden) to wear shoes; to sit on bus seats; to register their names properly so that social benefits could be obtained; to attend schools ; to cover the upper part of the body; to wear gold ear-rings; if male, to cut their hair, to use umbrellas; to own bicycles or cars; to cremate the dead; or to convert to Christianity or Buddhism.

To enforce these restrictions extra legally Vellalas have fielded gangs of thugs to punish upwardly mobile Pallars and Nalavars. These gangs pollute untouchable wells with dead dogs, fecal matter, or garbage, burn down untouchable fences or houses; physically assault and beat Minority Tamils, and sometimes kill them. Preceding the Maviddapuram crisis there had been several altercations in which Minority Tamils died." (The Journal of Asia Studies, 49, No. 1 (February 1990)

Are you still reading, Mr. Sivasithamparam? If so, show us the equivalent of this barbaric treatment of your own people in any other Sri Lankan community. You glibly call them the "unfortunate people" without taking responsibility for making them "unfortunate" for centuries. You offer tepid regrets but not apologies. Apart from the caste fascists of your ilk, the Churches too built separate pews to prevent the high caste from being polluted by sitting next to the low castes. These churchmen became the caste conscious Brahmins of Christianity who established apartheid inside the holy tabernacle of God.

And Fr. E. J. Emmanuel, the Vicar General of Jaffna, had the gumption to go before an audience in Canberra and say: "Let my people go". The hypocrisy of the Churches which collaborated with the fascist upper caste in Jaffna to protect their elitist positions, even under the eyes of God will, I suppose, have to wait for the Day of Judgment. Until then, I accuse the churches - and not the honest, liberal and genuine Christians in the congregation of being active agents who aided and abetted the fascist elite of the north not only to perpetuate their oppressive casteism but also to insidiously promote divisive communalism.

Of course, they mixed their pile of Himalayan sins with a drop or two of charity. But the hard reality is that they did not actively take on the fascist casteism or their corrosive communalism as they have aggressively confronted the Sinhala Buddhists.

Going on historical records, they will know that the Sinhala Buddhists had never committed such crimes against anybody on such a mass scale for such a long time in such a dehumanizing manner. Nor did the Sinhala Buddhists organize their society under a fascist ideology to keep a sizable segment of their population under inhuman conditions comparable to that of only a vast concentration camp.

The fascist casteism of the vellalas repeated itself in the Nazi style concentration camp run by the non-vellala Pol Pot Mr. Prabhakaran," (New York Times, June 28 1995) who tortured and persecuted Tamil dissidents, as documented by the University Teachers Human Rights (Jaffna).

This profane tradition of the Churches to support fascism of the north was followed by Bishop Kenneth Fernando who unashamedly proclaimed to the world that Mr. Prabhakaran is "humane". He has to this day not withdrawn or apologized even to his fellow Christians. His pathetic attempts to put a gloss on the Jaffna Pol Pot will stand as an everlasting lump of contempt thrown at the sacred spirit of Lord Jesus whose integrity and bearing witness to the truth made Him a Prince of Peace in Christendom and even beyond.

I am afraid I will not be able to deal with all the aspects raised by Mr. Sivasithamparam as it would run into reams and reams of columns. However, I would like to deal with some of his allegations under the theme of blaming the other (i. e. the Sinhala Buddhists) to make oneself (i. e. the Tamil communalists) look pure and innocent.

Consider his statement about the franchise of the Indian Tamils being "snatched from the plantation workers'. Having been a loyal supporter of the All Ceylon Tamil Congress long before he jumped over to the winning side and became a loyal supporter of its arch rival the Federal Party, Mr. Sivasithamparam knows only too well that the Jaffna Tamils led by Mr. G. G. Ponnambalam (Snr) voted for the disenfranchisement of the Indian Tamils. In his illuminating book, SRI LANKA - WHAT WENT WRONG, Mr. V. P. Vittachi wrote (p. 32)

"G. G. Ponnambalam, the leader of the All Ceylon Tamil Congress who joined the UNP government in a coalition on 3 September 1948 voted for the Elections Amendment Act of 1949 which shut out a large number of Indian Tamils from the electoral register. The Jaffna votes resoundingly endorsed this measure in the 1952 general elections by administering a severe drubbing to the Federal Party which opposed it."

In other words, the dominant Tamil leader of the time, the leading Tamil party of the time and the people of Jaffna endorsed the disenfranchisement but only the Sinhala Buddhists are blamed for it. Distorting historical records on a Gobbelsian scale has certainly made them look like the innocent victims. But shouldn't the intellectuals who peddle these prevarication's be more discriminating about the cries of "discrimination" and "injustices" committed by the Sinhala Buddhists? I can only leave it to the readers to judge the issues on the available facts.

Look also at the funny ha ha of blaming me for his total ignorance and rejecting Prof. Arasaratnam's stunning revelation that the Board of Ministers had offered a ratio of 57% to 43% to 25% of the minorities. First, he said I was quoting from a secondhand source (i. e. Michael Roberts) and not from Prof. Arasaratnam. Then he said that Prof. Arasaratnam had not given the source. In response to these uninformed allegations I proved that the source was the Sessional Paper XIV of 1944 and the quote was directly form Prof. Arasaratnam.

This cornered him and unable to contest these solid facts he goes on to say; "The comment of Mr. Arasaratnam is based on a proposal on representation in the Constitutional Scheme formulated by the Board of Ministers in accordance with His Majesty's Government's Declaration of 26th May, 1943. (In other words, he admits that the Board of Ministers did make that magnanimous offer of 57 - 43, proving my point, but he adds): This Constitutional Scheme was later withdrawn by the Board of Ministers on 18th August, 1944."

Here too Mr. Sivasithamparam proves Prof. Arasaratnam's point that the Tamils made a "tactical blunder" in not accepting it - i. e. had the Tamils accepted it in May 1943 the Board of Ministers would have found it extremely difficult to withdraw it in August 1944, one year and three months after it was offered. Yet he blames Prof. Arasaratnam, the Board of Ministers and me. Get real, Mr. Sivasithamparam! Get real!

Finally, to keep within the word limits, I will deal with the "magnanimous" role played by the Tamil leadership in dealing with the caste fascism that was tearing Jaffna society apart. The role of the Chelvanayakams, the Ponnambalams and the Sivasithamparams at the height of the struggle of the low castes to enter the Maviddipuram temple is one of the most hypocritical political acts of the Tamil leadership.

Mr. Sivasithamparam boasts about a private (zero-effect) Bill against caste discrimination moved by a former FP MP without mentioning a word about the historic and classic anti-caste legislation in the Prevention of Social Disabilities Act of 1957 passed by the Bandaranaike government. And yet he blames the government for not enacting such legislation!

It is time that the world took note of the lies and deception of the Tamils to cover up their own sins. I am proud to say that it is the Sinhala-Buddhists who took the first meaningful steps to dismantle the fascist caste system in Jaffna in the 1957 Act. This progressive Act led "caste fanatics" like C. Suntheralingam to whip up anti-Sinhala Buddhist feelings on the grounds of interfering with the internal affairs of Jaffna.

On this issue of temple-entry by the low castes, Prof. Plaffenberger presents (in his essay cited above) a detailed analysis of the political chicanery of the Federal Party leaders like Chelvanayakam and Amirthalingam. Pointing that they "tiptoed quietly away from the (Maviddipuram temple entry) issues" he adds that the MP for the electorate in which the Maviddipuram temple was situated S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, attempted to keep a low profile during the conflict but conservative Vellalars wanted to force the issue; they demanded that Chelvanayakam resign his seat and contest on the temple entry issue because the public had lost confidence in him. (Times of Ceylon, Aug. 9, 1968 P. 1)

The party seems to have taken conservative Vellalar opposition seriously .... A Amirthalingam, the FP's leader, later declared weakly that the party had "kept away from the Maviddipuram temple" because it did not want to take politics into the temples." (Times of Ceylon, Aug. 12. 1968 P. 3) Prof. Plaffenberger adds that the "FP's response was not to develop a coherent and principled position on the temple entry issue but rather to divert public away from issues" to the Sinhala-Buddhist bogey.

This is the pathetic record of the majority of the upper castes of Jaffna. Their attempts to wriggle out of it too is pathetic. And yet they boast that they won't let me win the debate. I write this not to win debates in the arrogant way claimed by them. I write to present the facts as I know them and to let the readers judge the winner.

PS: I am extremely indebted to Prof. Bryan Pfaffenberger for his authoritative and profound analysis of the Jaffna caste system that has been ignored by the pro-Tamil academics, NGOs, the seminar circuits and the chattering class in general. It is my belief that the Sri Lankan crisis can never be understood unless his writings - namely, the article cited earlier and his monograph titled 'Caste in Tamil Culture - The Religious Foundations of Sudra Domination in Tamil Sri Lanka - are read and digested comprehensively.