29th, September 1996

On page 8, column 6, of The Sunday Times of September 8, H.L.D. Mahindapala, in his debate with M. Sivasithamparam, states, "the Jaffna Tamils led by G.G. Ponnambalam (Sr.) voted for the disenfranchisement of the Indian Tamils" and quotes a passage from page 32 of a book titled "Sri Lanka - what went wrong" by V.P. Vittachi.

Both Mr. Mahindapala's statement and the quotation from Mr. Vittachi's book are against the facts of history. I am not surprised at this because there is an indecent urge on the part of some dishonest Sinhalese to rewrite history and this has been pointed out by people who have been closely monitoring even school text books.

I did not respond to that reference immediately since I thought Mr. Sivasithamparam, who was on a debate with Mr. Mahindapala, would put the record straight.

But, what did surprise me was the absolute dishonesty and disregard for truth, even at this age, displayed by Mr. Sivasithamparam, in his reply to Mr. Mahindapala, which appears on page 9 of The Sunday Times of September 22, Mr. Sivasithamparam, who has written so much about history in his debate with Mr. Mahindapala, should have stated the truth about the Indian Question and the part played in it by G.G. Ponnambalam (Sr.). Instead, Mr. Sivasithamparam himself draws a red herring across the trail by saying that he was not in the ACTC when the citizenship laws were passed and about him making "no contribution whatsoever to pass such palpably unjust laws", there by imputing that Mr. Mahindapala and Mr. Vittachi are correct in alleging that Mr. Ponnambalam (Sr.) voted for the disenfranchisement of the Tamils of recent Indian origin.

It is not for nothing that the Englishman coined the phrase "intellectual dishonesty", and it is for this reason that President Kumaratunga, in her interview to the Star TV which came over the air on March 10, referred to the Tamil leaders as persons who are not honest.

The simple question before Mr. Sivasithamparam was whether Mr. Ponnambalam (Sr.) voted for the disenfranchisement of the Indian Tamils. Knowing the truth, he has not answered it honestly.

The truth of the matter is that Mr. Ponnambalam (Sr.) had absolutely no hand in the disenfranchisement of the Tamils of recent Indian origin. The law that decitizenised the Tamils of recent Indian origin was the Ceylon Citizenship Act No. 18 of 1948. Mr. Ponnambalam (Sr.) voted against this Bill. (Minutes of the House of Representatives, Friday 20th August 1948). It was this law that took away the citizenship and also took away their voting rights, for it is only citizens who also have the vote.

The Act which was intended to provide for citizenship for a vast majority of Indians in Ceylon who had lost their citizenship with the passing of the Ceylon Citizenship Act was the Indian and Pakistani Residents (Citizenship) Act No. 3 of 1949 which laid down less restrictive conditions for the obtaining of Ceylon Citizenship to Indians than Act No. 18 of 1948. The vast majority of Indians in Ceylon elected to seek citizenship and therefore their voting rights under the provisions of this Act. Mr. Ponnambalam (Sr.) voted for this law.

A further Act, the Ceylon Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act No. 18 of 1949 restricted the vote only to citizens of Ceylon. After the enactment of the citizenship laws, the franchise was made dependent upon citizenship under the provisions of this Act on the principle that only citizens of Ceylon should be eligible to vote. In other words, the vote was available to the vast numbers who obtained citizenship under Act No 3. of 1949 also. Mr. Ponnambalam (Sr.) voted for this law.

These are the facts and this is the truth. How then can Mr. Mahindapala and Mr. Vittachi say that Mr. Ponnambalam (Sr.) voted for the disenfranchisement of the Indian Tamils? The Act which shut out a very large number of Indian Tamils from the electoral register was Act No. 18 of 1948 because it was this Act that made very many Tamils of recent Indian origin lose their citizenship by placing very restrictive conditions for the obtaining of citizenship.

G.G. Ponnambalam (Jr.),
General Secretary,
ACTC.

Well, well, well. The I.R.A., a nasty lot, but a well established firm nonetheless, had stockpiled enough explosives to cause havoc in Britain by devastating many a city center. But London's luck held. Anti-terrorist squads seized the stockpile, or much of it, killed one guerrilla and grabbed five in a dawn raid on Monday. Prime Minister John Major was "delighted" said the Reuter report. He certainly had cause for relief. Evidently, the I.R.A. had not only lorry bomb attacks in mind. Some "high profile" public figures were probably targets too. How soon would the I.R.A. hit back to recover morale and what (or who) will be its target?

While Mr. Major promptly telephoned Mr. John Bruton the Irish leader and shared the good news, both would surely have realized that this stroke of luck will certainly not improve the chances of a negotiated settlement of what is often described as "the longest war" of its kind of course.

The I.R.A.'s behavior pattern would suggest that it will strike again to remind the Tory government, and the British Establishment that the war goes on. In any case, the peace process has not advanced much. On that at least, the I.R.A. has a point to make, and does so with some conviction. Mr. Major is ready to discuss a political settlement but he is not prepared to talk to the I.R.A.'s political wing, Sinn Fein. Why? On Tuesday he gave this answer: "It remains impossible to reconcile Sinn Fein's rhetoric with the I.R.A's preparations for murder".

Mr. Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein President, was not impressed. The Tory administration, he said, had created a dangerous political vacuum. If anything, Monday's events may mean that "the chance of a renewed IRA truce had evaporated".

Irish question

But the truth is that this "chance", somewhat exaggerated by both sides, and their respective sympathizers in the media, has been getting slim from about a year ago. It is not fair to accuse this or that side, this or that leader, but it one has to start somewhere, it is on November last year we must focus, specifically the visit to Britain of the Irish Prime Minister, Mr. John Bruton. Readers who have followed the chequered course of events will probably remember Mr. Bruton's harsh words. The Irish premier paid more tribute to Mr. Gerry Adams, the President of Sinn Fein than to Mr. John Major, the British Prime Minister. Britain, the Irish Prime Minister declared, had failed to match "courage, generosity and decisiveness" of the I.R.A. after the cease-fires, Mr. Bruton was in fact saying, the ECONOMIST complained, that Prime Minister Major had fallen short of the magnanimity or imagination shown by the I.R.A.'s political boss, Mr. Gerry Adams. Yes, it was not difficult for a neutral observer to appreciate Mr. Adam's courage. His position was hardly the same as Mr. Major's. The Sinn Fein leader must always keep an eye on "the boys with the guns". It is they who call the shots! Mr. Major speaks for the British government. He can rely on the protective power of the State. He can take decisions more freely, and often does. In July last year for instance, he ordered the release of a British paratrooper jailed for murdering a "joyriding teenager" in Northern Ireland. The mass-circulating pro-Conservative press had been campaigning for months to get the prisoner, Lee Clegg, released. He had been given a life sentence and spent just over three years.

T.U.C. pressure

The T.U.C. conference saw an open confrontation between the party and trade union leadership. The mood at the Blackpool conference was reflected best by Mr. Rodney Bickerstaffe, UNISON's general secretary. "We are not in the pockets of the Labour Party". UNISON is no ordinary trade union. It is Britain's largest union, and its main demand is a £4.26 per hour wage if it is to accept a £3.82 per hour minimum as this year's local government pay deal, reports Robert Taylor, the F.T.'s employment editor covering the conference. Mr. Arthur Scargill, the veteran TUC leader and president of the National Union of Mineworkers mirrored the conference mood best. "I am sick and tired of Labour Party leaders telling us not to rock the boat, and then interfering in our affairs".

The Trade Union Congress (TUC) is the strong arm of the Labour Party. That is a commonplace which all students of traditional British parliamentary politics have taken as axiomatic, more or less. But the relationship, under pressure in a fast-changing Britain, is a genuinely new challenge to the Labour Party as settled in its old ways, as the Conservatives.

The transatlantic and the continental or regional, meaning the European Union, is a major center of power in the post-Cold War World. Geo-politics is reinforced by the economic, and in the post-Cold War world, economic self-interest and regionalism reinforce each other, as the western world's major rival "Asia-Pacific" demonstrates. A Britain that cannot make up its mind will surely fall between two stools unless it reconstructs each relationship to gain from both.

A Blair administration's other tough ask would be to join "the decision-making trokia of the European Union, six months before Britain assumes the presidency with the introduction of a single currency promising upheaval for all the states involved. Already known to most of Fleet Street as "Labor's whizz-kid" and/or "Kingmaker", Robin Cook will play a vital role in a 21st century that will decide whether other emerging Big Powers, Japan or Germany for instance, recognize Great Britain or little England

The cries of "oppression" and "discrimination" caught fire only in the mental and geographical space of Jaffna - the grim black hole of Sri Lankan slavery which gave no light to the oppressed turumbas, a unique caste in South Asia, who were allowed to walk only at midnight. So when caste-fascists like Mr. Sivasithamparam raise cries of oppression I am reminded of Dr. Samuel Johnson's acid comment on the Negro slave-drivers of America: "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?" Mr. Sivasithamparam states that I raised the issue of caste fascism of the Jaffna Tamils to bypass his claim that the Tamils were oppressed. I couldn't have made it any clearer than to say that the only oppressed Tamils were the Indian Tamils in the estates and not the privileged Tamil elite in Jaffna. In fact, I asked the question: "How is it that this privileged Jaffna elite revolted when the Indian estate workers should have been the only group - irrespective of their ethnicity - that should have taken up arms? Does this not make it the Revolt of the Privileged and not the oppressed?" I asked.

Only the crude logic of Mr. Sivasithamparam could conclude from this that I "indirectly admit the oppression of the Tamils" by the Sinhalese. How can the privileged caste-elite in Jaffna be oppressed when the PQLI index - i.e., health, education, life-span and other facilities - was the highest in Sri Lanka? The Jaffna Tamils occupied the best places in the legal, medical, academic and administrative (mercantile and state) professions. They held some of the commanding positions in the formal and informal sectors of the economy. They had a viable agricultural sector which accumulated profits by selling its products to the south. Considering these and other factors, I stated categorically that it was not the cry of the oppressed but that of a moribund caste-elite fighting to retain their privileges threatened by market forces and the liberalism which were undermining their decadent and dying social structures. So how can the Revolt of the Privileged be a revolt of the oppressed?

This leads directly to the question of oppression in Sri Lanka. Without going deeply into Marxist or libertarian views on this issue, questions can be raised as to who suppressed whom, or whether oppression was on ethnic, class, linguistic, religious and other bases. The Marxist perceived oppression arising from an exploitative class in urban areas and they generally ignored the rural sector. The libertarians, along with the Tamil communalists, mainly argued on human rights, constitutional and egalitarian principles. Irrespective of these debates on imported values, two post-independent movements rose on the cries of oppression and discrimination - JVPers in the south and the post-Vaddukoddai Resolution violence of the north. The remarkable similarities in both movements point also to the commonalty of the underlying cause. Long before the passing of the Vaddukoddai Resolution of 1976 which unleashed the brutal violence of the fascist upper-caste in Jaffna, it is the pro-Marxist Sinhala youths who raised the cry of oppression and took up arms. If they were in a minority like the Tamils they would have seen their cause not in terms of vulgarized Marxism, as they did, but as victims of ethnicity.

In the case of the Jaffna Tamil youth, who grew up in an enclosure of virulent communalism and oppressive casteism, their enemies were ear marked as targets when successive events took a critical turn: 1) the oppressive caste establishment in Jaffna and 2) the Sinhala-Buddhists who for generations have been portrayed as the evil outsider threatening the internal order of Jaffna. Besides, their inveterate communalism made them paranoid over imagined and some real mistakes of the Sinhala-Buddhists. Despite these regional and ethnic differences the youths of both communities felt alienated, deprived of their rightful places in society and rejected by the establishment.

But the irony is that only the cry of the most privileged group in Jaffna was heard right round the world. Why? Answer: Because they were privileged. The educated and skilled Jaffna professionals, who fanned out to gain privileged positions in the Western Diaspora, were in a commanding position to raise the cry of oppression through the naive fora of Western societies which are easily sucked in by cries of "oppression". Some gullible and some Johnsonian Westerners never stopped to ask the Tamils abroad: If you were that oppressed how come you are able to acquire education and skills that fit you so readily into First World requirements? Had they paused to look a bit deeper they would have realized that the Jaffna Tamils did not acquire those skills on the plane to Western destinations but that they gained everything through the enormous benefits distributed by a welfare state to all communities, without any discrimination: free education up to the university, free health services, subsidized food, transport etc. What is more, their best talents came down to the south and earned their experience, fame and fortune by selling their skills to the Sinhalese. A witty saying summed up the relationship between Jaffna and Colombo: "While the son shines in Colombo the father gathers the harvest in Jaffna." And why not? There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong in treating members of other communities as equals.

The fact remains that though the Tamils did not treat their own people as equals the Sinhalese, with all their limitations, did treat all communities as their equals. My whole point is that there was no oppression per se by any Sri Lankan government though there were in the main economic disparities and some mistaken policies that created the perception in the minds of the Jaffna elite of discrimination and oppression by the government. What should not be ignored is that the identical economic disparities and the mistaken policies created the perception of oppression and discrimination among the Sinhala youths too. Besides, the fact that of all the Tamil groups only the Jaffna elite made an issue of so-called discrimination and oppression indicates clearly that it was not an issue common to all Tamils but purely a regional issue of the privileged upper-class in Jaffna. If the Sri Lankan government had a booming economy as in Singapore the youth coming out of universities would have fitted into the middle and higher echelons of society which, in turn, could have averted the southern and northern violence. What is called ethnic discrimination and oppression exclusively by the Jaffna Tamils is the distortion of the economy coupled with their inability to maintain their parity of political status enjoyed under the British raj.

Their declining political power was aggravated by the loss of jobs, particularly in recruitment to the public service - the only growth industry at the time. The elitist upper-caste also feared the loss of income from competitive professions like legal services where the Chelvanayakams, Ponnambalams and the Sivasithamparams anticipated a fall in income as a result of losing the competitive edge to those lawyers proficient in Sinhala. The irony is that Hulftsdorp, which has been the last bastion of reactionaries, joined the Language issue almost en masse because the members of the legal profession - be they Sinhala, Tamil or Muslim - were not competent to conduct cases in Sinhala. It was basically the hip-pocket nerve of the Tamil leadership, most of whom were in the legal profession, that sent them out into the streets to protest against the Sinhala Only Act.

The self-centered and intransigent arrogance of the Tamil leadership is shown in this act of misleading their own people. No public servant can serve his/her public without knowing the Language of the public. Yet the Tamil leaders demanded that the Tamils be recruited and promoted as public servants without knowing the Language of 75 per cent of the population. It was acceptable under a colonial government which had no regard for the basic needs of the people. But no democratic government, delivering services to the people, could employ public servants who knew the language of only 18 per cent of the population. In Sri Lanka not only were the Tamils required to learn Sinhala but also the Sinhala public servants were required to learn Tamil and the Burghers were asked to learn both native Languages. And those who refused to accept this policy were given the option of early retirement. How much more democratic can one be? How much more multi-cultural can one be?

The language discrimination that affects all communities is quite evident. One has only to go for a job interview at any level above that of a peon to see how hard language hits you. Invariably, the English-educated candidate stands a better chance than the non-English speaking person. But the Tamils and their fellow-travelers perceive it as a problem affecting only the Tamils who do not speak Sinhala. The dominance of English as an instrument of power at key levels ignores the fact that linguistic discrimination affects all communities. Clear evidence of the Sinhala Only Act to effect any significant shift in Language to empower the majority community came to the fore when the fascist JVPers raised the issue of "kaduwa" as a key slogan. But only the slogans of Tamil linguistic discrimination thundered from 1956. Why? Because it was merely perceived by the privileged Tamil upper-caste, who were aided and abetted by the Westernized, English-educated Sinhala elite, that it would affect their sources of income, their status, privileges and style of life. In reality, however, the Sinhala Only Act has not affected the privileged classes of all communities. The Tamils and the Muslims who always invested in English continued to do so. And the priviligentsia in all communities continued to educate their children in private schools or send them abroad. In hindsight, it is obvious that it is the Sinhala people who suffered by switching over to their mother tongue.

If you leave out the misleading perception and get down to reality where can you find the oppression and the discrimination? The critical question raised by the Mahanayakes goes right to the heart of this issue: Tell us what are the advantages that we have that you don't have? The Sinhalese and the Tamils have suffered inter-ethnic violence and the crunching violence of the state on an equal basis. Poverty affects all communities. The underclass of all communities suffered the same indignities of inequality, except in Jaffna where the "untouchables" were treated as slaves. Some bear their oppression with great pain unexpressed in political violence. All have experienced discrimination of one sort or another - political, social, class, ethnic, religious, caste and language - at one time or another. At the same time, all share the same benefits of free education, free health, free money through poverty alleviation programs, subsidized food to the south and free food, medicine and other essentials to the north etc. Despite break-downs in social order, all have carried their share of burdens. In short, there has been a generous and equal distribution of iniquities and equities all round without discrimination. If, therefore, oppression and discrimination of one sort or another is common to all, why should only the privileged fascist caste in Jaffna cry to high heaven about their imaginary and exaggerated claims of oppression?

I must also confess that Mr. Sivasithamparam's coyness in refusing to raise the caste issue of the Sinhala community for fear of "offending the susceptibilities of the Sinhala people for no purpose" tickled my funny bone no end. These gobbelsian gestapos who have gone round the world denigrating the Sinhala-Buddhists as evil barbarians, have suddenly realized that they should not offend "the susceptibilities of the Sinhala people." Pah! Such concern, such consideration makes me weep not with sorrow but laughter. The fact is that he cannot present another example of such fascist terror that subjugated the humble and the helpless "outcasts" in Jaffna and so he adopts the coyness of a village virgin that does not befit a politician who belongs to a mob that once said that they would not rest until they have skinned the Sinhala man alive and worn those dried skins as slippers on Tamil feet. Come off it, Mr. Sivasithamparam! Whom are you trying to con now?

It is quite apparent that you are trying to dodge my question by pretending to be shy. No one is going to be offended by another example where a society consciously used fascist casteism to oppress fellow-man as a beast. But the fact is you can't. Your fascist gestapos have conned your own people, conned some sections of the nation, conned the do-gooders of the world through your deliberate distortions of the truth and now you're pretending to be one of those "honorable men." Unfortunately for you, Shakespeare whose knowledge of politics and politicians would even surpass that of any political scientist today nailed your type of "honorable men" sardonically about three centuries ago. (See Julius Caesar - III.2) Nevertheless, tell me, if the TULF leaders are so "honorable" why is Mr. Ponnambalam (Jr.) pouring buckets of sewage on your heads in public? And why are you pouring night-soil all over him in return?

Due to constraints of space I shall return another day to the agreements that he claims were not honored by the Sinhala leaders. I shall conclude this point by citing the examples of another "honorable Tamil leader", Mr. Velupillai Prabhakaran. The Indo-Sri Lanka agreement was signed, with the advise and consent of your party and leader, Mr. A. Amirthalingam, by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Mr. Prabhakaran. Who reneged on it, Mr. Sivasithamparam? Who betrayed the talks with President Ranasinghe Premadasa and started massacring innocent Muslims and Sinhalese in East, Mr. Sivasithamparam? And who scuttled the well-meaning talks initiated by President Chandrika Kumaratunga, Mr. Sivasithamparam? Mr. Prabhakaran is so "honorable" and so "humane" that he even ordered the execution of the two earlier peace-makers - Rajiv Gandhi and President Premadasa. Is this the caliber of the "honorable" Tamil Leaders, Mr. Sivasithamparam?

Mr. Sivasithamparam is also emotionally upset that I have attacked his political heroes - Sir P. Arunachalam, Sir P. Ramanathan and of course, Bishop Kenneth Fernando. Readers will remember how I portrayed Sir P. Arunachalam as the only Gulliver in a land of communal Lilliputians. But this does not prevent Mr. Sivasithamparam from accusing me of "abusing great men" like Sir P. Arunachalam. As for the role of Sir P. Ramanathan may I ask him to refer Prof. K.M. De Silva's article which he quoted so approvingly earlier. Bishop Kenneth Fernando is a different kettle of fish altogether. First, I must declare that I cannot respect a servant of Christ, however high the rank may be in the Church, who sanctifies "Asia's latest Pol Pot" (The New York Times) as a "humane" person. Second, I think such a statement is not only a denial of basic facts but also a moral distortion. Third, it lacks fidelity to fundamental Christian values. He may be respected by Mr. Sivasithamparam and his gang of fascist gestapos because such statements glorify their political violence. But I refuse to play by those hypocritical rules. And, as far as I know, great men have never condoned Pol Potists brutality in any era. With due respect to his office, may I say that Bishop Fernando must earn his respect by apologizing to his more concerned community of Anglicans. Otherwise he leaves himself open to one of those recurring questions in Christianity: If Christ can be sold for thirty pieces of silver why can't another member of His Church sell the congregation and Christ for a few biscuits and a glass of orange barley offered so considerately by Mr. Velupillai Prabhakaran?

I dare not exceed this limit of space to deal with other aspects including how I took the Mickey out of Mr. (Reggie and Regi) Siriwardena. But before I conclude I wish to thank Mr. Sivasithamparam for giving me another opportunity to expose his type of "honorable men", their blatant distortions of social and historical reality and their unashamed communalism and caste fascism. So please don't stop writing. You will break my heart if you do. And I mean it. Truly. So please keep writing. Thanks.