Sinhala or Tamil? A Brief Intro of the History of the Sri Lankan Conflict
The roots of almost every major conflict in the 20th and 21st centuries can be traced back to a rise in nationalism. Hand in hand with the rise of nationalism comes the power of religious fundamentalists and opportunistic politicians. A small tear-drop shaped country that produces tea treasured throughout the world, and has scenery to rival that of New Zealand’s, learned first hand the devastation caused by nationalism and its counterparts. Nationalism in Sri Lanka came in the form of lingual conflict more than anything else. Tamil or Sinhala was the crux of the matter.
Sri Lanka is made of a diverse population, the two major constituents of which are the Sinhalese Buddhists and the Tamil Hindus. Sinhala is a language that is similar to other Indo-Aryan languages such as Marathi and Gujurati. The Tamil language is part of the Dravidian branch of languages, primarily used in Southern India and Sri Lanka. It is important to note that there are also Sinhalese and Tamil Christians, Muslims, Tamil Buddhists, and Sinhalese Hindus. But the conflict is between the two primary factions of Tamil Hindus and Sinhalese Buddhists.
The Sinhalese far right contingent claims that Sri Lanka is Sihidipa, the island of the Sinhalese, and Dhammadipa, the land of Buddhism. The Sinhalese also believe that they were the first to settle Sri Lanka, and have contentious discussions with Tamils over who settled the land first. However, the idea of Buddhism and the Sinhalese right to Sri Lanka has continued and propagated through generations.
Sri Lanka has suffered through two of the most horrific civil wars witnessed by the world, and is presently engaged in an uneasy “covert” war between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sinhalese-dominated Government of Sri Lanka.
It is a country violently torn between two opposing factions, consumed by hatred, accustomed to discrimination, and indoctrinated with a culture of war. Given such a tainted, hostile environment, one must wonder if peace can stand a chance. Although the issue between the factions in the war is now complex, it stemmed from a rather uncomplicated series of events.
Before independence, Tamils formed 33% of the civil service, 40% of the judicial service, and 31% of the students in the university system. But in Sri Lanka, Sinhalese were the majority population at 74%1. After the right to vote was granted universally in 1931, and in an effort to ward off ethnic inequality, the Tamils and the Sinhalese joined as one force to demand independence from Britain through the 1930s and 40s.
When Sri Lanka became independent in 1948, the country was on a forked path. One fork led to ethnic conflict, the other to harmony. 1952 was the first true election campaign, and the major decision to be made revolved around whether the official language should be Sinhala, Tamil, or both, or remain English. During this election, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) took the platform supporting language parity. It seemed as though Sri Lanka would successfully transition into self-government without becoming a country of chaos.
However in 1956 the SLFP and their leader SWRD Bandaranaike reversed their language parity position and decided to pursue a platform of Sinhala only. This was possibly the greatest mistake in terms of future consequences, but also the best option for politically maneuvering SLFP into power.
Bandaranaike realized that the best way to mobilize the Sinhalese majority was to polarize the Tamils and the Sinhalese to opposite sides of the language issue. To accomplish this, Bandaranaike took to the streets and claimed that the Sinhalese were fighting against the Tamils in an issue that would determine whether or not they would be socially marginalized in a Tamil-dominated Sri Lanka. He even went so far as to threaten that the use of Tamil as a national language would eventually lead to complete assimilation into India.
Bandaranaike and his divisive platform went on to win the 1956 election, and that June, the House of Representatives passed Official Language Act No. 33, making Sinhala the only official language of Sri Lanka.
At first, the Tamil population reacted with non-violent protests but their efforts were met with Sinhalese anti-Tamil riots that killed over 150 Tamils. The consequences of the Sinhala Only Act were both immediate and far reaching. The Act in itself showed that Sri Lanka would be run by majority rule at the expense of the rights of the minority. It also served as an omen of the discriminatory actions that would later be taken by the Sri Lankan government in the name of protecting the Sinhalese from becoming a minority in Sri Lanka.
After the passage of the Sinhala Only Act, Bandaranaike made a pact with the Tamil’s Federal Party (FP) leader, Chelvanayakam, to allow the Tamil language to be used for all administrative purposes in the Northern and Eastern provinces (where the Tamils were concentrated). But the SLFP’s rival party, the United National Party (UNP), used demagoguery to rouse the masses and the idea of language parity disappeared again, buried under more Tamil corpses from anti-Tamil riots.The SLFP would not stand up to the UNP and sacrifice its grasp on power for a minority Tamil population.
In keeping with a notable South Asian trend, Bandaranaike was assassinated in 1959 by a Buddhist monk who, ironically, believed that Bandaranaike was not doing enough for the Sinhalese. Then, in keeping with another notable South Asian trend more or less perpetuated across the subcontinent to this very day, the SLFP put Bandaranaike’s wife, Sirimavo, in charge.
Sirimavo worked to expand the rift between the Sinhalese and the Tamils, and thereby solidify her own power. Under her rule, the government passed the Language of the Courts Bill in 1961, which forced all courts and officials to use only Sinhala. Although similar to the earlier ruling that made Sinhala the only national language, the ‘61 ruling effectively disenfranchised those who were Tamil and did not speak Sinhala. At the same time, Sirimavo replaced Tamils in government service positions with Sinhalese workers, and did away with the old guarantee of equality of opportunity. As though that wasn’t enough, during Sirimavo’s first years in government while still finishing her husband’s term, she managed to turn the Sri Lankan army into a force essentially dedicated to reducing the Tamil population and their rights.
In 1972, during her second session of government, Sirimavo passed a law that reinforced Sinhala as the only official language and also promoted Buddhism over over other religions. She supported ethnic quotas and cut-offs, and reworked the education system such that Tamil students had to score at least 20 points over the average acceptance score of the Sinhalese students in order to be competitive2.
By the time Prime Minister Jayawardene (UNP) came into power in August of 1978, nothing could truly reverse the damaging effects of the past two decades of discrimination. Jayawardene did, however, pass a new constitution that made Tamil a national language and also created an electoral system designed to help Tamils influence who remained in power.
But the concessions came too little too late: the Tamils had already had enough, and rebelled in large numbers in the Northern and Eastern areas of Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, Jayawardene was no different from his predecessors in that he ignored the underlying causes of the rebellion, and resorted to military repression instead of dialogue.
In 1979, the government passed the Prevention of Terrorism Act that acted much like the current anti-terrorism acts in the United States. It suspended basic rights and gave the military and police authority to arrest anyone based purely on suspicion, and hundreds of Tamils were tortured and imprisoned as a result. The last straw was in July of 1983, when Tamil rebels killed a force of 13 soldiers. This roused the Sinhalese to action and led to many violent, deadly riots and massacres. Entire Tamil neighborhoods were burned down, people were dragged out of their homes and killed in the streets, businesses were torched, and the Sinhalese effectively set their economy, academia and society back by several decades.This was the beginning of the civil war3.
The most tragic part of all of the rioting is that the government failed to intervene, and in some instances, even aided in the deaths of the Tamils. The LTTE is not an outlet of mischief for a troublesome band of Tamil rebels, but an organization formed out of necessity, to stand up for Tamils at a time when nobody would. It is a monster of the Sinhalese government’s own creation.
In hindsight, Sri Lanka’s conflicts are examples of extreme administrative folly and political selfishness, perpetuated by nationalism. There is no excuse for the behavior of the politicians: had they not resorted to appealing to the worst in their people, and abused cultural differences and nationalist fervor to rile up the Sinhalese, then the deep divide between the Tamils and the Sinhalese would have been far less pronounced, the riots may never have occurred, and the culture of violence they spawned might never have been.
References:
1. CIA World Factbook
2. Politics of Conflict and Peace in Sri Lanka by P. Sahadevan and Neil Devotta.
3. Sri Lanka: Witness to History- A Journalist’s Memoirs by Subramanium Sivanayagam
Photo Courtesy: sharynmorrow, indi
Related Articles:
Email This Article
(2 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)
Loading ...
One can draw a parallel between Sri Lanka and Pakistan, where Urdu was being forced onto the Bengalis, ultimately leading to the break-up of the country.
Very well written.
[Reply]
What a whitewash! Perhaps you’d like to justify other terrorist groups?
[Reply]
PJ Reply:
January 20th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
wat?
[Reply]
an American Reply:
February 5th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
You cannot cover the truth for long time.
TERRORIST… TERRORIST…. TERRORIST. under this word you cannot clean a ethnicity. after the Binladen been killed World will correct this word….. actually from some corner people began to ask whats terrorist mean? I the time come to explain the real meaning to terririst. you’re no longer to use this shit to LTTE anymore the times getting closely
[Reply]
DRB Reply:
February 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“Terrorist” groups are justified all the time. Weren’t the 13 colonies who rebelled against the British government and formed the USA, terrorists? Think of all colonists loyal to England who lost their lives.
Any way you carve it up, segregation will lead to oppression. Oppression will lead to rebellion. Rebellion will lead to war. Without segregation, there is no war. When an institution denies a someone’s right to exist, they are asking to be attacked.
[Reply]
Thank you for writing an article on Sri Lanka - it’s wonderful to see South Asian students write about the isle.
A few comments/observations:
Why have you not mentioned LTTE’s terrorist activites or its desire to create a home in the North? What about its recruitment of child soldiers or its suicide bombs in Colombo, Kandy, Batticloa, and Trincomalee?
LTTE remains a threatening terrorist group that still does not represent majority of Tamils on the island or abroad. While you may think LTTE is an organization that “stands up for Tamils at a time when nobody would”, you could at least illustrate some clear examples of the organization defending their “people’s” rights in a peacefully demonstrative way.
Furthermore, racial tensions in Sri Lanka date to the 1st century AD, when Singhalese and Tamil kingdoms fought wars over territory and treasures. The 20th century civil war originated during the indepdence movement and the Ceylon National Congress, when Sri Lankan leaders disbanded on ethnic and racial lines.
You don’t even mention of the Norwegian peace keepers, the terror that many innocent victims endure all over the island by both armies, and the humanitarian crisis affecting Jaffna and other Northern cities. Why?
[Reply]
an American Reply:
February 5th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
didnt you see the writer missed to mention 80thousand tamil innocent people whom killed by shingala goverment troops?
its not suprissed me you didnt got the writer main point. if understood the main point you wont waste this time to your comment
[Reply]
Human Reply:
April 4th, 2010 at 2:20 am
Hey “an American”, It’s not only Tamils who died in the war.. Sinhalese and Muslims have died in significant numbers too i.e. when the LTTE hacked Sinhala villagers to clear way for their Tamil only state, when the LTTE massacred Muslims to drive them out of the North and East, when the LTTE blew themselves up in public places to get attention, etc..
[Reply]
PIO Pragash Reply:
February 5th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
I think a lot of the issues of LTTE terrorism has been left out mainly because there is no way to fairly discuss it. Because if you discuss LTTE terrorism, it cannot be viewed without a fair recounting of the atrocities committed against Tamil civilians by both the SriLankan and Indian military forces. that would Simply take up far too much space and make the article unwieldy. The recent historical approach proves to be very informative and fairly unbiased - I don’t see how anyone can really argue with any of the facts outlined in it. This article will definitely be bookmarked by me. Thanks!
[Reply]
Suchismita Reply:
April 5th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
To everyone who commented,
There is a follow up article for this, this is part of a two part series. Please read that as well for the rest of the history/overviews.
[Reply]
Thank you so much for writing this whole thing about what really happened. I’m doing an research write now and I’m planning to show this too the class. I’m glad that I came across this and I am also very glad that I can comment on this aswell. All i have to say its… I’ll definitely be using these facts….I believe this as welll and most importantly I have to say that this is well written.
[Reply]
Srilankan, really you are a racist Sinhaleese like your politicians. May be Sinhaleese can defeat LTTE. They will never live with peace with other minority communities. One day Lord Budha destroy the Srilanka because of the Sin which Sinhaleese are doing now.
[Reply]
VJ Reply:
January 28th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Lord Buddha doesn’t destroy - by default.
[Reply]
blueberrybloomdonut Reply:
February 16th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
now he is. take a look at the news
[Reply]
Human Reply:
April 4th, 2010 at 2:17 am
The Sinhalese live peacefully with a lot of minorities in the South - The Tamils, The Muslims, the Burghers, the Malays, etc.. The Jaffna Tamils live and dream of a mono-ethnic state for only Tamils. I wonder who it is then that can’t deal with being with members of other races.
[Reply]
peace will be here when the love come to power.
until that time killer or Hitler they keep born and die under the name of politician. During thier living time innocent people have only one option dying as in srilanka where over 80 thousand civilian lost thier live to gov troops.
[Reply]
First off, the one who is claiming to be “an American” writes in such broken English that I’m left to question the authenticity of their identity.
Lastly, this article is amazing. It is concise yet thorough. It brings to mind a quote that I once heard in lecture, “They were not terrorists at heart, but they became terrorists after they felt their government had deserted them.” The professor was French and she was referring to Algerians during their war for independence, but, truly, she could have been talking about anyone; Palestinians, American forefathers, Tamil Tigers, Urdus, anyone.
I believe it is a universal human trait to stand up and fight against injustice, unfairness and oppression. Well, maybe not everyone actually does it, but if you push around enough people, at least one of them will stand up and take arms against their evildoers.
In short: Well done!
[Reply]
Irish Heart Reply:
June 15th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Absolutely, I am not Tamil, but my heart bleeds for the 300,000 people locked in camps today.
[Reply]
Human Reply:
April 4th, 2010 at 2:15 am
There are no 300,000 people locked up in camps. A significant portion of them have been settled in some way (not without problems). The rest stay at the camps of their own free will (due to the lack of facilities outside of the camps).
[Reply]
A concise and a well written article. The situation is only getting worse. The killing in Vanni is going unnoticed or ignored by the world community and media. The inaction by the world and UN in the past led to many genocide. I pray that these killing would be stopped.
[Reply]
It is inevitable that political solution must be made if SLankans want peace in the country…….u must be stupid to think that you can kill people who took up arms to fight and expect everyone to put down the weapons and live a normal life, espcially after putting their families through such a horrific bloodbath……
[Reply]
’sin’halese !
[Reply]
Human Reply:
April 4th, 2010 at 2:13 am
Racist.
[Reply]
Suchismita Reply:
April 5th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
I’d like to encourage constructive discussion. Please do not disparage either Tamils, or Sinhalese, or any others.
[Reply]
Every word written in your article consists of PURE TRUTH. I wouldn’t have put it any other way. This is perfect. I will be showing this to all my friends and colleagues. I will shine some light on your article as you have done so on the Tamil and LTTE. You my friend are a hero with words. You my friend have a big heart. You my friend are living truth. You my friend…I’m proud of you. Continue to do what you do. One day, you’ll make it far and you’ll change the world with you strong words. Thank you.
[Reply]
That article ignores the terms that Dudley Senanayake served in the late-60s when he again tried to broker a deal that was acceptful to Tamils and the conflict between Sirimavo’s government and the Sinhalese rebels in 1971. Was Sinhala nationalism behind the subjugation of this rebellion as well?
Tamil Nationalism was present during this period as well btw.
And considering that Sirimavo was rejected by the Sinhalese majority after both her terms it doesn’t seem to me they supported her “Sinhala nationalism”. In 1977 J. R. came to power with the biggest majority in history and there’s also the 1971 revolution by Sinhalese students which shows significant discontent with her policies by the Sinhalese majority. She came to power by appealing to Sinhalese nationalism but her policies were not approved by the Sinhalese majority as her lack of popularity indicates.
[Reply]
Suchismita Reply:
April 5th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Actually, its not a matter of ignoring as much as a matter of the fact that the late ’60s attempted peace brokerage, as noted by Dr. Neil Devotta from Sri Lanka, was unable to succeed because of domestic bureaucratic politics. It was an offer that was made, but not committed to by Dudley because he was facing a fall out from the opposition in his own party.
The fact that she was rejected after both terms does not really bear on the issue that she and her policies still polarized the state. Also, students, academia, and professionals were targets of government destruction policies throughout the entirety of the civil unrest and civil war.
This is not an indictment of people (the Sinhalese or the Tamils) but a recap of what happened, where it went wrong, and what is going on.
[Reply]
“The LTTE is not an outlet of mischief for a troublesome band of Tamil rebels, but an organization formed out of necessity, to stand up for Tamils at a time when nobody would.”
This is crap. The LTTE was not the only Tamil group that was formed but was the most violent and totalitarian of the bunch. It came to stand for the “Tamil cause” because it eliminated all the other groups.
And standing up for Tamils is inciting violence in the South? i.e. actions of the LTTE directly led to the 1983 riots.
When it seems clear that views were changing among the Sri Lankan politicians as J. R. made Tamil a national language and ended Standardization why is an armed struggle necessary? J. R.’s actions surely indicate a viability of a democratic process.
African Americans didn’t gain rights in America by waging a racist secessionist war. There seemed to be no one to stand up for them in the early 1900s too but now a member of the community is president. Should they have formed a group like the LTTE instead to “stand up for them”?
[Reply]
Suchismita Reply:
April 5th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
I agree that it later gained its position by eliminating other rival Tamil groups that would have sued for peace. Once again, please refer to other articles on this site regarding LTTE and Sri Lanka.
[Reply]
Leave your response!
Ads
Past Issues
Most Viewed
Google Calendar
Donate to Nazar
Fan Of Nazar?
Get RSS from Nazar
Recent Comments
Most Commented
Most Viewed
Opinions expressed in articles are those of the corresponding author and do not not necessarily represent the views of Nazar - A South Asian Perspective.
Nazar - A South Asian Perspective is not an official publication of The University of Texas at Austin and does not represent the views of the University or its officers.
Nazar - A South Asian Perspective is a University of Texas registered student organization.
All articles on NazarOnline.net are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.