he distance between Tamil Nadu and Eelam, which
is presently called as Sri Lanka, is only 30 miles. Traditionally, for
thousands of years Tamils lived on either side of the sea which was called as
Kunakadal (Eastern Sea) as per the ancinet literary records of Tamils. The
traditional homeland of Tamils in the island Eelam was later occupied by the
migrants led by ostracised Prince Vijaya from the present day north India and
they became Sinhalese. These are historical facts known to everyone. While
referring to the archaelogical excavations at Kandarodai in Sri Lanka, the
Sinhalese historian Paul E. Pierris says that "“ it stands to reason that
a country which is ony 30 miles from India and which would have been seen by
Indian fishermen every morning as they sailed to catch their fish would have
been occupied as soon as the sub-continent was peopled by men who understood
how to sail. I suggest that the North of Ceylon was a flourishing settlement
before Vijaya was born”.
The excavations on the citadel mounds at
Anuradhapura in 1969 and at Kandarodai in 1970 by the Department of Archaelogy
of Sri Lanka showed that there were pre-Buddhist layers with a long history in
both these places. As these facts were not to the liking of the Sinhalese
government, it did not publish the full excavation report concerned till date.
However, an article written by a woman historian Ms. Vimala Beguly in 1973
throws adequate light on it. Truth always comes out somehow. She says, “Certain
ceramic types, especially in the Black and Red ware are parellel to those of
the iron age of south India and possibilities are great that settlers in both
areas were of common origin or at least in very close contact”. It is evident from her article that the site
concerned which lies on Valukkiyaru basis belongs to a culture known as
Megalithic culture.
And the period assigned to the Megalithic culture
in respect of South India including Ceylon is c.700 B.C. i.e., before the
period of the arrival of Sinhalese. “Wheeler
had earlier suggested a date-range of c.200 B.C. to A.D. 50. But, the recent
trend is to push back the date of the beginning of the megalithic culture to
about the eighth century B.C. The
radiocarbon dates for the chalcolithic cultures at Eran and Nevasa clearly
place its lower level to 600 B.C. and the fact of its overlap with the
megalithic culture at several sites, such as …Paiyampalli in District North
Arcot, Tamilnadu, a date in the neighbourhood of 700 B.C. at the earliest is
clearly established.” .
Dr. A. L. Basham, a distinguished Indian historian,
says “Dravidian infiltration into Ceylon must have been going on from the
earliest times and probably before the arrival of Vijaya” (Ceylon Historical
Journal, Vol. I. 1952 – Page 67). Says Dr. Pierris, “There were four recognised
Ishwarams (Siva shrines) which claimed and received the admiration of all
India” (Jounal of the Royal Asiatic Soiciety, C.B. 1917 – Pages 17 -18). Ibn
Batuta writes in 1344 A.D: “The ships of the king of Tamil Eelam were sailing
in hundreds towards Arabian countries with cargo. They could be converted into
war ships at times of war”. Robert Knox, a British who was arrested by the king
of Kandy and imprisoned for 19 years upto 1679 A.D, Adrean Relan and
Christopher Schwitzer, both of the same 17th century, say that the
Tamils in Ceylon had better culture and civilisation than the Sinhalese and
that both are living as separate race with special landscapes which had
earmarked frontiers which were easily identifiable.
But, the governments of the post-independent Sri
Lanka tried to build up the Sinhalese myth by suppressigng the Tamil truth.
That such a racial animosity and hatred is fuelled by the Sinhalese government
in an organised manner becomes evident even from the booklet titled ‘Facts on
Sri Lanka’ supplied by the Sri Lankan High Commission which says, “The island’s
history commences with the landing of Prince Vijaya and his 700 followers in
the sixth century B.C”. The country, then, was inhabited by two tribles, the
Yakkas and Nagas who were the aborigines of Sri Lanka. The new settlers, the
Aryans, came from North India and inhabited the central part of the island
along the fertile valleys”.
The foregoing is not to present, here, the
pre-history of Sri Lanka but only to explain the manner in which the Sinhalese majority blacks out even
the history of Tamils and does not concede the rights of Tamils even to cherish
their past. That was the reason the Sinhalese army destroyed 95, 000 books of famous Jaffna Tamil Library in June, 1981 and
7, 500 books (many being precious and ancient ) of the Hartley College Library
in September, 1984.
Though the Tamils and, later, the Sinhalese
existed in the island for centuries, the growth of their consciousness as a
separate people dates back to 1250 A.D. only. Until then, the entire island had
been ruled by both Tamil and Sinhalese rulers aternately. There took place a
major demographic movement in Sri Lanka from the thirteenth century onwards.
The Sinhalese drifted towards the southern, western and central regions and the
Tamils to the northern and eastern coastal belts. Even the above-mentioned
booklet of the Sri Lankan Embassy admits this fact, although, in part. “The
Sinhalese were compelled to abandon the northern parts of the country and
towards interior and the west”, it says. The situation remained virtually
frozen in this fashion for the past 750 years.
There had been ups and downs in the later history
of Tamils and Sinhalese. But, the Tamils who were celebrated by the Sinhalese
for their role in the freedom struggle against the British, started coveting
all, since 1948. There arose, then, the problems between Tamils and Sinhalese.
It was Oct.2, 1972. Dinamani, the Tamil newspaper
of the Indian Express group, said as follows, editorially:- "Demanding
equal rights, the Tamils (of Sri Lanka) have started their struggle in the Gandhian
way against the provisions of the new constitution which have rendered them as
second class citizens". The Tamils started their struggle symbolically on Oct.2,
1972, the birthday of Mahathma Gandhi. At that time there was no militancy.
The later-day militants had participated in the said struggle launched in
1972.The Sinhalese Government should have conceded their demands if they were
legitimate. Or convinced them that their demands were illegitimate. But it did
neither. In course of time, when the genocide of 1958 was sought to be
re-enacted, the very youth who participated in the non-violent movements took
to arms as that alone was the language understood by the Sinhalese. So it was
the Sinhalese Government which had driven these youth to resort to arms.
When Indira Gandhi visited Sri Lanka in April 1973, Jaffna Gandhi Chelva wanted appointment to meet her. She refused to meet him. Not to meet Chelva was the advice given to her by the bureaucrats of the Ministry of External Affairs at New Delhi. But, Indira went the whole hog and finalised the terms of handing over Kachativu in spite of all round opposition from Taminadu and many other national parties.
TULF started demanding separate Eelam only because the Sinhalese failed to keep the country united (Dinamani 09.09.1973).
They started again their agitation on 2 October 1973.
There was a general election in the island in the
year 1977. And the election manifesto of the Tamil United Liberation Front was
to have independent Tamil Eelam. It was on this plank that the election had
been conducted and the party had won all the seats in Eelam. The call for Eelam
was therefore the legal and rightful choice of the people of Eelam and
outsiders cannot compel the Eelam Tamils to remain subjected to Sinhalese
tyranny. It is surprising to the world community (except those who do not know
the Indian bureaucracy) how and why the Indian conscience is not shaken when
the far away Norwegians are so much concerned about this segment of humanity.
The 1977 election manifesto of the United
National Party of Jayawardane declared, “The UNP accepts the position that
there are numerous problems confronting the Tamil-speaking people. The lack of
solutionto their problems has made the Tamil-speaking people support even a
movement for the creation of a separate state”. This itself, other evidences
apart, testifies to the fact that that ‘the lack of solution to their problems’
was the cause and the ‘call for separate nation’ was the effect. The justification
in the demand of the Tamils for their Eelam has, clearly, been brought on
record by the Sinhalese themselves through the above mentioned declaration in
the manifesto.
The call for Eelam was an offshoot of the race-based
denial of birthrights of the Tamils for over three decades from 1948. If this
discrimination had been stopped, the need for the call for separate Eelam would
not have arisen at all.
The aforesaid manifesto went further and said
that “in the interest of national unity, so necessary for the economic
development of the whole country, the party feels such problems should be
solved without loss of time. The party when it comes to power will take all
possible steps to remedy their grievances in such fields such as (1) Education,
(2) Colonisation, (3) Use of Tamil language, (4) Employment in the public and
semi-public corporations”. But, in spite of having recognised and accepted, in
such categorical terms, the problems
plaguing the nation, the United National Party, after having come to power, not
only did not check the loss of time and the government-sponsored-colonisation
but, instead, accelerated the process of colonisation, especially during the years
1981 and 1982. The two main Sinhalese political parties were doing the
same thing repeatedly.
In regard to Sri Lanka, there were two occasions,
when the Tamils and Sinhalese had arrived at fairly reasonable settlements. The
first was in the year 1957 when the B-C
pact, the Bandaranaike and Chelvanayakam pact, was signed which provided for
Regional Councils. Jayawardane, who was in opposition led a violent march
against that settlement which resulted in the first phase of genocide of Tamils
of Sri Lanka. When Jawaharlal Nehru visited the island in 1958, Jaffna Gandhi Chelva wanted to meet him and explain the Tamils problem. But, Nehru did not even have the basic courtesy to meet Chelva. Not to meet Chelva was the advice given to Nehru by the bureaucrats of the Ministry of External Affairs at New Delhi. The resultatant imperious indifference of Nehru has been immortalised by Kannadasan;
In the year 1983, the same
Jayawardane who led the initial genocide of 1958 against Tamils had once again,
on 26.9.83, reiterated that he would not accept the 1958 Regional Councils
concept. He had on that day boasted once again of his participation in the
genocide of Tamils in the year 1958. The Annexure-C proposal of 1984 prepared by G.
Parthasarathy, the Indian diplomat, which did not involve much of the
participation of Tamils of Sri Lanka, was considered as reasonable from Indian
Central Government’s point of view. But the same Jayawardane had treated those
proposals with contempt and threw the same in the litter-bin. He had also seen
to it that Mr. Parthasarathy himself was thrown into the litter-bin and
replaced by Mr. Bhandari of his choice. Such was the influence of Jayawardane
over the malleable Indian bureaucrats in the South Block. What was puzzling was neither the Indian
bureaucrats nor the Sinhalese politicians explained how and why the Tamils were
not entitled to those rights. There was no discussion; no explanation by
the Indian bureaucrats; only questions with no answers. There is
no need for Tamils to accept anything less than the 1957 signed agreement or
the 1984 draft agreement.
The Indian Express had editorially said on 13th
July, 1981, “…the cause for Eelam has
picked up pace now…”. The Sinhalese would concede none of the demands of
Tamils. They do not want to accept even the very existence of Tamils. At best,
they want only Master and Servant relationship between them and the Tamils,
because they need slaves. Jayawardane made it very clear that the extent of
powers he would yield to Tamils would “be
the maximum devolution of powers which the majority is prepared to concede”
(Indian Express 5.9.1984). these
statements are nothing but threats to the Tamils who were converted as
‘minorities’ in the combined Sri Lanka. One may recall the way such threats are
made against Muslims in India by the RSS. “Let the minorities understand that their real
safety lies in the goodwill of the majority”, said the resolution passed by the
executive council of the RSS at Bangalore on 17.3.2002.
According to the Sinhalese leaders and the
Buddhist Monks of Sri Lanka, what counts is not what the Hindu Tamils are
entitled to naturally, as their birthrights but what the Sinhalese would
generously condescend to. It is this novel principle of political science that
has been and will remain the cause of so much human tragedy in Sri Lanka. But for such
a command that the minority should be at the mercy of the majority, the Eelam
Tamils would not have had to think of independent nation.
The Sinhalese had pushed the Tamils to resort to
violent means and then called it Terrorism. The Hindu had, in its editorial
dated 7.7.84 ridiculed Jayawardane from using the term terrorism to cover up
the Sinhalese misdeeds. It said, "The
second point concerns the bogey of 'terrorism' which Colombo imagines it
can use in a bid to place India on the defensive. Since the very use of the
term 'terrorist' tends to pre-empt the argument it must be clarified that the
phenomenon of militancy among the Lankan Tamil youth is primarily a political
phenomenon, reflecting the maturing of the crisis. When progress along the
constitutional lines becomes blocked, when normal and legitimate political
expectations are repeatedly frustrated, when it appears that there is no
solution within the rules of the game, historical experience
demonstrates it is a situation tailor-made, for the development of militancy,
including that part of it which takes recourse to non-peaceful methods".
While addressing a session
in the UN General Assembly Mr. P. Shiv Shankar, the former External Affairs
Minister had said, “Assassinations,
hijackings bombings have meant the death of hundreds of men, women and
children. I wish to reiterate the total opposition of my delegation to all acts
of terror, whether committed by individuals, groups or states. However, we
support the struggle of people under colonial and racist regimes and all sort
of foreign domination and occupation and of the national liberation movement
against their oppressors.”… “Their
struggle must not be confused with terrorism.”
When, soon after the SAARC summit in DEC. 1985 Mr Pritish Nandy of the
Illustrated Weekly of India asked Mr . Rajiv Gandhi about terrorism, Mr Rajiv
Gandhi replied, “Well, it’s all a question of definitions. When is terrorism
a freedom movement? When does terrorism versus human rights come in? These are
the sort of gray areas, you know”
Even
the Indian freedom struggle had its own share of violence in spite of
non-violence preached and practiced by Mahatma Gandhi for 27 years. And, what
is more, that violence has also been recognized as political
struggle. The High Court of Madras has held that even those who had not
followed the path of non-violence in the country’s freedom struggle come within
the definition of freedom fighters. In October 1984, the High court upheld the
claim of Mr Kannan, Vice-President of the Tamil Nadu branch of the Freedom
Fighters Organisation that he was a freedom fighter. Mr. Kannan and 19 others
belonging to a revolutionary organization were charged with committing offences
against the then Government between March 1932 and July 1933. Mr Kannan was
found guilty in what was known as the Madras Conspiracy case. Mr Justice G.
Ramanujam said that such people could not be excluded from the category of
freedom fighters merely because they did not believe in non- violence or their
approach was different from the path of non-violence. He observed: “Whether one
pursues the path of non-violence or violence, the aim is to secure freedom”…
“and as such both categories could be called political sufferers (R.R.Dalavi Vs.Union Government of India)
There was then the Thimpu meet organised by the
Government of India. As far as the Tamils are concerned, in spite of the
existence of moderates and militants and many splinter groups in both
categories, all of them had agreed on four
basic concepts as the common demand of the island Tamils during the 1985
Thimpu meet. Anything short of these demands would only pave way for the
'master and servant' relationship between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. They
were the demands of all sections of the Eelam Tamils. It may be recalled that
the UNP itself had accepted in the year 1977 that there were
"numerous" problems confronting the Tamils. If only these four
minimal demands had been accepted by the Sinhalese in 1985, the humanity would
not have witnessed another genocide later.
"…The direct and indirect acts of violence by
the Sri Lankan army and police against the Tamils have continued unabated and these
are the basic causes for the emergence of militancy on the part of the
Tamils in their struggle to save their honour and protect their
lives…"-says the memorandum presented to the Prime Minister on 23.4.85 by
an eight- party delegation led by Mr. M. G. Ramachandran, the Chief Minister of
Tamil Nadu." Besides the Chief Minister, "the delegation comprised
Mr.O.Subramaniam (Cong.I), Mr. M.Kalyanasundaram (CPI), Mr. N. Sankariah
(CPI-M), Mr. Kumari Anandan (GKNC), Mr. Abdus Samad (Muslim League), Mr.
K.Tamilarasan (Republican Party of India) and Mr. S.Andi Thevar (AIFB). The
State Chief Secretary Mr. T V Antony was also present at the meeting."
"The
delegation said that the Sri Lankan government, in an attempt to camouflage the
violence by its own army and police forces and commandos trained by foreign
forces, was seeking to highlight the Tamils' attempts to save their honour and
lives as militancy and terrorism. This should be exposed to the world
and the Indian Government should send a high-power delegation to various
countries to mobilize international opinion against the genocide in Sri
Lanka". If only the unanimous call of the people of Tamil Nadu as
evidenced through this statement had been heeded, the Sri Lanka would have
become a nation of peace and justice.
But, the Indian bureacrats in the Ministry of
External Affairs worsed the situation in Sri Lanka from the year 1986 when they
started meddling with the Sri Lankan problem in a partisan manner. They started
supporting Sinhalese in everything they wanted, without any care and concern
for Tamils’ history and rights.
The Hindu said, in its editorial dated 19.12. 1985, that Jayawardane and his associates were pursuing "brutally suppressive military and political course towards the Tamils".
As a
result, the 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka agreement, without involving Tamils, betrayed
Tamils totally. Para 2.18 of the agreement said inter-alia, “The official language of Sri Lanka shall be Sinhala. Tamil and English will also be official languages”.
The Indian officials who were party to this drafting scurried for cover and threatened the Tamils
when they asked the reason for the ‘shall’ and ‘will’ in this clause. The
north-Indian bureaucrat’s insensitivity
was the core and only reason for the sufferings of the Tamils in Eelam.
All the tragic consequences that followed the
immature agreement of 1987 are matters of recent history. The very serious and
initial tragedy, the offshoot of that agreement, was sending the Indian armed
force to Sri Lanka and placing it under the control of the small nation’s President
Jayawardane. No other country in the
world had ever reduced its sovereign army to the status of mercenary forces, but
the M.E.A. bureaucrats of India had reduced the majesty of Indian army thus.
They had, deliberately, thwarted the option of sending the United Nations Peace
Keeping Force. All this only because these bureaucrats had been insensitive to
the unequal position to which they were forcing the Eelam Tamils. The wily
Jayawardane set the Indian army, which had been placed at his disposal, against
innocent Tamils.
He converted the Tamil – Sinhalese conflict into
Tamil – IPKF conflict and was chuckling behind his chair. The Hindu,
which became pro-Sinhalese from 1987 onwards, had, however, printed in its
cover story in the Sunday Magazine of the Hindu on Dec.24, 1995, that the massacres committed by the IPKF troops on
the Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka have been
"well - documented in international reports". Another
slip-up on the part of this magazine was to publish the following three
sentences when Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer had called for a national
commission to inquire into the alleged IPKF excesses. "… many members of the Indian Forces suffered from the Occupation
Army syndrome of lawless loot and violent sex. I lament my inability to be
patriotic enough not to protest against Indian jawans in a foreign land if they
rob or rape, torture or practise gun culture. If one loves human rights one
must condemn this practice. Heavily censored media minimize and distort this
and both Colombo and Delhi are experts at the art", he said.
No bureaucrat of the Ministry of External Affairs
of India was ready to explain, till date, how such a phraseology over language
could be used in the abovementioned Para 2.18 when an agreement is entered into
in 1987 by India for Tamils of Sri Lanka especially when it was done without
involving the Tamils of Sri Lanka. The
Sri Lanka Freedom Party which had been formed by Bandaranaike in September,
1951 issued the founding manifesto with
the following declaration under the heading ‘National Languages’: “It is most essential that Sinhalese and Tamil be adopted as Official
Languages immediately, so that the people of this country may cease to be
aliens in their own land....The administration of the government must be
carried on in Sinhalese and Tamil”.
"Violence is lured by inequality,
non-violence by equality."
-Mahatma Gandhi
-As quoted in the first page of the Employment News,
a Government of India publication in
November 1999.
Indian
Express- September 28, 1986
Article
of Mr.A.G.Noorani, ‘SAARC and Terrorism’ -Indian Express, February 21, 1986
