Tamils in Srilanka

http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=28569

A Conservative Party politician in the United Kingdom, Dr. Rachel Joyce, apologised Sunday for the error of Colonial Britain in making a unitary Ceylon out of two nations, the Tamils and the Sinhalese. “The Tamil people have lived on the island currently called Sri Lanka for millennia - in their own contiguous, distinct, geographical territory. They lay claim only to the territory they have historically lived in. In fact, the 3 million Tamils of the island constituted a self governing nation until invaded and occupied by Colonial powers – in particular Britain, who amalgamated them with the Sinhala nation purely for convenience. In retrospect, this cultural naivety was a mistake that has caused problems since independence,” she said in a meeting held at Harrow, where Bruce Fein, a constitutional expert from the United States was the guest speaker.

Excerpts from the speech:

The Tamil people have lived on the island currently called Sri Lanka for millennia - in their own contiguous, distinct, geographical territory. They lay claim only to the territory they have historically lived in. In fact, the 3 million Tamils of the island constituted a self governing nation until invaded and occupied by Colonial powers – in particular Britain, who amalgamated them with the Sinhala nation purely for convenience. In retrospect, this cultural naivety was a mistake that has caused problems since independence. I would like to apologise for the British part in that error.

At the time of independence in 1948, both 3 million Tamils and 17 million Sinhalese inherited a reasonably healthy state. Sri Lanka’s prosperity could have been set, with a good geographical position for trade, a strong and productive economy, and a beautiful setting for a tourist industry as well.

Unfortunately, since then there has been an increasing catalogue of cultural and human rights atrocities. The chances for the two peoples to continue to live side by side, as two distinct, though not antagonistic cultures, has continually been threatened. Why did the government on the island, as one of its first acts, make 1 million Tamils of Indian origin stateless? Many of these Tamils were 6th generation and had no other home. Why also did they opt for the ‘Sinhala Only’ Language Act in 1956?

And, 25 years later, what could possibly be the logic of Sinhala police torching the Jaffna library and its ninety seven thousand rare historical books and manuscripts in 1981?

Part of the problem here ironically is the democracy in Sri Lanka. I am a strong supporter of democracy, but there are different degrees of democracy. The Economist labels Sri Lanka a "flawed democracy" in its 2006 rankings. This is because there is a minority – the Tamils – who will always be at a significant disadvantage electorally. If Scotland wanted to leave the United Kingdom, and voted to do so, they would not be stopped by the rest of the British people. Perhaps the very fact that they could leave if they wished to has meant that their minority rights have always been protected in the UK, and is probably the reason that Scotland do not actually want to leave the union.

Foreign Policy ranks Sri Lanka 25th (ie Alert Category) in its Failed States Index for 2007. Sri Lanka was considered one of the "world's most politically unstable countries" by the World Bank and Asian Development Bank in 2004. However, Sri Lanka, according to the US State Department in 2005, was classified a "stable democracy" – but only when there was a ceasefire period, which shows how a peaceful solution could be so advantageous to both sides.

More facts: Wikipedia