KAMALIKA PIERIS

Sri Lanka’s development policy included state-sponsored colonization schemes which transferred people from the densely populated wet zone to the sparsely populated areas of the dry zone. The places best suited to such colonization schemes were located in the north and east of the island. These provinces were the least populated, the land was suitable for   agriculture   and there were rivers than could be dammed.

These colonization schemes had a dual purpose. They helped ease the acute land hunger of an expanding population, now well beyond the carriage rate for the island. They also opened up vacant land   for agriculture.  The first colonization schemes concentrated exclusively on paddy cultivation, but the later schemes included agro industries .The reservoirs were used to generate hydro-electricity as well as provide water for irrigation.

Sri Lanka was very proud of its state-sponsored colonization schemes. They were intended for national development. The first  colonization scheme was at  Kantale in 1948   (Trincomalee district),  then Gal Oya in 1949 ( Batticaloa )  Allai  1953 ( Trincomalee ) Padaviya  1958, ( Anuradhapura )  Morawewa  1960( Trincomalee ),   Weli Oya  1984 ( Mullaitivu )   and   Yan Oya2012  in progress  ( Trincomalee).

Tamil Separatist Movement vehemently objected to   state aided colonization schemes. Tamil settlers considered the north and east to be exclusively theirs. They feared the arrival of the Sinhalese and saw these   colonization schemes as a threat to Settler Colonization.

The main strategy of Settler colonialism is   to somehow get exclusive possession of sovereign territory, usually by   chasing away its original occupants, then sit down on that land and refuse to budge. State aided colonization schemes were a threat to this strategy. Settler colonialism is not interested in national development, only in consolidating its own position.

The Tamil separatist movement has opposed the Sinhala colonization of ‘Tamil lands’ at every opportunity. At the 4th annual convention, 1956, the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) resolved that “colonization, policies pursued by successive governments since 1947 of planting Sinhalese population in the traditional homeland of the Tamil speaking people is calculated to overwhelm and crush the Tamil speaking people in their own national areas.’

The Bandaranaike-Chelvanayagam Pact of 1957 had a specific Clause that the Regional Councils shall have the power to select allottees for colonization schemes in the Region. And the Resolution passed at the 5th National Convention of the Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi, in 1957 declared: State aided Sinhalese colonization of the Northern and Eastern provinces will be effectively stopped forthwith.”

 TULF Manifesto, 1977, stated that the territory from Chilaw through Puttalam to Mannar, up to the Jaffna Peninsula and then     past     Trincomalee and Batticaloa down to Kumana, and the Kumbukkan Oya, were ‘firmly established as the exclusive homeland of    the Tamils. This is the territory of Tamil Eelam.”

Tamil Separatist Movement knows that its position in Sri Lanka is very shaky. The Tamil settlers do not have   their own declared state in Sri Lanka. Nor do they have a long history of settler residence in Sri Lanka .They only came in the  late 19^th  century and they are settled in two   artificial provinces created by the British, the Northern and Eastern provinces, with arbitrary boundaries.

The homeland” assertion of the Tamil Separatist Movement has been laughed at and dismissed.Critics wanted to know whether any other ethnic group has two homelands, one in India and another in Sri Lanka.  KM de Silva in his ‘Traditional homelands of the Tamils’ has squashed the historical claims of the Tamils. G. H. Peiris has demolished the demographical claims. 

The government took no notice of the Tamil protests. It continued with its colonization schemes. It is the duty of a government to utilize the resources of a country, including land, in the greater interest of the total population, the government said.  The government also said that does not recognize the division of land on an ethnic basis   and there can be no restrictions on internal migration in a democratic society.

The UN supports this view. UN repeatedly affirms the right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the state. Article 13 of the UN Declaration of Human rights, (1948) says everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

UN resolution 1803(XVII) of 14.12.1962, to which Sri Lanka is a signatory states that the ‘right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must   be exercised in the interest of their national development”

Article 12 of the International covenant on Civil and Political rights (1966) says Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.  .

Article 5d (i) of the International convention on the Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (1969) said signatories undertake to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to ethnic origin, the right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the State.

Population density also had to be considered when selecting lands for Colonisation schemes.  The government found that the Northern Province had the most space. It was the least populated. Census 2012 showed that Mullaitivu, Mannar, Killinochchi, Vavuniya, had low populations. The population density of 38 persons per square kilometer in Mullaitivu is the lowest density recorded in 2012. Populating density in Eastern Province was also low, 60 persons per square kilometer.  Therefore the colonization schemes were located in the north and east.

Census of Sri Lanka 2012 showed that 5% (1,061,315) of the total population of Sri Lanka live in the Northern Province. Vavuniya had a total population of 171,511, of which 82% were Tamil, 10.2% were Sinhala. Kilinochchi had total population of 113,510 of which 97% Tamil, 0.85 Sinhala. Mullaitivu had had total population of 91,947 of which 86% Tamil, 9.63% Sinhala.

The outrageous notion of an ‘ethnic compact’ was invoked on behalf of the Tamil settlers. It was suggested that land settlement should not disturb the existing ethnic ratio. A Marga Institute study, Inter racial  equity and national unity” (Marga 1985) suggested that ‘settlement policies should take into account the ethnic balance of the region in which settlements are taking place. New settlements should not significantly alter the ethnic balance in that district. There should be agreement on the ‘tolerance limits’ of any changes in ethnic balance.[1]

Critics responded. There is no such thing as an ethnic compact regarding land, they said. Land is a national resource.  The request is outrageous.  It should not be entertained.  Agreeing to ethnic quotas would mean accepting that   ethnic priorities must be respected in all land settlement projects.

It is reported, from a Tamil source, not an official one, that the Mahaweli Development   Scheme used the national ethnic ratio. Mahaweli land, it said is distributed according to the   all island ethnic ratio.  The Provincial Councils have no say and 96% of the beneficiaries have been Sinhalese, moaned    Tamilnet. [2] 

However, in the 1980s, the   Mahadiulwewa colonisation scheme, Morawewa recognised the ethnic ratio of the district. The Mahadiulwewa project was historic because   it was decided that for a medium scale project, settlement should reflect the ethnic ratio in the district in which the project was located. This was the first time such a policy had been enunciated, said Jayatissa Bandaragoda. A land Kachcheri was held, the selection made and the selected allottees informed. Most were landless chena cultivators, who had been living in the project area for a long time. [3](Continued)

---

[1]  ‘Inter-racial equity and national unity in Sri Lanka’ p 14,  41

[2] https://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?artid=38864&catid=79

[3]  Jayatissa Bandaragoda, Path of destiny  p 161