H. L. D. Mahindapala

M. A. Sumanthiram, a rising legal eagle at Hulftsdorp, old Royalist, TNA MP, and an emerging Jaffna Tamil leader aspiring to be a successor to Ponnambalam or to Chelvanayakam, is a nice and affable man. I met him only for a brief while when he was visiting Melbourne. He was pressed for time to have one-to-one interview in Melbourne. So I sent him the questions as requested by him. To this day he has not replied. I was a bit disappointed because I trusted him to keep his promise, even though I knew the promises made by politicians are like pappadams — made to be broken. Perhaps, he found the questions rather difficult to answer. Or may be he wanted to avoid controversy. I thought of jogging his memory after reading his lengthy argument for devolution of police powers to the north and the east (The Island — February 10, 2012). Perhaps, the following response to his claims might prompt him to reply the issues raised below.

Before I get my teeth into the meat of his argument on devolution of police powers (which will be in this series) I would like to digress to deal with the central plank of discrimination on which the Tamil leadership of the north alone — not the other Tamil-speaking minorities — whipped up mono-ethnic extremism in the north and ultimately decided to declare war against the Sinhalese and lost. The original and the perennial thrusts of peninsular politics were based on allegations of discrimination — particularly on language — faced by the Tamils. Neither the issue of language nor the issue of job discrimination etc., was taken up by the other two Tamil-speaking communities (Indian Tamils and the Muslims) as anti-Tamil issues that must be resolved through violence. All issues of discrimination were raised and taken to extremes of violence only by the Jaffna Tamil leadership. Peninsular politics of mono-ethnic extremism culminated in the passing of the Vadukoddai Resolution in May 1976, based essentially on the issue of discrimination and other fictions of history and geography. This Resolution places the entire responsibility of seeking a military solution, abandoning the non-violent politics of the other Tamil-speaking communities, on the shoulders of the Jaffna Tamil political caste/class that openly declared war against the rest of the nation demanding a separate state.

Since this issue of discrimination is uppermost in the political slogans of Jaffna politics I asked Sumanthiram to list at least one discrimination he faced as he progressed in life to be a successful lawyer in “the Sinhala courts” of the “the Sinhala state”. I thought this was a critical and relevant question because he is a prime product of the post-1956 generation that could speak with first-hand experience of a Tamil boy growing up in a “Sinhala state”, facing the full brunt of discriminatory policies which, according to his political fathers, had denied the Tamils opportunities in education, jobs, and general welfare. He is, by far, best qualified candidate to answer because he is also a product of the most elitist “Sinhala state-run school”, Royal College. Was he denied admission (like Afro-Americans in US) because he belong to a different race? Did he face any discrimination from the Sinhala masters of his class because he was a Tamil? Was he marked down and not promoted because he was a Tamil? Did he have to pay fees because he was a Tamil? Was he in any way treated differently at school, either by the school authorities or students, because he was a Tamil? Was he denied a chair in class (like the low-caste in Jaffna schools) because he was a Tamil?

Going to the next level of his career as a lawyer, what discrimination did he face at Law College? Have the “Sinhala courts” of “the Sinhala state” refused him permission to practice his profession because he is a Tamil? Are his clients only Tamils and do the Sinhala litigants boycott him en masse because he is a Tamil? Which Sinhala judge has asked him to conduct his cases in Sinhala — the language which he says has oppressed the Tamils and denied them their rights? Furthermore, having moved mainly with the Sinhala society in the south did the Sinhala boys at Royal or the Sinhala members of the legal fraternity ill-treat him because he is a Tamil? As a Tamil MP has he been prevented by the Speaker from speaking in Tamil in Parliament? Do the Tamil MPs receive Tamil texts of their speeches and other relevant matters of “the Sinhala state” in Tamil? Is he denied the perks, privileges and comforts given to the Sinhala MPs because he is a Tamil? Are the bodyguards of “the Sinhala state” who protect him and fellow-Tamil MPs incapable of protecting the Tamil MPs because they are Sinhalese and do not know the Tamil language and Tamil ways of life?

Can he identify, after 56 years of the Sinhala Only Act in operation, the language difficulties that obstruct he and his fellow-Tamil MPs, Tamil businessmen, Tamil professionals, Tamil academics etc., in transacting whatever dealings they had with “the Sinhala state”, or with the Sinhala business community, or with the majority at large? Can he deny that even after 56 years of Sinhala Only the legislature, the executive and the judiciary are still run in English? Can he deny that even after making Tamil an official language the Tamils who have acquired competency in the English language have advanced in the social ladder than the Tamils, (if any) who has acquired competency in Sinhalese? Did Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgama gain acceptance among the Sinhalese because he knew Sinhalese or English? TNA argues as if knowing Sinhalese gives an advantage to move upwards. How many Sinhala villagers who know only Sinhala can become the IGP, head of a department, or become a diplomat, or rise above the level of peons to hold plum jobs in the private sector?

Take also the case “Paki” Saravanamuttu who is also a product of the post-1956 era. Can he justify the accusations of discrimination levelled against the Sinhalese in the post-156 era with his own experiences? Can he tell us which Sinhalese-speaking Punchi Singho in Paranagama or Maradana has the privilege of drinking, dancing and la-di-daing with the Bandaranaike girls? Which Tamil-speaking Sinnatambly from Vellamullivaikal or Wellawatte will have the privilege of holding Chandrika Bandaranaike in his arms and prancing across the dance floor doing the waltz? WhichƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Sinna Lebbe from Akkaraipattu or Beruwela has the intimacy to influence state policy of the Bandaranaike governments? Can “Paki” specify, without passing the buck to say that discrimination was faced by other Tamils, the discrimination he faced under the anti-Tamil rule of his dancing partner? If he believed in the accusation of “the Sinhala state” pursuing oppressive discrimination against his Tamil tribe what kind of morality pushed him to hold an oppressor like Chandrika Bandaranaike in his arms when he danced with her?

If it is the Sinhala language that discriminates against the Tamil-speaking peoples why are the non-English speaking Tamils marginalized from the mainstream, or in the upper echelons of Sri Lankan or Tamil society? Could Sumanthiram have got to where he is now if he knew only Tamil or Sinhalese? Would he agree that English-speaking individuals in all communities have an edge over those who know only Sinhalese and Tamil, even after 56 years of Sinhala Only policy in place? Considering the over-all factors isn’t the discrimination essentially between those who know English and those who don’t? So, at the end of the day, where does the Sinhala and the Tamil-speaking individual stand if he/she lacks a good knowledge of English?

Though Sumanthiram is old enough to repeat the anti-Sinhala slogans of his political forefathers he is a post-1956 neophyte (compared to say V. Anandasangaree) to grasp the impact of the internal dynamics of peninsular politics that propelled the ruling elite of Jaffna to mono-ethnic extremism. Besides, he takes a parochial view of politics going back to the ill-fated fathers of peninsular politics which had its day and lost its power after Nandikadal. In his statement he says that the TNA had given up its claim for a separate state. This is a very deceptive statement. Nowhere does he state that the TNA had given up the Vadukoddai ideology which still dominates the thinking of the TNA political activists. Herein lies the danger both to the Tamils and the rest. This is bound to make the north the graveyard of more innocent Tamils. Going back to the Vadukoddai ideology is a sure recipe for inter-communal tensions and instability — two evils that neither the Tamils nor the rest need to regain the peace they lost in the post-Vadukoddai period.

Besides, nowhere does he say that TNA has denounced and renounced the Vadukoddai Resolution — the ultimate reference point of the Jaffna Tamil leadership and accepted in toto by the Tamil expatriates. (More of this later.) Sumanthiram and his colleagues are trying to pull wool over the eyes of the nation by saying that they have given up the notion of a separate state while adhering to everything that is stated in the Vadukoddai ideology. The fact that they haven’t deviated one inch from the Vadukoddai ideology is apparent in their demands for control over police, land and the economy. That, in short, is the Vadukoddai ideology. They pretend to be goody-goodies who had given up the separate state when in reality they want everything that is there in a separate state. They want to have the cake and eat it.

Hoodwinking the nation and the Tamil people have been a perennial game played by the Tamil leadership — a game which can lead them only to another Nandikadal. This is a game that will not take the Tamil people down the path of genuine peace and reconciliation. This atavistic commitment to their karmic past reveals an incurable suicidal tendency. No mainstream party in the south can survive politically on a program of giving into the extremist demands of the TNA. — Ranil Wickremesinghe is a classic example. If the other Tamil-speaking communities can co-exist with the majority without making extremist demands that exacerbate ethnic relations then why is it that only the Jaffna Tamils need special rights to live in peace and harmony? Each time Sumanthiram repeats his political fathers’ slogans he will be dragging the Jaffna Tamils back into the stone age which gave birth to the Vadukoddai ideology.

It is the non-violent and moderate politics of co-existence pursued consistently by the other two Tamil-speaking communities that expose the extremism of peninsular politics. According to the politics of the Vadukoddai ideologues and their fellow-travellers in NGOs, academia, Churches etc., the north took to violence because “the Sinhala state” refused to give them equality and dignity. If that is valid then why did the other two Tamil-speaking communities refuse to join the most privileged community in the north. Why is that only the Tamil elite of the north pursued this line and not the other Tamil-speaking communities? If only one Tamil-speaking community out of three makes extremist demands what makes the one more credible than the other two?

Consider also how the other two communities reacted to the language issue. If, as TNA says, Sinhala language was the problem with the minorities then why didn’t the other two Tamil-speaking communities join hands with ITAK (Federal Party) and the LTTE to fight for language rights? Ever since the time (30s) G. G. Ponnambalam raised the bogey of discrimination they have been trying their level best to rope in the other Tamil-speaking minorities to propagate the myth that their political agenda includes all Tamil-speaking peoples. But the northern Tamil leadership has failed repeatedly to transform their political agenda produced by the Jaffna Tamils, for the Jaffna Tamils and consisting of issues that concern the Jaffna Tamils into a pan-Tamil movement. The only common issue on which they could have bonded together was the Tamil language. Despite many attempts they failed to unite the other Tamil-speaking communities under their hegemony even on this issue. They resolved their differences in the non-violent mainstream.

Starting from the 50-50 demand the Jaffna leadership pretended that the other Tamil-speaking Muslims and Indians were with them. They even concocted a theory that the Muslims were Tamils who had converted to Islam. They needed the other Tamil-speaking communities to impress the world that they (12% ??) constitute 25 % of the population. Though the TNA promotes its peninsular politics as a majority-minority problem the reality is that it has been an issue confined only to the north and the south on a regional basis and not as an ethnic issue involving all Tamil-speaking communities. The other Tamil-speaking minorities refused to join the northern bandwagon of Tamil extremism. They were [pragmatic enough to avoid violent confrontations.

S. Thondaman, the shrewd Indian Tamil leader, had the foresight to break away from the TULF and pursue non-violent negotiations to achieve his goals unlike the “idiotic Jaffna Tamil leadership” (Prof.Kumar David) which overrated its strength and took to the gun and lost. If Thondaman went down the path of violent politics there is no doubt that the radical estate youth would have taken over from him and eliminated him either physically or electorally. This explains why the northern Tamil leadership consists of political “idiots”. They were hoping to ride into power on the back of Tamil youth. The Tamil youth took the guns handed to them in the Vadukoddai Resolution and turned it on their political fathers first. Only idiotic children play with fire. The Tamils today are paying for the idiotic games played by the post-independence Jaffna leadership.

Obsessed with their own hubristic delusions grown out of feudal casteism and colonial privileges the Jaffna Tamil leadership imagined themselves to be an exceptional breed born to rule all the Tamil-speaking people and the Sinhalese as well, if they can. Their entrenched position in the British bureaucracy and the mythical notion of being a majority community which they claimed under Governor Manning (see Prof. K. M. de Silva) created a false consciousness of being a master race — a race that looked down upon their own Tamils in the most contemptuous manner conceivable. They also boasted of a fictitious past and a culture which existed more in their over-inflated imagination than in history, geography or reality. To begin with they had no culture of their own other than the culture they borrowed from S. India. They did not even contribute anything substantial or original to the growth of the Tamil language or culture. They have been basking from the time they arrived as migrants from S. India in 12 – 13th centuries ONLY in the glories of the Tamil language and culture in their ONLY homeland — S. India. (This aspect will be dealt with later.)

Throughout their stay in the northern strip of Sri Lanka they have been, at best, copy cats imitating the vibrant and historic Tamil culture of S. India. All migrant settlers — except the Sinhalese — remained within the limited confines of the culture they brought with them. Only the Sinhalese created a new language, new culture, new civilization that tamed and opened up the land for all other migrants to share and enjoy in equal measure. Besides, though the Jaffna Tamils raised a hue and cry about the Sinhala Only Act destroying the Tamil language the fact remains that, after more than half a century, the Tamil language remains untouched by anything that had been done by “the Sinhala state”. So what is Sumanthiram’s beef about discrimination? Of course, there are minor irritants like getting complaints of Tamils recorded in Tamil in northern and eastern police stations. But this is an not act of discrimination but a corrigible issue that can be ironed out with adequate resources. And that is in the pipeline.

A closer look at the language issue will reveal that the language issue exploded in violence first in the south when the JVPers raised the slogan of “kaduwa” — the mighty weapon of English language that was the main instrument of wielding power across the nation, from the north to the south even after independence. The north did not rebel against the English language because the Jaffna elite was very comfortable with it. Like the Sinhala masses it was the Tamil masses who were deprived of the benefits that entrenched the power of the English-speaking priviligentsia.

The “kaduwa” helped the English-educated Vellahla elite to maintain their supremacy over the oppressed low-caste minority. Apart from caste, Hindu ideology that sanctified caste oppression, and the privileges derived from feudalism and colonialism, English language enabled the Jaffna Vellahla elite to rule not only the non-English speaking low castes in the north but also the rest of the nation by holding a disproportionate share of positions in the colonial administration. Colonial power and privileges were maintained through the English language. Those who benefited most from the colonial power structure were determined to retain English at any cost. The industrious Christian missionaries turned Jaffna into a factory producing the English-speaking Vellahla elite that occupied the strategic seats in the colonial hierarchy of power. And this elite — both in the north and the south — resisted and denigrated S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike for launching the inevitable change that empowered the masses.

So when Bandaranaike overthrew the English language by passing the Sinhala Only Act it was direct blow to those who wielded power through the English language. Bandaranaike never aimed the Sinhala Only Act as a communal attack to suppress the Tamils. It was aimed to overthrow English and empower the masses to deal with the state in their mother tongues. In his 1956 election manifesto he had promised Sinhala Only and Tamil also and he fulfilled his promise because he realized the necessity of empowering the masses of both communities. He fulfilled his promise by passing the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act No.28 of 1958. He was the first to elevate and enshrine Tamil as a recognised language of the state.

At no time in the history of the Sinhalese was the Tamil language dismissed or downgraded as an irrelevancy. Ancient and medieval inscription bear testimony to the place given to the Tamils and the Tamil language. Reference is made to the Tamils and their language in the Kokila Sandesa, Gira Sandesa and the Sellalihini Sandesa. In the scholarly and royal circles it was equated with Pali and Sanskrit. All Sinhala leaders — J. R. Jayewardene (right-wing) Dr. N. M. Perera (left-wing) at various times have advocated the right of the Tamils to deal with the state in Tamil. Bandaranaike (centre-left) was most emphatic on this issue. In introducing the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act in 1958 he said: “Any Tamil gentleman must have the right to correspond in the Tamil language..(and) for the convenience of the Tamil gentleman who may not knowƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Sinhalese a copy of theƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Tamil translation or the substance of the reply will be attached to such letter..”

If the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act introduced by Bandaranaike in 1958 on July 17, 1958 left any gaps then the regulations under this Act, drafted by M. Tiruchelvam of the Federal Party, and introduced on January 8, 1966 by the UNP-Federal Party coalition filled the administrative needs of the Tamils. This confirms unambiguously that the political system, though tardy in legislating and implementing, always was open to adjustments to accommodate the minorities through negotiations. Violence of the Jaffna political caste/class was not because there were no non-violent avenues for resolving ethnic differences. The Vadukoddai Resolution was to pursue the extremist agenda of the privileged Jaffna leadership to establish their elusive Eelaam which ended in the hands of Vellupillai Prabhakaran as a “Pee-laam” for the Tamils who lost their dignity, their freedom, their respect and to live as human beings in a peaceful political plane.

It was left to the leadership of the Sinhalese to rescue the Tamils kept under the jackboot of Tamil oppressors. As usual the Jaffna jingoists, adepts in myth-making, pretend that the Prabhakaran had established a state for the Tamils which liberated them from Sinhala majoritarian oppression. The unravelling of the untold tales of Prabhakaran’s regime now reveal that the Tamils never experienced the horrors of fascist tyranny as under the Vadukoddai child that came out of the womb of Jaffna.

Sumanthiram and all the misguided and naive “Tamil idiots” who follow the Vadukoddai ideology should know by now that they have nothing to lose except Prabhkaran’s manacles and concentration camps that reduced the Jaffna to subhuman slaves.

In his conscience Sumanthiram will concede today that he is a happier man now because “the Sinhala government” had ended the war for him to live with dignity than when he was a mere factotum kept under the thumb of a fascist dictator. The main reason why Sumanthiram and his TNA MPs are smiling today is because they know that Prabhkaran — the Tamil torturer — is no longer to wipe it off their faces.

(To be continued)ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚