This is the sixth and final part of the article, “Northern perspectives on the Tamil homeland,” where the author traces the historical roots of the Tamil homeland concept, which was formulated in the 1950s by the Federal Party as a core demand and is now espoused by the LTTE and TNA.
Successive governments for the last five decades have practiced colonization – a matter causing much anxiety to the Tamil people and which has been one of the main causes for their agitation. The resolution of the national convention of the Tamil United Liberation Front (Vaddukoddai Resolution) on 14 May 1976 pointed out the “serious inroads made into the territories of the former Tamil Kingdom by a system of planned and state-aided Sinhalese colonization and large scale regularization of recently encouraged Sinhalese encroachments calculated to make the Tamils a minority in their own homeland.” The 1977 election manifesto of the TULF condemned the planned colonization by Sinhalese governments as “drastic and grave.”
At this point it is interesting to analyze an article written by R. Balasubramaniam, solicitor and attorney-at-law under title ‘Ceylon Tamils and the Revival of Sovereignty’ which appeared in the Saturday Review of 6 February 1982. This is about the trial-at-bar case of 1976 The Republic vs. Appapillai Amirthalingam. In the indictment the accused is charged on five counts of contravening Emergency Regulations framed under the state’s Public Security Ordinance for possessing and disseminating subversive literature to wit: the document ‘Resolutions adopted at the first annual convention of the Tamil United Liberation Front.’
Counts 1 and 2 relate to the possession and distribution of that document, which, it was the view of the prosecution, was likely to incite persons to defy or act in derogation of the Constitution of Sri Lanka. In count 3 the accused was alleged to have distributed the same document among the public without the permission of the inspector general of police (IGP) or other officer authorized on that behalf by the IGP. Accusation number 4 was that the accused by reading out the said document attempted to incite the Tamil-speaking public to “procure otherwise than by lawful means alteration of the unitary state of the Republic of Sri Lanka.” In the 5th count the accused was charged with attempting to create discontent by reading out the said pamphlet. The date of the alleged offence was 22May1976.
Balasubramaniam’s article is a resume of the submissions and arguments advanced by the late M. Tiruchelvam, Q.C. on behalf of the accused. According to the counsel for Amirthalingam, the Kingdom of Jaffna existed up to 1619 A.D. With the fall of Jaffna the sovereignty of the Tamils, which was vested in the King of Jaffna passed on to the Portuguese. These two sovereignties later passed on to the Dutch and then to the British. Meanwhile, the sovereignty of the people of Kandy, which was vested in the King of Kandy also passed on to the British in 1815. Though the British had taken over the entire Island these three areas (ruled by the sovereigns of Kandy, Kotte and Jaffna) were administered separately up to 1833. They were then amalgamated on the recommendation of the Colebrooke Commission.
When independence was granted to Ceylon, the Ceylon Independence Act of 1947 provided only for the grant of an Order in Council. The Ceylon Constitution Order-in-Council became effective from 4 February 1948. This Order-in-Council did not empower the Parliament of Ceylon to alter the constitution completely, but only provided for amendments to provisions of the constitution without in any way contravening Section 29(2) of the constitution. “In the case of India however, the India Independence Act empowered the constituent assembly that existed at that time to draft and adopt a constitution for the whole of India. In fact the Tamil Members (in Sri Lanka) showed their repudiation of the constitution in a symbolic way when they made a bonfire of it by way of a public demonstration ... Autochthony cannot be established by a mere counting of heads. The question is does the majority of the Tamil Nation accept the new Constitution? That should have been ascertained by a referendum or plebiscite, but this was not done. As the constitution had no legal continuity with the past, and as the claims that it is autochthonous were also not valid, the constitution is illegal and the courts set up under it are not valid.”
With the break in the legal continuity the sovereignties of the inhabitants of the Island namely people of Kandy, Kotte and Jaffna reverted to the respective people. Therefore in the absence of the legal continuity or the consent of the Tamil nation the constitution enacted is not valid and binding on the Tamil nation. With the revival of the sovereignties, the Tamils as well as the Kandyans were entitled to exercise their respective sovereignties and enact and adopt their own constitutions. But the Kandyans consented to amalgamate and have one constitution.
The Tamils have up to date not consented to the present constitution and are therefore entitled to exercise sovereignty, which is already vested in them and be a free, distinct separate state. Therefore, in a technical sense, the Tamils are only against the forced amalgamation of two states and their decisions to exercise sovereignty cannot be said to be an attempt to divide the country.
In other words, Ceylon is an Island with two states – Tamil Eelam and Sri Lanka. The problem of the Ceylon Tamils cannot be considered as an internal problem. The Tamils of Ceylon are therefore entitled to decide to remain as a separate state (having been conquered only by the Portuguese, Dutch, British and their sovereignty having reverted back to them at the end of colonial rule) or federate with the Sinhala state or states. The decision should be has to be left to the free will of the Sri Lanka Tamils.
Even in the case of 1970 elections when Srimavo Bandaranaiake and her left wing allies called for a mandate to enact a new constitution by replacing the Soulbury Constitution the voters of the northeast summarily rejected her request for a mandate. The Tamils disregarding Bandaranaike’s call for a mandate can be seen in voting figures for the northeast in Table 1
In Table 2 are polling figures for the North and East for eight parliamenatary elections from 1947-1977.
By 1960 the Sinhala state had carved out the Amparai Sinhalese constituency from the Battcaloa District and also settled large numbers of Sinhalese in the Trincomalee and Vavuniya districts. Sinhala colonization was later extended to the Mannar and Mullaitivu districts as well. In spite of Sinhala colonization neither the UNP nor the SLFP, or for that matter any Sinhala party, was able to win the support of the Tamils even in a small way. It would therefore be apparent that the Tamils by the exercise of their franchise have always rejected Sinhala rule.
The present dilemma is how to unite the country, which is divided both administratively and militarily. The historical claim of the Tamils to nationhood is no more a debatable point. Not heeding to the strength of the ballot and resolving the genuine grievances of the Tamils and accommodating their reasonable aspirations, successive governments attempted to solve this political problem through military means. The present armed struggle is a reaction to state terrorism. Hence the victory of the bullet over ballot in the Tamil region is the result of the miscalculation and mishandling of this problem over the years.
(Concluded)