ommunal Politics have played havoc in the political platform of Sri Lanka for a number of decades. Although the organized left movement in the country and the wise leaders of many political parties have advocated persistently against communalism and racial hatred, it has not died down significantly. Not only in Sri Lanka, even our closest neighbour, India is also still suffering from the same disease-in some of the states in India it has developed into a cancerous situation.
In Sri Lanka, although the three main languages have been officially accepted as state languages and provincial councils have become part and parcel of the constitution and further several other measures have been taken by various governments to ameliorate the grievances of the affected people, the cancer of communalism is still surviving here, although on a low level compared to the past. As a student of politics, I thought I should go into the deep to find out causes of communalism in our motherland.
In Sri Lankan politics, signs of communalism or the germs of communalism flared up in the 1930s, when the representatives of the British Raj in then Ceylon introduced and encouraged the ugly method of separating the different communities by nominating representatives to the Legislative Council from each of the major groups-low country Sinhalese, up-country Kandyan Sinhalese, Ceylon Tamils, Muslims, Burghers, and also the local British. Historical records reveal that this process came into being in a coherent way in 1833 and the term ‘communal representation’ slowly but steadily incarnated into the political vocabulary. Prof. A.J. Wilson, the author of ‘SRI LANKAN TAMIL NATIONALISM’ says that ‘Communalism became a prerogative word to those members of the political class of all the communities who thought in narrow terms of preserving and protecting their particular interests. The British maintained communal representation as an effective method of discerning the views and needs of the different communities’.
Dr. I. D.S. Weerawardena, who was a lecturer, in the Department of Economics in the University of Peradeniya also held the same views as that of Prof. Wilson over this issue. In his well written thesis, GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS OF CEYLON (1931-1946) he says that Reforms of 1920 were not satisfactory to the leaders of the nationalist movement. Congress boycotted the scheme because it argued communal representation was being perpetuated. The Governor tried to compromise. In 1921, the Congress gave up the boycott. But, the agitation continued.
This political scenario gradually changed from 1931. From this period onwards, a middle class growing in strength took the upper hand in spearheading the national movement for political reforms. This constitutional agitation for political reforms was worked through several active groups, but more or less belonging to the same social class. Although they had their own differences, they were unanimously agreed on one thing-They stood unitedly for some form of self government. While agitating for self-government, almost all the bourgeois leaders and vested groups were keen on carving out special positions for themselves. To achieve these aims, racial appeals were thoroughly utilized. However, the toiling masses of the society did not show any clear signs to get themselves organized into a forum for social emancipation. However, with the launching of the Donoughmore Constitution of 1931 and emergence of a left movement in the 1930s, this void was successfully filled.
The Donoughmore Commissioners recommended the complete abolition of communal representation, and the new State Council was to consist of 65 members elected territorial wise, three ex-officio members, and nominated members up to a maximum of 12, if the Governor considered it necessary to make the body more representative. The suffrage was to be extended to all men over 21 years of age and to all women over 35 years who applied to be registered as electors and had resided in the island for a minimum of five years. Income, property and literary qualifications were to be abolished. All these measures taken together, were revolutionary in character. (People in the UK, received the right of universal suffrage only in 1928 and it was a big achievement for Sri Lanka to get this right, only three years after universal suffrage was introduced to UK.
Although the representatives of the majority community accepted the Donoughmore constitution in principle, the minority communities had become seriously apprehensive, and on June 8, 1935, the Tamils, (both Ceylon and Indian) and the Muslims sent a joint statement to the Secretary of State in which they set out their case in considerable detail. They declared that they had declared their opposition to the Donoughmore scheme from the very beginning and had viewed it with growing alarm since it had been put into operation. According to their version, it was a complete and abrupt departure from the principles which had been followed from 1833 to 1923.
In this joint statement, they have further said that the majority community had been placed in power as an inevitable result of the abolition of communal representation and adoption of territorial representation. Regarding this attitude of the minorities, The Report of the Soulbury Commission says ”on this analysis, it was the proposal to abolish communal representation that was at the root of the difficulty, for in the existing Legislative Council the minority communities enjoyed, man for man, a greater voting power than the Sinhalese. The majority community would naturally welcome the removal of this disparity”. (Source: SOULBURY COMMISSION REPORT-REPRINTED 1955 - HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE - LONDON).
These antagonistic grievances of the Tamil educated class were represented in the state council by G.G.Ponnambalam from 1934, the year he entered the state council. In 1944, under his leadership the All-Ceylon Tamil Congress was formed. (Up to this stage, the credit should go to this Tamil leader for carrying on a one-man struggle inside the state council to highlight the grievances of the educated Tamil community) However, he very cunningly postulated the principle of balanced representation commonly referred to as ‘50-50’ - i.e. that half of the seats in the legislature and the executive should be reserved for the minority communities as a defence mechanism against the possibility of the Sinhalese adopting a dominant strategy.
However, the leader who fought for ‘50-50’ in the state council and outside, took a U-turn suddenly by joining the cabinet of ministers in 1948, under the leadership of Prime Minister D.S. Senanayake.
This ‘betrayal’ of G. G. Ponnambalam, caused a division in the Tamil Congress and finally led to the formation of ILANKAI THAMIL ARASU KADCHI (ITAK). The official name of this political organization was termed as, The Federal Party of the Tamil Speaking People’. S. J. V.Chelvanayagam was unanimously elected as its leader and this charismatic man monopolized the Tamil political platform from 1956 onwards, through his unique organization, until the party coalesced with all other Tamil Wings in 1976, under a new banner - THE TAMIL UNITED LIBERATION FRONT (TULF).
With the formation of TULF and thereafter the taking over of the militant Tamil movement by the leadership of the LTTE and the prolonged war it manned for nearly three decades, destroyed the foundations of Sri Lanka in several ways. From 1958 onwards, the events that took place in Sri Lankan society in 1971, 1983, 88-89 and during the days of the prolonged war, thousands and thousands of young blood had gone to the drain. All our governments and political leaders who manipulated communal slogans for their own narrow political ends are responsible for this national tragedy. Singapore, which does not have any rich, valuable natural resources as Sri Lanka, has risen up to the first world from the third, under the able leadership of former senior leader, Lee Kuan Yew, who rallied round all the ethnic groups under one umbrella for his glorious mission. If we want to march forward as a united nation in the challenging 21st century, we must follow the same footsteps. The TNA which was toeing the line of the LTTE during the dark days of the war has expressed its willingness, now, to reach for an amicable political solution within a United Sri Lanka. This opportunity should not be lost and we should not give in to the hands of people like C.V. Vigneswaran to create further tensions by misusing mad communal slogans.
Communalists of both groups should be isolated and the country’s future must be handed over to patriotic educated youth.
