Political Challenges and Ethnic Conflict in

By: Joe Gullo

Sri Lanka has one of the most unique histories that any country has ever seen. Originally called the Kingdom of Ceylon, Sri Lanka suffered more than 400 years of colonial history from

1505 until its independence in 1948 from British rule. The British were just the last to control

Ceylon, from 1815-1948 (Gunathilake 2011), and their control left marks on the country from which it still recovers. At the time of British control, a westernized class of Tamil elite were given special privileges and were despised by the Sinhalese majority. This favoritism, along with several other factors, steadily divided the two groups, culminating in 1983 when the Liberation

Tigers of Tamil (LTTE) ambushed a Sinhalese army patrol, killing 13. In response, an anti-Tamil pogrom began that left thousands dead. This marked the unofficial beginning of the civil war (Guneratne & Weiss 2013) which spanned three decades and killed thousands. All of this historical context is extremely important when attempting to understand the state of ethnic tension and political challenges in Sri Lanka today. At the time of its release from British control, the country had nowhere near the level of ethnic tension and was a really strong example of a social welfare state. Yet, due to conflict between the Sinhala and Tamil the island nation has become more and more of an autocracy, and explosive tensions still exist. In this paper I argue that Sri Lanka’s historical context forced them into a state of ethnic conflict which has oscillated since 1948. The result is a status quo wherein Sri Lanka is attempting to avoid a repetition of history while also avoiding a new wave of religious conflict exemplified by last year’s Easter attacks targeting Christians and tourists (Toronto 2019). By looking through Sri Lanka’s history we can follow the path of conflict to the status quo, better understanding why it is like this and hopefully how it can be solved.

Social Problems of Newly Independent Sri Lanka

Post-independent Sri Lanka was faced with two major problems which each harmed the island nation’s ability to prosper initially. Unlike many of the other states in the SAARC, Sri

Lanka did not have a national struggle for independence. Instead, the country remained a commonwealth of the in 1972, controlled by the Tamil elite class mentioned before. This odd path to independence resulted in the first major problem, which was a lack of national unity. Perhaps it was this lack of struggle or just the competition of controlling the new commonwealth but Sri Lanka had no cause for cohesion early on and made steps towards ethnic sectarianism quickly after independence. The first constitution of Ceylon in 1948 put in two main provisions which would seriously shape the social and political environment for years to come. First was the British-like model employed by the government which gave a lot of power to the parliament and the branch to the point where, “The Senate was weak, with little power to avoid legislation.” (Guneratne & Weiss, 2013) This in and of itself is not a problem if the parliament is able to represent the diversity of the country, but sadly this is rarely the case.

This problem was accentuated by the Soulbury Commission which admirably strived for minority rights but ended up in a clause giving a proportionate share to the majority. The fact that protections needed to be applied to the majority alone shows the fragility of Sri Lankan democracy at the time of independence.

When looking back at the long history of the ethnic conflict between the two dominant groups it is important to follow the evolution of the animosity between the two groups. For example, in 1947 the were not entirely split on ethnic lines (as is the case today) and had a more traditional right/left divide. The UNP of those days was nothing more than a coalition of anti-left groups which competed against the more-established communist, and

LSSP parties. Their initial control of seats resulted in one of the first direct ethnic issues: depriving ethnically Indian plantation workers of citizenship. This was not as direct as our president’s Muslim ban but it was a way of indirectly denying Tamil’s citizenship by stipulating they must be at least third generation or have lived in Ceylon for seven uninterrupted years and be able to prove it. This legislation was not purely ethnic as it was opposed by the leftist Sinhala groups and was vehemently opposed by Indian and Sri Lankan . This began the culture of social oppression and governmental abuse with a congress that was ineffective and guaranteed a majority given to the ruling class through the Soulbury Commission.

Economic Problems of Newly Independent Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka’s economic history is almost as interesting as its social history because it has been extremely diverse. Some have even called Sri Lanka an “Economic Laboratory” due to the various different approaches and turn-arounds we have seen in the country. This is partially because essentially Sri Lanka had no sort of baseline from which to operate. Due to their incredibly long history of colonialism, some forms of capital market initiation were developed but not enough. When looking at colonial economic policy, Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson

(2001) argue that there were two main approaches and they were based upon the mortality rate of everyone involved in the community (colonisers, slaves, etc.). If the mortality rate was low then the British would develop property rights and begin to settle (US, Australia, New Zealand). In contrast, colonies like Ceylon endowed with fertile land, minerals, etc. become exploited to the maximum. (Acemoglu and Johnson, 2005). In fact, history points to the fact that colonizers did not favor the construction of competitive markets due to the fact that they feared harming efficiency of extraction. All of this colonial history means that Sri Lanka became the perfect example of an economy which is thoroughly exploited and is not able to fend for itself. It is important to understand this economic struggle as it allows us to better understand the early difficulties of state building which heightened the tensions on either side.

Sinhala/Tamil divide becomes more prevalent

With the ushering in of the SLFP as the ruling power Sinhalese oppression reared its ugly head in 1956 with the , making Sinhala the sole official language. This has direct and indirect effects on the Tamil population. Directly, Tamil citizens are forced to learn a new language and are at a disadvantage when trying to become officials, further disenfranchising this population. Indirectly, and in conjunction with the citizenship act of 1948 cultural oppression is making Tamils feel less and less safe and comfortable in Sri Lanka. In response to this the

Tamil population had a massive protest the same year which required military intervention. As a result the PM of the time (S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike) created the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam pact hoping to de-escalate tensions by giving the Tamils the Northern and Eastern provinces, refraining from Sinhalese settling in those areas. This was at best a very short term solution as the Tamils were not really satisfied and many Sinhalese were really upset, resulting in the assassination of Bandaranaike at the hands of a Buddhist monk. His widow Sirimavo became the first female prime minister in world history and quickly embraced Sinhala chauvinism; departing from her husband’s more neutral approach to politics. Sirimavo’s first term followed by the return of Dudley Senanayake was representative of a shift and turbulent times but it was nothing compared to what would soon follow.

Stirrings of Rebellion & Discontent

Sirimavo Banaranaike’s second term beginning in 1970 was characterized by a few key things. This was the first time where authoritarianism came to the center stage, and it was the first time really where large insurgent groups began to form and responded violently to the government. In 1971 the Marxist People’s Liberation Front (or JVP) began an armed uprising against the government that resulted in the deaths of many. This results in two clear impacts that are reflective of this shift towards authoritarianism. First we see the beginning of severe restrictions on the media and general silencing of the opposition which continues to this day.

Next, the PM made some huge changes in 1972. Remember, this is the year that Sri Lanka gained its true independence from a monarch and as such they created a constitution for the new

Republic. This constitution gave even more power to an already extremely powerful executive branch and parliament while simultaneously weakening the judiciary. Perhaps most shockingly of all they removed the bare minority protections given by the Soulbury Commission. Here again we see a very clear show by the majority that opposition is not welcome nor accepted. As these lines of political difference begin to base themselves more and more on ethnic lines it is clear to see where this is headed and in 1976 it becomes even more clear. That year marks the clear development of . In that year the TULF adopted the calling for an independent state: . (Bajoria, 2009) They justified this by citing numerous denials of equality, linguistic oppression, and disenfranchisement but of course it did not pass. In the same year the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are founded and they begin to take this approach to secession much more seriously.

The key to knowing all of this history does not have to do with the specific events themselves but with the major themes of the time. Up until this point there has been oppression of the Tamils but appeasement happened in a small way earlier with the

Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam pact. The Vadukkodai resolution showed the unity of the Tamil community and finally put into terms the fact that mistreatment had persisted too long and separation was necessary. Of course it fell flat but it was clear to see the growth of the TULF and this was shown in the 1977 elections when power was unsurprisingly taken by the UNP (83% of seats) but the TULF held the principal opposition (10.7%) (Guneratne & Weiss, 2013). This small number of seats may not seem like much but it represented the unity of Tamil citizens and was threatening. As a result, the constitution was changed in 1978, when term limits for the president were increased to six years centralizing all state power in their hands, with “Virtually no checks on their exercise of that authority, and no countervailing force.” (Arjun Guneratne,

2013) An example of this power is that the president was in charge of appointing the PM, and the cabinet while also appointing secretaries to each committee. This means that the entire public service is controlled by the president and more importantly, the party. While adopting this constitution Jayawardene helped the Tamils a bit but it was nothing satisfactory and was clearly not conducive to long lasting peace. This rule was characterized by destruction of the opposition through the use of thugs, policies, and a combination of the two with the Prevention of Terrorism

Act.

PTA, Pogroms, and Unapologetic Martial Law This freshly authoritarian Sri Lanka also began westernizing much more, which was a major departure from past policy (economic laboratory back again). The Indian government was not a fan of this and began funding the LTTE covertly in hopes that they would put pressure on the government. The Sri Lankan response with the PTA act released an immense wave of unethical searches, torture, and brutality at the hands of the police. Brutality which quickly escalated away from dangerous terrorists and into the homes of many Tamil men, women, and children who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Personally, I would call the PTA act along with Indian intervention the beginning of the civil war. The PTA act was nothing more than a tool of warfare which allowed for the state to “legally” get rid of any sort of opposition.

This oppression reared its head with the highly corrupt referendum of 1982 which changed the culture of Sri Lankan elections forever, but 1983 was when things really changed to civil war. An act of terror by the LTTE claimed the lives of 13 soldiers that July. This month is now infamously referred to as because of the ensuing response by Sinhalese nationalists.

According to the BBC nobody really knows how many people died that week, just that it could have been around 4,000 not to mention the countless others whose homes and livelihoods were destroyed. The government was purposely negligent towards the violence and really did not try in the way you should to stop a pogrom. If we are to take one period in history and use it to understand the current situation in Sri Lanka, Black July should be that period. It showed that intense ethnic conflict was at the doorstep of every civilian and it forced people to make an awful choice. This event radicalized many Tamils and clearly the killing of the patrol radicalized many

Sinhalese. I personally think this is considered the beginning of the civil war because it was one of the first times where this intense hatred was national and almost directly affecting all citizens. Civil War

Post-Pogrom and post 1983 was when Sri Lanka became a real war zone. After some failed peace talks intervened to save the LTTE and mediated an uneasy peace agreement called the Indo-Sri Lanka peace accord. Of course this accord fizzled after three months and the

LTTE resumed their struggle; this time against the Indian peace-keeping force. Getting into specifics of the war is unnecessary. The important thing is to understand that horrible violence was committed by both sides and generally this period was marked by two main changes. First was the growth of dissent and separation, and second was the erosion of the welfare state. Here is where the real impacts begin to hit Sri Lankan citizens directly. At the same time of the war against the LTTE the government had to fight a second JVP uprising beginning in 1987 which left potentially 40,000 people dead. (Guneratne & Weiss 2013). This was mostly due to anger with how the social welfare state was quickly deteriorating and the JVP hoped to destroy the government. In addition to growing income inequality and more money going into the government it is important to remember that citizens had already been living with the tyrannical

PTA act and warfare on their doorsteps. Economic issues generated more dissent for both the

JVP and the LTTE although the JVP were defeated in 1989. The president who “defeated” them was the recently elected who attempted to rebuild the social welfare state a bit and approached peace talks with the LTTE while also stopping Indian intervention and the

JVP. In short, it looked like there was a small window to escape tyranny here but this is why fighting against a secessionist group is alright. The LTTE did not want appeasement, accords, or subsidization; they wanted a new state and made clear that was the only way for conflict to stop.

This manifested itself in the LTTE assassinations of India’s former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi as well as Premadasa himself. After this,hope was again given when the new prime minister

Chandrika Kumaratunga was the first ever to win a majority of votes from all groups. She also attempted peace talks but they again fell flat and within a few months the LTTE had re-declared war on the government.

Peace Talks, 9/11, and the End of War

After several years of fighting, which thoroughly exhausted both sides, the UNP again took power at a very pivotal moment in the conflict. The events of 9/11 created an international response and fervor against terrorism which has not been seen before and this made the LTTE lose a lot of credibility as freedom fighters hoping for secession. As a result, Norway mediated a ceasefire in February 2002 and attempted to approach a solution. As you may have guessed the

LTTE had no interest in these talks; they had their demands and that was that. The cease fire stopped open warfare but both sides continued to operate in the shadows with monitors recognizing thousands of violations. The most important violent event of this ceasefire was definitely the assassination of foreign minister Lakshman Kadirmagar who was one of the few politicians who genuinely believed in the necessity of pluralism. As the cease-fire came to a close in 2005 and new elections loomed on the horizon it was clear that something big was going to happen. But what?

This huge change was the election of Rajapakse in 2006 and what that meant for the country… pure, unfettered authoritarian control. As hard as Kumaratunga worked to pluralize the SLFP, Rajapakse brought back Sinhala chauvinism with a force. Rajapakse was backed by all Sinhala nationalist parties regardless of positioning on the political spectrum.

Comparing this to the 1948 elections it is heartbreaking how the will of democracy has dissolved. The island had some slight differentiation in how to deal with the conflict but votes were almost purely cast on ethnic grounds. This was also the closest election in history wherein

Rajapakse won with 50.29% of the vote (Guneratne & Weiss, 2013). While past groups had attempted peace-building in some way Rajapakse and his party recognized the LTTE were probably not going to give up without their state so they decided to utterly decimate them. This was a controversial international move but the party was getting a lot of money from so the loss of its western allies did not bother it too much. The party was able to beat the LTTE relatively easily by ramping up military efforts heavily at a time when the group was not receiving their normal funding from overseas due to the international crackdown on terrorism. In its wake the left thousands upon thousands dead and achieved nothing.

Through the history of the war and the events leading up to it we saw the devolution of Sri Lanka from a democratic, welfare state to a violent, corrupt mess in a lot of ways. In the end all that is left is destruction and the most powerful authoritarian regime to date.

Authoritarianism Redefined

Prior to the reign of Rajapakse there had certainly been authoritarian rule in the country with Premadasa for example but it was nothing compared to the Rajapakse family. In Professor

Weiss’s book, her co-author Arjun Guneratne argues that there were six main reasons for this unique authoritarianism.

● Immense popularity post-war victory

● Weak UNP opposition led by the incompetent Ranil Wickremasinghe

● Consolidation of power within family, one brother president, one SOH, etc. Family

controls 70 percent of the national budget ● Media Repression continues further silencing opposition

● Corruption through bribery further weakens parliament.

The sixth and final act came in the form of the 18th amendment added to the constitution in 2010 by taking advantage of the slight 2/3rds majority held by the SLFP. This amendment gave Godlike powers to the president including abolition of any term limits and most importantly the ability to directly appoint members of numerous commissions such as Election, Public

Service, Police, and even the commission to investigate bribery. This was such a clearly corrupt, overreach of power but nothing could be done. One of the last chances of protecting integrity in the form of judicial intervention was nullified when the chief justice was impeached by parliament and quickly replaced with a Rajapakse loyalist. With the end of the war Rajapakse completed Sri Lanka’s shift from a relatively promising colony with a history of democracy to one of the most corrupt regimes in the world.

Rebuilding from the war and its impacts

Today, Sri Lanka is a country of about 21 million people that is almost 15% Tamil and

75% Sinhalese. First it is key to understand the plight of Tamil people in the status quo. They are resentful of, “Heavy military presence and soldiers who do not speak their language and build bases on their seized land.” (Dimanno, 2013) These are all pretty direct actions to oppress Tamils but what is perhaps even more disturbing is some very unnecessary measures to harm their culture. These “pointlessly petty actions” include forbidding the singing of the national anthem in Tamil and the requiring of some Tamil citizens in to register with the police.

(Guneratne & Weiss 2013) Oppression of Tamil people has happened in every which way at this point with rape, murder, and internment all having occurred in the last fifteen years. Sadly the conclusion to take from this is pretty simple; the Tamil were not able to win the war and so they will continue to make up a lower class of Sri Lankan society until something huge changes and this is mostly attributable to populism.

Sri Lanka has adhered to a classic model of tyranny for a long time which I refer to as the manipulation of the masses through populism. The most power hungry Sri-Lankan presidents used the war and ethnic conflict as a distraction from their own inadequacies as rulers. By making the ethnic issue the central problem particularly in the 90’s when free trade agreements and land grabs made an already tense situation more tense. It is worth noting that Sri Lanka has experienced impressive economic growth in this time but this is just not worth it. A quote from a

Tamil citizen in the village of Kilinochchi explains this sentiment. “There has been much change.

They brought us roads, banks came, we have electricity now, etc… but psychologically we can’t move around freely without fear.” Ethnic conflict has left Tamil populations as clear second class citizens and has further accentuated governmental corruption but it is also important to recognize that the Sinhala majority is certainly not living prosperously on the back of this oppression. In

2018 Sri Lanka had a gini coefficient of 51.40 (knoema.com) making it the 3rd most unequal country in the world. There has been a reduction in total poverty but growth in inequality which is counterproductive. It means there is still growth but the growth will eventually stagnate. Aside from a necessity for economic change the Sinhala people still live under the same authoritarian government as everyone else and while they certainly do not undergo the oppression of the

Tamils it is still oppression. The country’s COVID-19 response alone reflects this authoritarianism. In the two months since the quarantine on March 20th, police have detained at least 62,162 citizens for violating curfew. In conjunction with that Sri Lanka still has the PTA, and, a member of the Rajapaksa family is prime minister once again. In the seven months since he took office in November has appointed army commanders implicated by the UN for harming civilians to defense secretary and several other key positions. (hrw.org) This authoritarianism along with the uncertainty of the ethnic climate there is not a good thing for anyone and in the case of last year’s Easter attack can harm anyone who happens to be in the country at the wrong time. The culture of ethnic conflict propagated by the government through populist politics has allowed them to exert more control over all citizens of Sri Lanka which is a good thing for nobody.

What can the SAARC do?

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (or SAARC) has an interesting role particularly in the status quo of Sri Lanka, because since it was founded in 1985 and was still finding its bearings as for a while some of the member states believed it would be yet another tool for Indian hegemony in the region. In the status quo the SAARC is an association of the governments of South Asia that occasionally helps in regional co-operation and has had a few big developments with the establishment of SAFTA as well as the early decision to depart from an agrarian economy and begin focusing on service and manufacturing. (Kumar & Goyal,

2016) The place where SAARC falls flat is unsurprisingly the same place as Sri Lanka and that is in civil society. A lack of cohesion in this department is what stops the SAARC from making tangible policies because in many cases the countries themselves have their own issues with coordination of civil societies so trying to have them all work in conjunction with one another seems like an impossible task. I personally believe that the SAARC’s vision beyond the year

2000 composed of free trade, removal of tariffs, etc has shown what it does and continues to do. Create lots of growth but extremely unequally further contributing to the oppression of these marginalized classes like the Tamil in Sri Lanka and the poor everywhere. If the SAARC wants to actually create positive change they will have to intervene into the authoritarian system of Sri

Lanka and I’m not sure of exactly the best way to do this. The issue with a situation like this one in Sri Lanka is that if the SAARC places economic sanctions on the country they will be effective but will mostly affect those citizens living below the poverty line. I advocate that the most effective way for the SAARC to get involved is by sponsoring development projects in

Tamil and Sinhala communities and working on cooperation between the two groups. As is often the case with conflicts like this people on both sides have made mistakes and oppression has been horrendous but continuing the cycle of violence will certainly not solve anything. As I discussed earlier the SAARC’s biggest flaw is its lack of coordination and collaboration between member states as well as the various groups within them. If the SAARC cannot be a model for cohesion and cannot create development projects then the uncertain, dangerous ethnic climate in

Sri Lanka will persist. Attempting to use the SAARC coalition as a threat and check on Sri

Lanka is a terrible idea because economic or physical punishment will just result in further oppression of marginalized peoples.

Conclusion

Hearing stories of Black July is heartbreaking, shocking, and frustrating. For some survivors memories are of terror, fire, and an utter lack of police aid. (BBC 2008) However even in this dark, dark time there was still hope as many Tamil citizens were saved by their Sinhalese neighbors. This is one of the reasons why I still have hope for Sri Lanka. As is the case with most ethnic conflicts it is trivializing to look at them as a conflict between two groups, or oppressor and the oppressed or any other relationship between two entities. The people who are killed in these conflicts should not be understood as simply Tamil or Sinhala or anything. They are all different human beings with different stories and different contexts which resulted in literally millions of unique perspectives on this conflict. Keep in mind the vast majority of citizens on either side are not the extremists. They are people who genuinely hope for pluralism and a better future. The indoctrination of all of these people into this us vs them mindset is perhaps the greatest show of how ethnic conflict and political challenges have resulted in the Sri

Lanka we see today. One that is unrecognizable from the Ceylon of old, exemplified through the dominant state of authoritarianism as well as the complete neoliberal shift which has resulted in them having the world’s third largest gini coefficient. Aside from this mindset shift and obviously the psychological damage from the war the current state of economic inequality, strict government control, and food security are all physical impacts on people which were accentuated due to the country’s conflict and inability to create a sound political system. In general it is hard to understate the damage of ethnic conflict; but Sri Lanka has quite literally been affected in all walks of life due to their inability to make peace.

WORKS CITED:

● Pathways to Power : The Domestic Politics of South Asia, edited by Arjun Guneratne, and

Anita M. Weiss, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,

https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/lib/uoregon/detail.action?docID=158

4133.

● Gunathilake, W. S. S. et al. “Corporate governance in Sri Lanka: the status quo.” (2011). ● Bajoria, Jayshree. “The Sri Lankan Conflict.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign

Relations, 2009, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/sri-lankan-conflict.

● DiManno, Rosie. “Sri Lanka Election Shows Tamils Reject the Status Quo.” Thestar.com, 23

Sept. 2013,

www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/09/22/sri_lanka_election_shows_tamils_reject_the_stat

us_quo.html.

● “GINI Index by Country, 2019.” Knoema, 2018,

knoema.com/atlas/topics/Poverty/Income-Inequality/GINI-index?baseRegion=LK.

● Nathaniel, Camelia. “52,000 Arrested for Curfew Violations.” Daily News, 2020,

www.dailynews.lk/2020/05/12/local/218409/52000-arrested-curfew-violations.

● “Remembering Sri Lanka's Black July.” BBC News, BBC, 23 July 2013,

www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23402727.

● “TIMELINE: Sri Lanka's War and Its Effects on Toronto's Tamil Community.” Toronto.com, 8

May 2019,

www.toronto.com/news-story/9340611-timeline-sri-lanka-s-war-and-its-effects-on-toronto-s-t

amil-community/.

● Thirty Years of SAARC : Society, Culture and Development, edited by Rajiv Kumar, and

Omita Goyal, SAGE Publications, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central,

https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/lib/uoregon/detail.action?docID=453

1625.