February 4: Independence Day To The Sinhalese & A Black Day To The Tamils
By Rajaratnam Rukshan –FEBRUARY 4, 2019
Rajaratnam Rukshan
The Postcolonial Sri Lanka has become worse than what it was during Colonial Period: The Sorrow History of How February 4th– the Day of Independence to the Sinhalese has Turned Out to be a Black Day to the Tamils
Sri Lanka has completed a postcolonial era of 70 years, after being freed from the fetters of the colonial rule and she is currently entering the 71styear. We Sri Lankans, who incessantly boast about Sri Lanka’s achievement of independence are not in the least interested to recall the history of the past 71 years, during which the foundation had been laid for the never-ending ethnic conflict. It is, in fact, very unfortunate to note that the same day, which is the day of independence to one particular ethic group has turned out to be a black day to another. Although the British colonial rule (1796 – 1948) had helped to strengthen the ethnic identity of the two main ethnic groups, the changes in the economic structure introduced by the British during this period had an impact on the ethnic relationships between the Tamils and the Sinhalese. This was the cause for affecting the postcolonial relationships between the two main ethnic groups that had been historically interacting socially, economically and politically well with each other. In spite of the fact that such a foundation for ethnic disharmony was laid during the British colonial period, no one would deny the truth that it was only during the postcolonial period, the ethnic conflict has escalated into frequent acts of violence. This article is attempting to analyse from the point of view of the Tamils, the basics that led to their desperate plight during this postcolonial period of 71 years.
Is it Liberation or Political Independence?
February 4th is nationally considered as the day Sri Lanka gained independence. From the point of view of colonialism, this could also be recognized the first day of the postcolonial era. When we review the past political history, the latter description seems more appropriate than the previous one. This is because independence differs from political liberation. As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, the country liberated itself from the British colonialism and thereafter entered into the postcolonial structure.
The fact that a country liberates itself from colonial rule means that it has reached the important stage of autonomy. This is quite evident from the initiatives for development that are being under taken by those countries which achieved political independence. Generally speaking, this could be also inferred from the history of the Asian, African and Latin American countries which after their political liberation paved the way for their people to enjoy the fruits of independence. However, on the contrary, it is unfortunate to observe that ethnic conflicts have erupted in those countries recently liberated from colonialism. In these countries, the majority communities after gaining political authority have started discriminating against the ethnic minorities. Sri Lanka is no exception to such a behaviour. The history of the island’s ethnic conflict proves that such a situation has prevented its people from enjoying the fruits of independence or the self-governing structure.
In fact, Sri Lanka has failed in transforming its liberation gained from colonialism in 1948, “independently” as its own independence. This is quite evident from the series of actions that India – our neighbouring country – had taken in developing itself. Within a short period of its liberation from colonialism, a part of India separated itself from the sub-continent and came to be known as Pakistan. As a follow up, the important task that India undertook was the establishment of a Constitutional Council, designing a suitable constitution and the declaration of India a Republic. The dawn of independence was spoilt by its inevitable partition that led to the formation of Pakistan. Remembering such an undesirable experience and having unshakable faith in the concept of unity “we Indians,” in 1956, the country establishes linguistic states i.e. states based on the language spoken by a group of its people, with the intention of avoiding further division of the country. The demand for separation lost its vigour ever since, and the concept of national integration has steadily gained ground.
India’s struggle against colonialism differed from Sri Lanka’s approach, in the same way as that of the success of India’s postcolonial history in considering its independence as its treasured possession. Even though there existed difference of opinion among those freedom fighters of India, in respect of independent India all of them had a clear view. In other words, what they wanted was that by gaining political freedom India should be liberated from the experiences of its colonial history and postcolonial aspirations of India should be entirely free from their colonial characteristics. This was the reason why India declared itself a Republic soon after it was liberated from colonialism and started building up nationalism by establishing state based on respective languages, with the view to prevent separatism.
Whereas in respect of Sri Lankan leaders – whether they are the leaders of the Sinhala majority community or the leaders of the minority Tamil community – they have failed in fulfilling this historical obligation. This historical failure commences from the struggle for Sri Lanka’s independence. Unlike Indian leaders, the Sri Lankan leaders led their movement with the objective of achieving self-government under the British imperialism. Their objective was to bring about changes in the functioning government as well as in the administration in a peaceful way and through Constitutional changes. Hence the Sri Lankan leaders did not adopt the strategy of the Indian leaders who opposed the British colonialists and strove to gain independence. They preferred to gain self-rule without antagonising the British colonial rulers. In other words, the Sri Lankan leaders did not even think of demanding the British to quit Sri Lanka.
