Tamil lunatic fringe anti-Muslim racism 

May 19, 2015, 8:10 am

Dr. Devanesan Nesiah responds to former Ambassador Izeth Hussain

The above was serialized in The Island of 28 April, 2 May and 9 May 2015. Is there a major Muslim-Tamil problem that needs to be addressed? Do the numerous acts of anti-Muslim violence by the LTTE, including the Mosque massacres in the East and the eviction from the North of the entire Muslim population settled there for many generations, and also the many acts of anti – Tamil violence in the East by state appointed Muslim home guards demand remedial action to restore Muslim Tamil relations, especially in the North and East? My answer is definitely yes. Indiscriminate acts of communal violence against civilians, especially if they contain even a trace of ethnic cleansing, need to be adequately addressed before the ethnic animosities that they generate spread and poison interethnic harmony. We see elsewhere in South Asia and in virtually every continent, evidence of such developments – in Kashmir and many other parts of South Asia, in Northern Ireland, in Palestine and many other regions of West Asia, in many parts of Africa, and also in Europe, North and South America, and Australia.

In our own Island I know of no significant, sustained instances of Muslim-Tamil violence except in the late 1980s and the 1990s. Outside this period clashes have occurred over personal issues and some of these have developed communal overtones, but these were invariably localized and quickly and amicably settled. But why were the unprecedented, major, planned Muslim-Tamil incidences listed in the previous paragraph not prevented or adequately inquired into and settled. Clearly, neither the state nor the LTTE found it in their interest to either prevent these acts of violence or to settle them. In the case of the eviction of the Muslims from the North, it was left to a group of Muslim civil society activists to convene, 20years after the event and independent of the state, a multi-ethnic Citizens’ Commission to investigate and report on the tragedy and to recommend remedial action. I was a member of that commission and wrote the Introduction to the Report. Sadly, most of the expelled Muslims had not yet been induced to return and Tamil-Muslim relationsin the North have not yet returned to normalcy. The situation in the East is worse in that the violence and the land grabbing by the LTTE, the Home Guards and the State have not even been inquired into. Tensions will remain escalated till justice is done.

Ambassador Izeth Hussain traces the roots of the unsatisfactory Muslim – Tamil relations to the opposition of Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan in the late 19th Century to separate Muslim representation in the Governor’s advisory body on the ground that Muslims in Sri Lanka are Tamils. This is different from the attempt of the Federal party in the third quarter of the 20th Century to promote a Tamil Speaking People’s identity together with the request that they should enjoy autonomy in the North –East region, with the proviso that if the Muslims so desire, there could be a Muslim majority autonomous region in the South East.

Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan was again involved in another controversy relating to the Muslim -Tamil divide. Many Sinhalese were falsely implicated in the 1915 anti-Muslim riots. Some of those falsely implicated were killed and others arrested. Ramanathan was among those who most stridently espoused the cause of the innocent Sinhalese so killed or arrested. But this was not balanced by expressions of sympathy for the Muslim victims. This caused resentment among the Muslims. This was evident even five decades later in a conversation that I had with my neighbour M.A.M. Hussain who was then District Judge Badulla (I was then A.G.A. Badulla). Judge Hussain’s animosity against Ramanathan yet rankled. So too was his resentment of the post-Independence Muslim leaders representing Sinhalese majority electorates who, in his opinion, were more concerned with pleasing their voters and the government than with the concerns of the Muslim people of the North and East. This is in line with Izeth Hussain’s statement that those Muslim leaders "backed the Sinhalese in every feat of racist idiocy". It is pertinent to note that except for the Muslim M.Ps from the East and the lone Jaffna born Muslim Senator A.M.A. Azeez, all other Muslim parliamentarian voted for Sinhala only. This raised much anti – Muslim sentiments among the Tamils. Judge Hussain, together with his nephew Ashraff, founded the Eastern based Sri Lanka Muslim Congress precisely to produce Muslim leaders sensitive to the concerns of the Muslims resident in the North and East.

Prof. M.A. Nuhman has pointed out elsewhere that in India ethnic groups are identified primarily by Language rather than by Religion whereas in Sri Lanka, though nearly all Muslims accept Tamil as their mother tongue, they define themselves to be a distinct ethnic group. This pattern is now getting more complicated in that a growing number of Muslims in predominantly Sinhala areas are adopting Sinhala as the medium of education of their children in preference to Tamil. In course of time there could be two categories of Muslims, those based in the North and East claiming Tamil as their mother tongue and those based in predominantly Sinhalese areas claiming Sinhala as their mother tongue. A further complication is that because many Muslim children attend "International schools" that teach in the English medium, there is a growing proportion of Muslims familiar with the English language and who may, in due course, consider that to be their mother tongue.In any case the status of Muslims as a separate ethnic group should not be disputed- each community is entitled to define its identity based on its own perception of social experience, cultural tradition, history and ancestry.

The British administration created three cadres of District Revenue Officers of Kandyan Sinhalese, Low Country Sinhalese and Tamil ethnicity to administer the Kandyan, Low Country and Tamil Regions into which they divided the Island for administrative purposes. At that time Kandyan Sinhalese and Low Country Sinhalese were regarded as ethnically distinct whereas Tamils and Muslims were regarded as ethnically allied. Since then the Kandyan-Low Country distinction has narrowed and Tami-Muslim distinction has widened. Perceptions have changed dramatically and we need to accept the current perceptions regarding ethnic identity as overriding those of the past. Ethnic identity apart, Tamil nationalism entered the politics of the Island as a reaction to Sinhalese nationalism and, in turn, Muslim nationalism became politically potent as a reaction to both Tamil and Sinhalese nationalisms. But the reality of three distinct the ethnic groups and even three distinct nationalities need not preclude inter – ethnic reconciliation and the development of a united, plural SriLankan nation.

I see an urgent need for a meeting of Tamil and Muslim leaders, primarily of the North and East but also other regions, to work out commonobjectives with a view to taking a common stand at the Parliamentary Select Committee. A Tamil Muslim clash in the Committee will be counterproductive and should be avoided. There are enough sane voices among Tamil and Muslim leaders to make such an initiative possible and productive. The current Sinhalese leadership is also likely to be receptive to such an initiative. Many difficulties remain but for the first time since independent a decisive Sinhalese – Tamil –Muslim political consensus, though yet distant, seems to be within reach. It is only then that the end of war can translate into peace for one Sri Lanka for one people with diverse nationalities.

Before I end, I would like to comment on Izeth Hussain’s reference to a meeting at which we, along with Sarachchandra, spoke in the Colombo Cathedral premises of the Church of Ceylon in the early 1990s. He has quoted me as saying that "(Ambassador Hussain) as an official had a blameless record but thereafter had somehow been at the centre of controversy" I had gone on to say that "I agreed 90% with what he said". If I am asked if I am yet of the same opinion, I would reply yes except that I might amend that 90% to 99%.