FactCheck: will Brexit lead to mass deportations?

FactCheck: will Brexit lead to mass deportations?

By Patrick Worrall-May 20, 2016

We’ve seen a rash of headlines on the likely fate of Brits who live in EU countries – and EU immigrants in Britain – following a Leave vote on 23 June.

The Telegraph ran a story this week saying: “Three million EU citizens in the UK could be deported if Britons vote for a ‘Brexit’, Home Office suggests.”

Several papers have also reported that British expats in Spain are worried about their future too.

The fear is that Britain would no longer have to guarantee the “free movement” rights of EU citizens to live and work in this country, and Brits who have settled in Europe would lose the same rights.

But Leave campaigners have said the fears are unfounded, saying the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties will protect everyone’s free movement rights.

International law can be tricky for the layman to interpret, so we asked a number of leading academics who specialise in these areas for their views.

Unusually, there was almost complete agreement from our expert panel. This is what they said…

EU citizenship ends with Brexit

If Britain withdraws, Brits will no longer be EU citizens, and EU citizens will lose their right to live in the UK based on the EU treaties.

Any arrangements that allow UK citizens to continue to live and work in the rest of the EU – and the other way around – will have to be negotiated.

Some treaties specify that “acquired rights” which people enjoy while the agreements are in operation should continue after they are terminated.

But Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union – which allows member states to leave – makes no mention of acquired rights.

The Vienna Convention won’t help

The chief executive of Vote Leave has said that the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ensures that the free movement rights people enjoy under EU law will continue after Britain leaves the bloc. This was contradicted by every expert we spoke to.

Professor Jo Shaw from Edinburgh University said: “The references to international law protecting individual rights are profoundly misleading.”

This is because the Vienna Convention protects the rights of states, not individuals, as severallegal commentators have made clear over the years.

Things protected by the convention would probably be limited to areas like a contract of employment or the ownership of property abroad, rather than the blanket right to live or work in another country, said Professor Damian Chalmers from the LSE.

He said the Brexiteers’ argument created an “absurd situation”: if everyone had the same rights after Brexit that they had before, Britain would not be able to change any EU laws.

“Then there would be no point in leaving the EU,” he added. “It’s a very opportunistic argument that they are using.”

Jean-Claude Piris, former head of legal service of the EU’s Council of Ministers, has also talked of the “absurd consequences” of this theory: “Acquired rights would remain valid for millions of individuals (what about their children and their grandchildren?) who, despite having lost their EU citizenship, would nevertheless keep its advantages for ever.”

Neither will EU law

Vote Leave say: “EU law forbids the collective expulsion of British citizens living in the EU.” They provide a link to the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, which does indeed say: “Collective expulsions are prohibited.”

Again, the experts were not impressed, with several pointing out that the charter only applies to member states when they are applying EU law. If Britain was no longer in the EU, it’s not clear that this would apply to British citizens.

In any event, Professor Chalmers told us: “Prohibitions on collective expulsions… merely require that each case be heard individually, and not that people of the same nationality cannot be expelled.

“UK citizens could be expelled. Procedures would just have to be followed in each individual case.”

But no one is talking about mass deportations anyway

The Telegraph headline claimed ministers are suggesting that 3 million EU citizens “could be deported” from the UK, but that’s not really what the government said.

Lord Keen of Elie, the Home Office spokesman for the Lords, said in a statement: “UK citizens get the right to live and work in the other 27 member states from our membership of the EU.

“If the UK voted to leave the EU, the Government would do all it could to secure a positive outcome for the country, but there would be no requirement under EU law for these rights to be maintained.”

There is no mention of anyone being deported here. What we are talking about is a change of legal status, which would have different implications for different people.

Professor Shaw told us: “I don’t think anyone says you are going to have a collective expulsion of the type we saw, for example, in East Africa. Or some sort of ethnic cleansing as we saw in the Western Balkans/former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

“The correct legal position would be to say that case-by-case people may find that what they assumed was a secure legal status is no longer such a status.

“That will be at the very least worrying, and it will also be the case that some might find themselves, because they lack a legal status under post-Brexit national immigration law, subject to individual enforcement action, just as those who overstay their visas, for example, in the UK are subject to enforcement action.”

Dr Helena Wray from Middlesex University said: “It would be difficult under national and human rights law to remove long-standing residents who entered on the basis that they could remain and who have made a life for themselves here. Those who have not been here for a lengthy period would be more vulnerable.”

Professor Sionaigh Douglas-Scott from Queen Mary University of London said: “A far as I can see it, it’s not so much a matter of collectively expelling anyone as, post-Brexit, not giving them the privileges EU citizens get.

“Instead, after a Brexit, without further negotiated protection, British citizens would be in the same position as other third country nationals living abroad.”

There will have to be a compromise

Again, everyone we spoke to agrees on this. Practically speaking, the British government will not want to be seen to be dealing harshly or unfairly with EU migrants who have made this country their home.

If it did, it would risk reprisals from countries like Spain with large British expat populations.

Professor Eleanor Spaventa from Durham University said negotiations could be complicated, with workers, students and pensioners potentially getting different deals.

She said the most likely outcome would be that EU workers currently employed in the UK who suddenly lose the right to work would be issued work permits, while EU citizens who have permanent residence after living here for five years may get to keep that right to reside.

We might keep freedom of movement anyway

Many believe the most likely post-Brexit scenario is that Britain would leave the EU but stay in the European Economic Area, like Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

EEA countries have to uphold the same “four freedoms” as the EU countries – the free movement of persons, goods, capital and services.

In this scenario, EU citizens will carry on enjoying the same rights as they do now. Of course it remains to be seen whether UK voters would accept such a compromise if reducing immigration from the EU was the main reason they voted to Leave.

The verdict

The consensus from our experts is that the Leavers are wrong on the law – but right to tell people not to worry too much about the prospect of being deported, either from or back to the UK.

That probably won’t happen, but not because of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which all our academics thought was a red herring.

It won’t happen because it won’t be in anyone’s interests, so some kind of political compromise will have to be found.

Syrian refugee wins appeal against forced return to Turkey

 A makeshift refugee camp near the Greek village of Idomeni. Photograph: Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP/Getty Images

Apostolis Fotiadis andHelena Smith in Athens, andPatrick Kingsley in Istanbul

Friday 20 May 2016

The EU-Turkey migration deal has been thrown further into chaos after an independent authority examining appeals claims in Greece ruled against sending a Syrian refugee back to Turkey, potentially creating a precedent for thousands of other

similar cases.

In a landmark case, the appeals committee upheld the appeal of an asylum seeker who had been one of the first Syrians listed for deportation under the terms of the EU-Turkey deal.

In a document seen by the Guardian, a three-person appeals committee said Turkey would not give Syrian refugees the rights they were owed under international treaties and therefore overturned the applicant’s deportation order by a verdict of two to one. The case will now be re-assessed from scratch.

The committee’s conclusion stated: “The committee has judged that the temporary protection which could be offered by Turkey to the applicant, as a Syrian citizen, does not offer him rights equivalent to those required by the Geneva convention.”

The decision undermines the legal and practical basis for the EU-Turkey deal, which European leaders had hoped would deter refugees from sailing to Europeby ensuring the swift deportation of most people landing on the Greek islands.

After signing the deal on 18 March, EU officials claimed these deportations would be legally justified on the basis that Turkey respects refugee rights.

But the EU’s executive has little control over Greek asylum protocols. The committee rejected the logic of the EU-Turkey deal, citing some of the EU’s own previous directives as explanations for their decision.

While nearly 400 other asylum seekers have been returned to Turkey under the terms of the deal, no one of Syrian nationality had been sent back against their will – making Friday’s decision a watershed moment.

“At its very first test, the EU-Turkey deal crumbles,” said Gauri van Gulik, Amnesty International’s deputy Europe director.

The Greek government, which played no part in the independent decision, admitted the judgment had created “a very difficult situation”.

Greece’s deputy minister in charge of migration policy, Yannis Mouzalas, said by phone from Brussels: “I have only just learned of the decision by the appeals committee and I have to be in Greece to study it. 

They are, as you know, independent committees so it is very difficult for me to say anything – but if they think this way, we will have a very difficult situation.”

Such a decision goes against all the directives of the UN and UNHCR, Mouzalas claimed. “Really I don’t know how they arrived at it.”

UNHCR offered no immediate response, but has previously criticised the EU-Turkey deal, and resolved to play no part in it.

Greek media said it would be only a matter of time before the “bombshell” decision had the snowball effect of triggering an avalanche of similar asylum requests by other refugees, especially Syrians, detained on far-flung Aegean islands. Some 174 claims have been examined by appeals committees made up of asylum experts, lawyers and officials in Lesbos so far, with 100 being upheld, according to the Greek daily Kathimerini.

Government figures released on Friday showed 8,592 migrants and refugees were currently being held on the islands, often in squalid conditions.

The increased prospect of being allowed to stay in Greece, rather than being returned to Syria, could also spark a renewed wave of migration from Turkey. Deterred by the deal and by increased Turkish border protection, migrant numbers have dwindled significantly since the deal was announced.

Human rights groups were quick to welcome the news. “We’ve always said Turkey is not a safe country for refugees because it has not fully signed up to the Geneva convention and to the social and judicial status of refugees, especially those who are not Syrians,” said Wenzel Michalski, who as Germany director of Human Rights Watch watched the first forced returns of migrants from Lesbos to Turkey in April.

Pledges by Turkey to improve labour market regulations by facilitating work permits for refugees had not been delivered, nor had promises to install refugee children in the education system, he said. Even worse was evidence of push-backs at the Turkish-Syrian border where would-be refugees had been deliberately shot at and killed – claims denied by the Turkish government.

“There are still lots of children who work instead of going to school and even worse, we still don’t really know about the fate of those deported so far, as NGOs and journalists have been denied access to refugee camps and the first thing Turkish authorities did was to confiscate their smartphones,” he said from Berlin. “We have to say: ‘Greece, thank you,’ because this is a wonderful move.”

There has never been a country that should have been so rich but ended up this poor

People protest President Nicolas Maduro's government in Caracas on May 18, part of planned nationwide protests, marking a new low point in Maduro's unpopular rule. (AFP PHOTO / JUAN BARRETO)

By Matt O'Brien May 19

Venezuela has become a failed state.

According to the International Monetary Fund's latest projections, it has the world's worst economic growth, worst inflation and ninth-worst unemployment rate right now. It also has the second-worst murder rate, and an infant mortality rate at public hospitals that's gotten 100 times worse itself the past four years. And in case all that wasn't bad enough, its currency, going by black market rates, has lost 99 percent of its value since the start of 2012. It's what you call a complete social and economic collapse. And it has happened despite the fact that Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves.

Never has a country that should have been so rich been so poor.

There's no mystery here. Venezuela's government is to blame. Sure, $50-a-barrel oil hasn't helped, but it hasn't hurt so much that a "Mad Max"-style dystopia was inevitable. After all, every other country whose economy begins and ends at its oil wells has at least managed to avoid that fate. Which is to say that Venezuela is a man-made disaster. It's a gangster state that doesn't know how to do anything other than sell drugs and steal money for itself. Indeed, two of President Nicolás Maduro's nephews were arrested on charges of conspiring to bring 800 kilos of cocaine into the United States, the president's right-hand man is suspected of running a drug ring himself, and public money has a habit of disappearing into what could only be private pockets. Two ex-officials estimate that as much as $300 billion has been misappropriated the past decade. It's enough that Transparency International ranks Venezuela as the ninth-most corrupt country in the world. The only ones worse — Somalia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Sudan, South Sudan, Angola, Libya and Iraq — are a collection of rogue and war-torn nations.

Venezuela struggles with days of looting, following widespread shortages in energy and basic goods. (Reuters)

Venezuela is the answer to what would happen if an economically illiterate drug cartel took over a country.

This corruption hasn't just enriched the few. It has also impoverished the many. That's because the government has tried to control the economy to the point of killing it — all, of course, in the name of "socialism." Now let's back up a minute. It really shouldn't have been hard for Venezuela's government to spend some petrodollars on the poor without destroying its economy. All it had to do was send people a check for their share of the country's oil money. Even Alaska does that. And, to be fair, Venezuela was able to do so as well, as long as oil prices were in the triple digits. That's how its government cut povertyalmost 30 percent its first 12 years in power.

You can't keep redistributing oil profits, though, if there aren't any more oil profits to redistribute. Or at least not that many of them — which there aren't now. The first reason for that is that former president Hugo Chávez replaced people who knew what they were doing with people he knew would be loyal to him at the state-owned oil company. The regime's cronies were happy to take money out of the company, but not so much about putting what they needed back in so that they'd continue to be able to turn their extra-heavy crude into refined oil. As a result, production fell 25 percent between 1999 and 2013. And the second reason has just been that oil prices have fallen in half the past two years. Add those two together — selling less oil for less than before — and you have an economic death sentence for a country that doesn't have an economy so much as an oil-exporting business that subsidizes everything else.

Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro declared a 60-day state of emergency on May 13, citing what he calls plots from within the country and the U.S. to topple his leftist government. (Reuters)

But Venezuela has gotten something worse than death. It has gotten hell. Its stores are empty, its hospitals don't have essential medicines, and it can't afford to keep the lights on. All the progress it had made fighting poverty has been reversed, and then some. The police are going after protesters, and vigilantes are going after petty criminals by, for example,burning a 42-year-old father alive for stealing $5. How has it come to this? Well, the underlying cause is that the government hasn't been content to just control the oil business. It wants to control every business. It tells them how much to charge, who's allowed to charge it, and even who's allowed to line up for it. Because that's the one thing Venezuela is well-supplied with now: hours and hours of lines.

Here's how it works — or doesn't, rather. Venezuela's government, you see, has tried to stop the runaway inflation that's resulted from all its money-printing by forcing companies to sell for lower prices than they want. The problem there, though, is that businesses won't sell things for less than they cost. They'll just leave their shelves unstocked instead. So to make up for that, the government has subsidized a select few by selling them dollars at well, well below market rates. Consider this: The Venezuelan bolivar is trading for 1,075 per dollar on the black market right now, but 10 per dollar at the government's most preferential rate.* (It has one other.)

That's like paying $1 to get $108. Now, the idea is that giving companies money like this will let them make money — giving them a reason to fill their stores — even when they sell at the prices they're supposed to. But that's not how it has always worked out. Think about it like this. You could either use the $107 the government has given you to buy, say, milk for $3 overseas that you're only allowed to sell for $2 at home, or you could just sell it for $107 in the black market right away. In the first case, you'd make about $71; in the second, well, $107. So it's not profitable for unsubsidized companies to stock their shelves, but it's not profitable enough for subsidized ones to do so when they can just sell their dollars for more than they can resell imports. That's why Venezuela has had shortages of basic goods — everything from food to beer to toilet paper and especially medical supplies — even before oil prices fell so far.

Why doesn't the government just get rid of this exchange-rate system then? Because as difficult as it is to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it, it's even more so when their embezzling depends on it. In other words, having the power to decide who gets dollars and who doesn't means that you have them yourself, and can skim a little — or $300 billion — off the top if you're so inclined. And the Chavistas have been. It's true that this isn't exactly smart politics or economics in the long run, but in the long run they'll have moved their money into Swiss bank accounts and Miami condos. In the meantime, though, there's a country to loot.

Viva la revolución.

*Update: Venezuela recently consolidated its 6.3 and 13 bolivars per dollar exchange rates into a single 10 bolivars per dollar one.

China denies exporting cans of human meat to African supermarkets

The country’s ambassador to Zambia was forced to respond after several news websites helped fuel the rumour

A butcher chops up meat in China (file pic) Getty Images

Kayleigh Lewis-Friday 20 May 2016

The Chinese government has issued a statement strongly dismissing reports it is packaging human meat as corned beef and sending it to African grocery stores. 

The government was forced to respond after several African publications reported the allegations, made by Facebook user Barbara Akosua Aboagye in a post which has since been shared 26,168 times.

South African websites Msanzi Live and Daily Post even went so far as to speculate the reason behind exporting human meat is due to China’s overpopulation, suggesting the country is unable to find space to bury its dead. 

Chinese Ambassador to Zambia Yang Youming issued a statement on Chinese State Media, saying:

“Today a local tabloid newspaper is openly spreading a rumour, claiming that the Chinese use human meat to make corned beef and sell it to Africa. 

“This is completely a malicious slandering and vilification which is absolutely unacceptable to us. We hereby express our utmost anger and the strongest condemnation over such an act.”

 China meat scandal hits McDonald’s, Starbucks

China has invested heavily in Zambia, especially in the mining industry, however its economic downturn has directly affected workers in the country, with plants being closed and operations suspended.

Some Chinese companies have also come under fire for allegedly exploiting their Zambian workers.

Officials are concerned that rumours, such as those about the exporting of human meat, will further strain the relationship between locals and Chinese businesses.

Zambia's deputy defence minister Christopher Mulenga has vowed the government will launch an investigation into the damaging reports.

He said: “The government of Zambia regrets the incident in view of the warm relations that exist between Zambia and China.

“We shall make sure that relevant government authorities will take up the investigations and give a comprehensive statement.”

Parliamentarian calls on Canada to refer Sri Lanka to International Criminal Court

19 May 2016

A Canadian parliamentarian called on the government to submit the case of Sri Lanka’s mass atrocities to the United Nations Security Council for referral to the International Criminal Court on Wednesday.

Gary Anandasangaree, Member of Parliament for Scarborough-Rouge Park, said the armed conflict in Sri Lanka which ended seven years ago still had unresolved “grave allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Tamil people”.

“These victims demand justice,” he continued.

Mr Anandasangaree went on to state that “accountability cannot be achieved without victims having confidence in an impartial independent and internationally supported system devoid of political influence and entrenched in the rule of law”. 

“The Sri Lankan state has demonstrated its unwillingness to live up to its commitments to the international community,” he added, following months of statements from Sri Lankan leaders refusing to allow international participation in any accountability mechanism.

“Canada must therefore submit the matter to the United Nations Security Council for referral to the International Criminal Court,” said Mr Anandasangaree. 

“For generations Canadians have stood up for human rights on the world stage. This is a clear opportunity for Canada to lead the way.” 

லண்டன் வித்தியாவிற்கு தாயாரின் எலும்பு மச்சை பொருந்தியுள்ளது 

May 18, 2016 • By Sinthana

லண்டன் வித்தியா பற்றி நாம் அறிவோம். அவருக்கு ஏற்பட்ட ரத்த புற்றுநோய் காரணமாக எலும்பு மச்சை தேவைப்பட்ட நிலையில் இன்றைய தினம் , வித்தியாவின் தாயார் ஒரு அறிவித்தலை பேஸ் புக் ஊடாக வெளிட்டுள்ளார்.

அது என்னவென்றால் தனது எலும்பு மச்சை, வித்தியாவுக்கு பொருந்தி உள்ளது என்றும். எனவே தானே தானத்தை கொடுக்க உள்ளதாகவும் அவர் கூறியுள்ளார்.

மிகவும் உயிராபத்தான நிலையில் இருந்த வித்தியாவின் வாழ்வில் மிக முக்கியமான சம்பவம் நடந்துள்ளது அவரது வாழ்க்கைக்கு மிக மிக உறுதுணையாக இருக்கும் எனக் கூறப்படுகிறது.

 

The Fate Of The Tamil Community, Seven Years Later

By Raj Subramaniam –May 19, 2016 

Raj Subramaniam

Seven years have passed since the Tamil community in Sri Lanka lost everything in their fight to unchain 500 years of slavery under the command of foreigners who ruled over the Tamils and enforced their alien laws upon them. It was only after several non-violent efforts that Tamil turned to a campaign of armed resistance for self-defense.

Today, society has awoken to the atrocities carried out by ISIS in the Middle East. If only they had opened their eyes to the crimes of Sri Lanka against the Tamils while they transpired. The cause of the conflict in Sri Lanka was primarily Buddhist chauvinism. Whatever crimes ISIS has perpetrated against the innocent citizenry of Iraq and Syria runs parallel to the terrible actions on the island of the religious extremists against the Tamils.

As I do every year, I wanted to take this opportunity to write this article, to assess the state of the community and further empower our future generations to strive for better. Criticism against one’s own state is integral to moving forward and developing ourselves in the eyes of others.

The Eelam Tamil community can only empower itself through our own realization of the fact that we lost the war. My recent visit to the island taught me an important lesson. The people are self-deprecating, living with the mindset that they “lost” and their situation will never ameliorate. Meanwhile, the Government brags that it was and remains victorious. Sadly, this atmosphere had led the Tamils to coalesce behind the government, who allows them access to illicit alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs being imported from Kerala. While the Navy often busies itself with causing trouble for helpless fishermen, trying to find fish to feed their families on the shores, they turn a blind-eye to the smugglers operating between Kerala and Jaffna.

Rather than carry out another genocide against the Tamils, the government has orchestrated a plan to punish those who survived by reviving backwards social issues and playing our leaders like pawns on a chessboard. They have revived casteism and regionalism to the point where they have become daily issues in the island’s cities and towns. The plague of casteism has prevented the citizenry from doing their daily work, not wanting to be seen by their peers of the aristocracy. Innovation and the drive for excellence have run out of fuel, living the bulk of the community idle. These social evils have manifested themselves not only in Sri Lanka but amongst members of the Tamil diaspora as well.

Read More

Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on the Seventh Anniversary of the End of the War in Sri Lanka

Ottawa, Ontario

18 May 2016

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the Seventh Anniversary of the End of the War in Sri Lanka:

“Today, we mark the anniversary of the end of the war in Sri Lanka in 2009. It is a time to honour, remember, and reflect on the victims of this 26-year war.
 
“Over the past seven years, I have met many victims of this war, and have been deeply moved by their heroic stories of trauma and loss. Much work lies ahead to heal the wounds of all those who have suffered, and to achieve long-term peace and reconciliation on the island.
 
“Tamil-Canadians are an integral part of our country and have overcome much adversity. I extend my deepest sympathy and support to Canadians of Tamil descent. 
 
“I am encouraged that the Sri Lankan government is committed to working with the United Nations Human Rights Council and the international community towards seeking accountability in their country. A robust accountability mechanism must enlist the confidence of the victims of this war, through the meaningful engagement of foreign and Commonwealth investigators, prosecutors, and judges. Canada will continue to engage the international community in investigating and addressing serious violations of international law in Sri Lanka and around the world. We stand willing to assist the government of Sri Lanka in fulfilling this commitment.” 

Sri Lanka state media broadcast of No Fire Zone documentary could aid reconciliation says director

19 May 2016

Responding to Sri Lanka’s foreign minister acknowledging the authenticity of Channel 4 footage used in the No Fire Zone documentaries, the documentary director Callum Macrae, suggested that Sri Lanka state televisions to “broadcast the documentary as soon as possible” to aid the reconciliation process.

Callum Macrae announced the re-release of the Sinhalese version of the No Fire Zone documentary stating, 


“I very much welcome Mangala Samaraweera’s acknowledgement of the authenticity of the Channel 4 footage - and I hope that it will encourage people to watch the Sinhalese version of No Fire Zone, which once again we are making available free on our website,NoFireZone.org.  But more than that I hope it will now be shown on Sri Lankan television and I call on Sri Lankan TV stations to broadcast it as soon as possible.  The fact is that the truth can only help reconciliation. Only the guilty fear it." 



Adding that it was in the interests of all communities in Sri Lanka for state impunity to be addressed, Mr Macrae, said, 

"It should also not be forgotten that the first footage - the chilling mobile phone footage of the execution of naked bound prisoners - originally came from Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka, an organisation consisting of mostly exiled journalists, both Sinhala and Tamil. Since then the evidence has grown - and every denial by the government (sadly including some members of the current government) has subsequently been exposed by yet further evidence.  But many are increasingly accepting that the truth must now be confronted if peace, justice and political solutions are to be found. The fact is that all communities in Sri Lanka have experienced the terrible consequences of state impunity - and it is in the interests of all the communities of Sri Lanka that state impunity is now confronted.  I hope that our film, No Fire Zone, can play a part in that process”

Mangala Samaraweera acknowledged the authenticity of the No Fire Zone documentary evidence, in a recent open letter to former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Mangala Samaraweera accepts legitimacy of No Fire Zone documentary evidence (18 May 2016)

A Compatible Governing System & Mutual Trust Needed To Unify The Divided Island Nation

By S. Narapalasingam –May 19, 2016

Dr. S. Narapalasingam

In my previous article, ‘Conundrum: Sinhala Nationalists Against Federalism But Pushing for Separatism’, I explained how the demand for a separate Tamil State in Sri Lanka emerged and emphasised the need to unite the divided nation for the welfare of all ethnic communities in the island. A suitably reformed governing system fostering national unity must be deemed fair by all the communities in the country. Equally important is the change in the attitude from mistrust to confidence in co-existing as equal partners in the multi-ethnic island with regionally diverse dwelling pattern. The governing system must not ignore the inherent demographic features of the country’s 9 provinces.

The fact that the Sinhalese are not the major ethnic community in the Northern and Eastern provinces should not be a cause for concern to the Sinhala patriots. There is no real basis to think empowered Sri Lankan Tamils residing in these two provinces will be a threat to the ethnic majority residing largely in other provinces. In the modern world, there is also no basis for an ethnic majority in a sovereign country to feel unsafe because their language is exclusive to them unlike Tamil language which is also the mother tongue of the people in Tamil Nadu , south India. The real attachment of Sri Lankan Tamils is to their motherland and not India. Alienation of Sri Lankan Tamils is not the way to safeguard the future of the Sinhalese residing in Sri Lanka. In my earlier article, I have emphasised the fact that Sri Lankan Tamils do not consider Tamil Nadu in South India as their homeland. The Tamil Nadu factor is imaginative. It has no basis in the modern world. In fact, the future of Sinhalese will be safe in a united Sri Lanka with the unity arising from the real feeling of sons and daughters of the same motherland. The present governing system ignores the regional difference in the traditional way the two major ethnic communities reside in different parts of the island.

The fact, the Sinhalese and Tamil communities have their roots in the different States in the island that existed before the British captured the entire island is well known. For administrative convenience, British government introduced the unified system, respecting the traditional dwelling pattern of the Sinhalese and Tamils. Kandy was the last territory that came under the British rule. The Kandyan kingdom was different from others not only because of its location in the hill country but several Kandyan kings were Tamils. Even the wife of the last Sinhalese king of Kandy, Narendrasinghe was a Tamil from a royal family in South India. In ancient Kandy, the language of the court was Tamil. Even the high ranking Sinhalese officials in Kandy were fluent in Tamil. It is the social and cultural differences between the Kandyan and low country Sinhalese that prompted S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike in 1925 to suggest a federal system for Ceylon.

Read More