- Email: [email protected]
Ethnic conflict and reconciliation in Sri Lanka
POLITICAL
GEOGRAPHY
QUARTERLY,
Vol. 9, No. 2, .4pril 1990, 203-207
Book reviews Ethnic
Conflict and Reconciliation
in Sri Lanka,
Chelvadurai Manogaran, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1987. Agnew (1987) has argued that nationalists make poor students of nationalism and Manogaran’s book is a case in point. Academics, contrary to the positivist claim of being objective observers, are sometimes committed and influential nationalists. I have never been more convinced of this than when I read Manogaran’s book. In the preface he tells us that he ‘has attempted to look at all sides of the issue and make as disinterested a judgment as possible.’ Yet, I was unable to find any side other than that of Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism represented anywhere throughout this work. The purpose of the book, Manogaran tells us, is to ‘document accurately and fairly the historical perspective of SinhaleselTamil relationship in Sri Lanka’. However, I would argue that it documents accurately and fairly the Sri Lankan Tamil nationalist perspective on Sri Lankan history. In this sense it should be considered as a source of primary data by those studying Tamil nationalism, rather than as a scholarly overview of the Sinhalese-Tamil conflict. Manogaran has been very selective in using only those data that support the allegations and claims of Sri Lankan Tamil nationalists. His analysis suggests that the post-inde pendence politics of Sri Lanka have been essentially a conspiracy against Sri Lankan Tamils. He paints a picture of the latter as merely passive reactors within Sinhalesedominated Sri Lanka. This is hardly the case; Sri Lankan Tamils have been co-participants, equally active in the evolution of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Manogaran’s is a black-and-white view of Sri Lankan political history, consistently proSinhalese and anti-Tamil. He is writing committed history, that of an unrestrained nationalist. Consequently, I find his claim that it is ‘the first comprehensive study by a geographer of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka’ unsatisfactory, because it is neither comprehensive nor is it an overview of the ethnic conflict. Another purpose of the book, Manogaran
claims, is to show the alteration of ethnic composition in the ‘Tamil Districts’ during the post-independence era and how it has adversely affected Sri Lankan Tamils. To this end, Manogaran advances a poorly developed, controversial argument based on the concept of a ‘Tamil home land’, and most of the discussion in the book follows from this premise. Manogaran uncritically accepts that the entire northern and eastern provinces constitute the ‘(Sri Iankan) Tamil homeland’. His main arguments for this are based on population distribution and political history. It should be noted that these provinces were created only in the late 19th century by the British colonial rulers. Provincial boundaries were drawn by imperial cartographers in Colombo mostly for administrative convenience, not to demarcate a Tamil homeland. Second, early historical records, and later, the ‘Returns of the Government Agents and Assistant Government Agents’ (found in Blue Books published in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) show that many areas of the present-day eastern province were actually populated by large numbers of Sinhalese and Muslims, as well as by Sri Lankan Tam&, although each community lived in separate, largely isolated, sparsely distributed settlements. As for the political history, the entire island, including the present northern and eastern provinces, constituted the Sinhalese kingdom. During the period between the 13th and 16th centuries, a separate Tamil kingdom existed in Jaffna, but its boundaries did not extend very far south of the peninsula. During the colonial period, the political and economic treaties signed between the Kandyan rulers and the Dutch and Portuguese prove that Kandyan kings had sovereignty over much of the eastern seaboard. I can appreciate Jaffna peninsula being considered a Tamil homeland, as all the criteria Manogaran employs fit that particular case perfectly. The incorporation of the eastern province as a part of the Tamil homeland has been one of the strongest political demands of the Sri Iankan Tamil nationalists, although I would argue that the way
204
Book reviews
in which Manogaran has attempted to legitimize whether Tamils constitute the dominant comthese demands is weak. munity’ (p. 179). He also argues in favor of the Another misleading assumption is his rigid complete spatial segregation of Sri Lankan Tamils separation of Tamil and Sinhalese areas. Mano- and Sinhalese (pp. 17%180), although one garan conveniently omits the fact that 40 percent wonders how he thinks this can be achieved. of all Sri Lankan Tamils live outside the northern 1 cannot help but compare this book with those and eastern provinces. Ironically, the largest Sri of Ponnambalam (1983) and Tambiah (1986), as Lankan Tamil center in Sri Lanka is not Jaffna, they are the only other recent works by Tamils but Colombo. The majority of the Muslims and on the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka. PonnamIndian Tamils have always lived in so-called balam is an ardent supporter of Sri Lankan Tamil ‘Sinhalese areas’. This distribution pattern separatism and his book openly reflects his undermines the validity of Manogaran’s position. Tambiah, in spite of his ethnocentric argument that spatial inequality has a clear ethnic title, provides a much more realistic and balanced dimension. account of the issue. It is ironic, however, that Manogaran often and deliberately conflates despite an impartial title and introductory claim the Tamil language with Sri Lankan Tamil of objectivity, Manogaran’s approach reveals ethnicity. Tamil language is spoken by three him to be a more committed nationalist than Without a doubt this is the ethnic groups-Sri Lankan Tamils, Indian Ponnambalam. clearest statement of Sri Lankan Tamil nationalTamils and a fairly large percentage of Muslims -while the separatist movement is exclusively a ism 1 have read so far, but only as such would I Sri Lankan Tamil phenomenon. At no time in Sri recommend it to geographers studying contemporary ethno-nationalism in Sri Lanka. Lankan history have all three Tam&speaking ethnic groups united for any reason. Thus to talk of a Tam&speaking people as a separate politico- Shantha K. Hennayake linguistic group is inaccurate. However, Mano- Department of Geography garan strategically uses whichever meaning of Syracuse University Tamil (ethnic or linguistic) supports his argument best. For example, he uses Tamil References language in the discussion of higher education, AGNEW, J. A. (1987). Is there a geography of nationalbut Sri Lankan Tamil ethnicity in his discussion ism? The case of place and nationalism in of political evolution. Scotland. In National&m and the State (E. Manogaran treats the Sri Lankan Tamil and Kofman and C. Williams eds). London: Croom Sinhalese ethnic groups as monolithic entities. Helm. This conceptualization can be considered a PONNAMBALAM, S. (1983). Sri Lanka: National political act in nationalist writing, as it underConjict and the Tamil Liberation Struggh. Thornton Heath, Surrey: The Tamil Information mines politically-significant internal differences Centre. and also ignores place-specificity in the expresTAMBIAH, S. J. (1986). Sri Lanka: Ethnic Fratricide sion of nationalism. For example, Manogaran and the Dirnumth~ o/Democracy. Chicago and never talks about the political differences between London: University of Chicago Press. Colombo, Jaffna and Batticaloa Tamils. Such an oversimplification undermines the very ‘geoWomen in Cities: Gender and the Urban graphy’ that Manogaran claims to be studying. Environment, Jo Little, Linda Peake and Pat It is evident that Manogaran has not critically Richardson (eds), MacMillan, London, 1988, examined many of the politico-geographical 154 pp. concepts (e.g. ethnic area, homeland, nationalism), employed in his book. The lack of theo- No more than a decade ago, the idea of a feminist was virtually unknown; now, retical discussion about these concepts has made geography although still ignored by many and ridiculed by their use ambiguous and often contradictory. a few, it has become a recognized approach within Some of Manogaran’s solutions are alarming. Throughout the book, he has argued against the discipline, and substantive theoretical and Sinhalese dominance due to its negative effects on empirical contributions to feminist geographical Sri Lankan Tamils. However, when he argues for research have been made. There has also been significant change and growth in the theoretical a Tamil province, he states that ‘it is irrelevant
GEOGRAPHY
QUARTERLY,
Vol. 9, No. 2, .4pril 1990, 203-207
Book reviews Ethnic
Conflict and Reconciliation
in Sri Lanka,
Chelvadurai Manogaran, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1987. Agnew (1987) has argued that nationalists make poor students of nationalism and Manogaran’s book is a case in point. Academics, contrary to the positivist claim of being objective observers, are sometimes committed and influential nationalists. I have never been more convinced of this than when I read Manogaran’s book. In the preface he tells us that he ‘has attempted to look at all sides of the issue and make as disinterested a judgment as possible.’ Yet, I was unable to find any side other than that of Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism represented anywhere throughout this work. The purpose of the book, Manogaran tells us, is to ‘document accurately and fairly the historical perspective of SinhaleselTamil relationship in Sri Lanka’. However, I would argue that it documents accurately and fairly the Sri Lankan Tamil nationalist perspective on Sri Lankan history. In this sense it should be considered as a source of primary data by those studying Tamil nationalism, rather than as a scholarly overview of the Sinhalese-Tamil conflict. Manogaran has been very selective in using only those data that support the allegations and claims of Sri Lankan Tamil nationalists. His analysis suggests that the post-inde pendence politics of Sri Lanka have been essentially a conspiracy against Sri Lankan Tamils. He paints a picture of the latter as merely passive reactors within Sinhalesedominated Sri Lanka. This is hardly the case; Sri Lankan Tamils have been co-participants, equally active in the evolution of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Manogaran’s is a black-and-white view of Sri Lankan political history, consistently proSinhalese and anti-Tamil. He is writing committed history, that of an unrestrained nationalist. Consequently, I find his claim that it is ‘the first comprehensive study by a geographer of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka’ unsatisfactory, because it is neither comprehensive nor is it an overview of the ethnic conflict. Another purpose of the book, Manogaran
claims, is to show the alteration of ethnic composition in the ‘Tamil Districts’ during the post-independence era and how it has adversely affected Sri Lankan Tamils. To this end, Manogaran advances a poorly developed, controversial argument based on the concept of a ‘Tamil home land’, and most of the discussion in the book follows from this premise. Manogaran uncritically accepts that the entire northern and eastern provinces constitute the ‘(Sri Iankan) Tamil homeland’. His main arguments for this are based on population distribution and political history. It should be noted that these provinces were created only in the late 19th century by the British colonial rulers. Provincial boundaries were drawn by imperial cartographers in Colombo mostly for administrative convenience, not to demarcate a Tamil homeland. Second, early historical records, and later, the ‘Returns of the Government Agents and Assistant Government Agents’ (found in Blue Books published in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) show that many areas of the present-day eastern province were actually populated by large numbers of Sinhalese and Muslims, as well as by Sri Lankan Tam&, although each community lived in separate, largely isolated, sparsely distributed settlements. As for the political history, the entire island, including the present northern and eastern provinces, constituted the Sinhalese kingdom. During the period between the 13th and 16th centuries, a separate Tamil kingdom existed in Jaffna, but its boundaries did not extend very far south of the peninsula. During the colonial period, the political and economic treaties signed between the Kandyan rulers and the Dutch and Portuguese prove that Kandyan kings had sovereignty over much of the eastern seaboard. I can appreciate Jaffna peninsula being considered a Tamil homeland, as all the criteria Manogaran employs fit that particular case perfectly. The incorporation of the eastern province as a part of the Tamil homeland has been one of the strongest political demands of the Sri Iankan Tamil nationalists, although I would argue that the way
204
Book reviews
in which Manogaran has attempted to legitimize whether Tamils constitute the dominant comthese demands is weak. munity’ (p. 179). He also argues in favor of the Another misleading assumption is his rigid complete spatial segregation of Sri Lankan Tamils separation of Tamil and Sinhalese areas. Mano- and Sinhalese (pp. 17%180), although one garan conveniently omits the fact that 40 percent wonders how he thinks this can be achieved. of all Sri Lankan Tamils live outside the northern 1 cannot help but compare this book with those and eastern provinces. Ironically, the largest Sri of Ponnambalam (1983) and Tambiah (1986), as Lankan Tamil center in Sri Lanka is not Jaffna, they are the only other recent works by Tamils but Colombo. The majority of the Muslims and on the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka. PonnamIndian Tamils have always lived in so-called balam is an ardent supporter of Sri Lankan Tamil ‘Sinhalese areas’. This distribution pattern separatism and his book openly reflects his undermines the validity of Manogaran’s position. Tambiah, in spite of his ethnocentric argument that spatial inequality has a clear ethnic title, provides a much more realistic and balanced dimension. account of the issue. It is ironic, however, that Manogaran often and deliberately conflates despite an impartial title and introductory claim the Tamil language with Sri Lankan Tamil of objectivity, Manogaran’s approach reveals ethnicity. Tamil language is spoken by three him to be a more committed nationalist than Without a doubt this is the ethnic groups-Sri Lankan Tamils, Indian Ponnambalam. clearest statement of Sri Lankan Tamil nationalTamils and a fairly large percentage of Muslims -while the separatist movement is exclusively a ism 1 have read so far, but only as such would I Sri Lankan Tamil phenomenon. At no time in Sri recommend it to geographers studying contemporary ethno-nationalism in Sri Lanka. Lankan history have all three Tam&speaking ethnic groups united for any reason. Thus to talk of a Tam&speaking people as a separate politico- Shantha K. Hennayake linguistic group is inaccurate. However, Mano- Department of Geography garan strategically uses whichever meaning of Syracuse University Tamil (ethnic or linguistic) supports his argument best. For example, he uses Tamil References language in the discussion of higher education, AGNEW, J. A. (1987). Is there a geography of nationalbut Sri Lankan Tamil ethnicity in his discussion ism? The case of place and nationalism in of political evolution. Scotland. In National&m and the State (E. Manogaran treats the Sri Lankan Tamil and Kofman and C. Williams eds). London: Croom Sinhalese ethnic groups as monolithic entities. Helm. This conceptualization can be considered a PONNAMBALAM, S. (1983). Sri Lanka: National political act in nationalist writing, as it underConjict and the Tamil Liberation Struggh. Thornton Heath, Surrey: The Tamil Information mines politically-significant internal differences Centre. and also ignores place-specificity in the expresTAMBIAH, S. J. (1986). Sri Lanka: Ethnic Fratricide sion of nationalism. For example, Manogaran and the Dirnumth~ o/Democracy. Chicago and never talks about the political differences between London: University of Chicago Press. Colombo, Jaffna and Batticaloa Tamils. Such an oversimplification undermines the very ‘geoWomen in Cities: Gender and the Urban graphy’ that Manogaran claims to be studying. Environment, Jo Little, Linda Peake and Pat It is evident that Manogaran has not critically Richardson (eds), MacMillan, London, 1988, examined many of the politico-geographical 154 pp. concepts (e.g. ethnic area, homeland, nationalism), employed in his book. The lack of theo- No more than a decade ago, the idea of a feminist was virtually unknown; now, retical discussion about these concepts has made geography although still ignored by many and ridiculed by their use ambiguous and often contradictory. a few, it has become a recognized approach within Some of Manogaran’s solutions are alarming. Throughout the book, he has argued against the discipline, and substantive theoretical and Sinhalese dominance due to its negative effects on empirical contributions to feminist geographical Sri Lankan Tamils. However, when he argues for research have been made. There has also been significant change and growth in the theoretical a Tamil province, he states that ‘it is irrelevant