The Real Citizens of Sri Lanka

essay response to a lecture given by Ranjith Amarasinghe, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Peradeniya

When I first began learning about the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka--especially after Tissa Jayatilake's lecture--I immediately identified language as a key component of the problem. Without a common language, I wondered, how could a state ever hope to be united? America faces a similar problem, though to a lesser degree, especially in states close to the Mexican border. There have been attempts across the board to promote America as a mono-lingual, English-speaking country, and on the other, movements to use Spanish alongside English. Both stances have riled up the American people, and tends to be a polarizing issue. Unaccommodating and marginalizing as it is, I can understand the mono-lingual perspective. The people of a country need to be able to communicate with their government and with each other. Americans spoke English before Mexican immigrants arrived--though even that is a semi-fallacious argument. We're a nation of immigrants, and we all speak many different languages. Regional dialects of English can be so varied that some linguists argue that they are practically a different language. Even still, it would be time-consuming and expensive to officially accommodate other languages. Throughout our history, we've expected immigrants to assimilate and learn English. There is really no reason for Mexican immigrants to expect different treatment. Of course, this will all blow over the minute we have a new, common enemy that the American people can unite against to demonize.

Demonization aside, I feel like Sri Lanka is in a slightly different situation. The two groups that speak different languages both claim to be the "original" in habitants of the island. Both of their claims go so far back that the claims begin to blur the line between myth, pre-history and written history. And unfortunately, who holds the original claim to the island is still a current issue, which further outlines the disunity of the state. To add to this mess, they speak different languages, and in more than one way, as Professor Amarasinghe has pointed out. While they do literally speak the incompatible Tamil and Sinhala, the two groups also can't seem to find a common ground on which to stand. So not only was the ethnic conflict an issue of practical, communicative language, but one of finding their national tongue.

Official flag of Sri Lanka

Who are the citizens of Sri Lanka? Unfortunately, the Sinhala-Buddhist majority, in the time leading up to the ethnic conflict, proved time and time again they believed they were the only ones deserving of citizenship. They marginalized the Tamils (and everyone else that wasn't Sinhala-Buddhist) in legislative representation. They very literally portrayed what they believed to be the true state of Sri Lanka in a very iconic representation: the flag, which visually placed the Tamils and Muslims in an extremely periphery position to the Sinhalese, as represented by the green and orange vertical stripes of color. Then, there was the mother-tongue movement, which, in the end, granted Sinhala the position of the official language of Sri Lanka. The Tamils didn't even oppose the return to a native language, they merely were asking for some inclusion rather than total exclusion. But those in power made it clear that they were unwilling to share with any minority interest groups, and the requests of the Tamils again, went unheard. It became very clear to the Tamils (and others) that the state had no interest in representing them or their interests. Their list of grievances grew longer and longer, and political unrest grew within the Tamil population. Dissatisfied with the ineffectiveness of the past leaders, they finally took to arms. While Amarasinghe does concede that language played a role in the conflict, perhaps its significance was overblown. Not only that, but focusing on the issue of language ignores the deeper and more problematic issue of the state being unable or unwilling to include within its citizenry those who are just as deserving as the Sinhala-Buddhist majority.

Originally written 28 October 2011.