One can argue that the Tamils had been given an unfair advantage because of the British colonial policy of elevating the minorities and repressing the majority (throughout the empire, not only in Sri Lanka). Yet Sinhala Only did damage to Sri Lanka that will be nearly impossible to undo. Before the Act, Tamils and Sinhalese went to the same schools. Many formed inter-ethnic friendships that lasted lifetimes and transcended ethnic politics. By separating schools into language streams, Sinhala Only effectively terminated the relationship between the two ethnic groups.

Sinhala Only was passed in 1956. The great Tamil satyagraha (nonviolent protest, which lasted for months) took place in 1960– and was put down brutally by Mrs. Bandaranaike’s government. From that point forward, war was all but inevitable, though Tamil militarism did not really begin until the mid-1970s.

Incidently, Sinhala is closely related to Hindi, though its alphabet more closely resembles that of the south Indian Dravidian language, Malayalim.

The first act of discrimination in Sri Lanka was the disenfanchisement of the Estate Tamils (or Indian Tamils). This was supported not only by the Sinhalese, but by the (high caste) Tamil leadership as well. Within the Tamil community, caste is an important factor– and the LTTE leadership is almost entirely low caste. One of the driving forces that brought the LTTE into being, besides the ethnic discrimination by Sinhalese, was the caste discrimination within the Tamil community. The LTTE was thus formed from a “double minority” that was voiceless within the democratic structure of the country.

On the Sinhalese side, most of the economic development has taken place in the Colombo area in the southwest of the country. The deep south, which was Sinhalese and poor, remains Sinhalese and largely poor today. The excellent education system developed by a series of socialist administrations created a pool of well-educated poor people for whom there were no jobs. In 1972, and again in 1987, the frustration of this lower class erupted into violence. The 1987 uprising lasted over two years, nearly paralyzed the country, and resulted in tens of thousands of Sinhalese killed. Much of the failure to make peace on the Sinhalese side results from the need to placate and redirect the anger of this Sinhalese lower class that has been left out of the increasing prosperity of the nation. The same (Sinhala extremist) JVP that was nearly exterminated in 1989 after they attempted to overthrow the government is now a partner in government.

There is undoubtedly an ethnic element to the conflict. In August, when the foreign aid workers were killed, allegedly by the Sri Lankan military, what most reports skipped was the fact that all but one of those foreign workers were ethnic Tamils. But this ethnic element is the nationalist banner waved by people whose real concerns have little to do with ethnicity. The underlying causes of the conflict are related to economics, caste, and class.

So let us FIRST separate “TERRORISM” from “ETHINICITY and RELIGION”.

Then your discussion will be more meaningful.

All the best. Please go on.

So, I think it’s an overstatement to say such movements are only ethnic. Also, saying such movements are evidence that all ethnic groups want a homeland is a bit of a straw man.

The problem with giving every ethnic group their own area is that it’s contrary to the human experience. Cities and their surrounding areas are filled with large communities of people who aren’t native to their shores. Yesterday Catalonia adopted a new statute of automony pushed by the Zapatero government in Spain, and their are tens of thousands of Catalans in France and Argentina, not to mention tiny Angorra which has, like, 13,000. Wherever there’s trade, you’re going to have different ethnic groups together.

Think about what ethnic separatism really means. We had a long history of it in the US, called “separate but equal.” Separate it was, but hardly equal.

Despite not having a magic “cure” for the problem (which strikes me as an extremely American take on the human condition, namely that there must be a way of solving every problem), I do note that history has plenty of successes. Often messy, of course, but they manage to work themselves out. Even our English counsins eventually integrated the Norman French with the Anglo-Saxons. The point isn’t that there’s a “cure,” but that giving every ethnic group its own political state doesn’t solve the problems either, and is inherently racist. Surely we can start to transcend such primitive ideas?