Sri Lanka: Nationalisms at war

India cannot take an interventionist position with its southern neighbour, yet the outcome of the political negotiations there have a serious repercussion for it

Mohan Guruswamy Colombo

Nationalism is a double-edged sword. It is a benign yet potent force when it is expressed as a sense of belonging to a community of people defined by a territory and the history that goes with it. But when it is expressed as a sense of community of a shared ethnicity, religion or imagined history it often becomes corrosive and divisive. Unfortunately nationalism is increasingly defined in terms of the latter and recent instances abound.

India has largely succeeded in forging nationalism on the basis of geography and a shared perception of history. A taste of what to expect came when the Lal Bahadur Shastri government tried to make Hindi the single official language of India. Nationalism cannot succeed if it is an imposition of the majority. Or even a minority, for can there ever be an Iraqi nationalism where only the Sunni Muslim matters?  On the other hand, even as potent a force as Islam cannot guarantee a sense of oneness. In Pakistan the Muslim political identity is now under severe strain from the challenges posed by asserting ethnic identities. The call of the muezzin is heard just as well by the Baloch but that is not apparently enough to keep them satisfied with being Pakistani.

What is happening in Sri Lanka today has its roots in what happened in India over thousands of years. The fusion of invading Aryans into Indo-Aryans, the recession of Dravidians deep into the lower parts of the peninsula and the emergence of Buddhism against the rigid autocracy of the Hindu caste system have mutated into the deep divide between the island's Sinhala majority and Tamilian minority. This is a complicated situation emerging out of a rich and complex history with ebbs and tides that are seen as highpoints and low points depending on who you are. Just like the Pakistanis christen their North Korean missile "Ghauri" to honor the marauding Afghan, Mohammed of Ghori, whose depredations were mostly in what is Pakistan today, yet who is seen as the foremost exponent of Islam's conquering sword arm instead of the looter and pillager as most Indians now see him. In Sri Lanka too one man's hero is another's villain. Such infatuation with long past events is unhealthy to feelings of community so essential for transition into the modern age.

These differences are further accentuated by perceptions of how one group fared to the disadvantage of the other during the colonial period. As KM De Silva the author of the masterly A History of Sri Lanka puts it: "Most Sinhalese believe that the Tamil minority has enjoyed a privileged position under British rule and the balance has of necessity to shift in favor of the Sinhalese majority. The Sri Lanka Tamil minority is an achievement oriented, industrious group who still continue to enjoy a high status in society, considerable influence in the economy, a significant if diminishing role in the bureaucracy and is well placed in all levels of the education system. The Tamils on their part would claim that they are now a harassed minority, the victims of frequent acts of communal violence and calculated acts and policies of discrimination directed at them." It would seem that an irresistible force vies with an immovable object.

With such strong emotions behind them the clashing forces have soaked the rich soil with the blood of thousands of believers and many more thousand innocents. Both sides are a bit punch drunk and staggered, but the spirit is still willing. The current ceasefire is not because there is a realisation that the strife has to end with a compromise, with much give and take. It is in place because both have lost and the world is getting increasingly fed up with their ways.