Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:34:29.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Tamil Separatism in Sri Lanka: Some Factors undermining the Claim

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

M. Rafiqul Islam
Get access

Extract

The attainment of independence by many colonial peoples and territories all over the world through the process of decolonisation is perhaps one of the significant events in contemporary international law and relations. In the process of decolonisation, many distinct groups and territories under different autonomous administrations were subjected to forced unity under a single colonial administration. The grievances and expectations of these identified groups were not taken into consideration during the decolonisation process. As a result, decolonisation has created in its wake numerous multiracial States. These States are now confronted with the problem of national unity. Some of them have been able to preserve their national solidarity by defusing the separatist sentiment of dissident groups: some, however, have attempted this in vain.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , May 1986 , pp. 65 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Such an appeal has been made in The Tamils Fight for National Freedom, a memorandum submitted by the Tamil Liberation Tigers to the Seventh Summit Meeting of Non-Aligned Nations held in New Delhi, 7–15 March 1983.

2. For a survey of these facts, see A Memorandum on Discrimination, submitted to the International Commission of Jurists by the Tamil United Front, Colombo, 1973Google Scholar ; Amnesty International's Report of a Mission to Sri Lanka, 1975 (1976)Google Scholar; Schwarz, W., The Tamils of Sri Lanka, (1975)Google Scholar; Kearney, R.N., ‘Language and the Rise of Tamil Separatism in Sri Lanka’, 18 Asian Survey (1978) p. 521CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Siriweera, W.I., ‘Recent Developments in Sinhala-Tamil Relations’, 20 Asian Survey (1980) p. 903CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wriggins, W.H., ‘Sri Lanka in 1980: The Year of Constraints’, 21 Asian Survey (1981) p. 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Rahman, S.Z., ‘Sri Lanka: The Ethnic Crisis’, The Bangladesh Observer, 9 06 1985Google Scholar; Far Eastern Econ. Rev., 7 February 1985, p. 13; Shah, M. Azher Zafar, ‘India Trains Sri Lanka Terrorists?’, Holiday, 28 06 1985Google Scholar.

4. Ponnambalam, S., Sri Lanka: National Conflict and the Tamil Liberation Struggle (1983) pp. 7–8, 177–185Google Scholar; Holiday, 5 July 1985; The Hindu (international edition) no. 19, 11 May 1985; The New Nation, 21 August 1984.

5. The Sinhalese live in the west, south and centre and the Tamils in the north and east - the two regions effectively separated by impenetrable jungle, see Ponnambalam, , op.cit., n.4, pp. 2, 29Google Scholar.

6. See Buchheit, L.C., Secession: The Legitimacy of Self-Determination (1978) pp. 141, 162Google Scholar; McNemar, D.W., ‘The Post-Independence War in the Congo’, 61 ASILP (1967) p. 13Google Scholar; Miller, E.M., ‘Legal Aspects of the UN Action in the Congo’, 55 AJIL (1961) p. 1Google Scholar; Wiseberg, L.S., ‘Humanitarian Intervention: Lessons From the Nigerian Civil War’, 7 Human Rights Journal (1974) p. 65Google Scholar; Nayar, M.G., ‘Self-Determination Beyond the Colonial Context: Biafra in Retrospect’, 10 Texas ILJ (1975) pp. 322–323Google Scholar.

7. From the very beginning, it was virtually impossible to maintain any land connection between East and West Pakistan due to Indo-Pakistan hostilities. The territory of East Pakistan, a distinct territorial base, was the traditional and exclusive homeland of the Bengalese to which they owed their loyalty.

8. Katanga comprised only 13 per sent of the total population of the Congo, see Lemarchand, R., ‘The Limits of Self-Determination: The Case of the Katanga Secession’, 56 American Political Science Review (1962) p. 405CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chen, L.C., ‘Self-Determination As a Human Right’, in Reisman, W. and Weston, B. eds., Towards World Order and Human Dignity (1976) p. 259Google Scholar. Of the 56 million population of Nigeria, Biafra comprised only 13.5 million, see Nixon, C.R., ‘Self-Determination: The Nigerian/Biafra Case’, 24 World Politics (1971–1972) pp. 480–481Google Scholar; Anber, P., ‘Modernisation and Political Disintegration: Nigeria and the Ibos’, 5 Journal of Modern African Studies (1967) p. 163CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Department of Census and Statistics, Census of Population, 1971, Colombo: Department of Government Printing, 1975, vol. II, part I, p. 25Google Scholar

10. See Chowdhury, S.R., The Genesis of Bangladesh (1972) p. 2Google Scholar.

11. See Bowett, D.W., ‘Self-Determination and Political Rights in the Developing Countries’, 60 ASILP (1966) p. 131Google Scholar. For an application of this principle, see Suzuki, E., ‘Self-Determination and World Public Order: Community Response to Territorial Separation’, 16 Virginia JIL (1975–1976) pp. 824–826Google Scholar; but for a contrary opinion, see Richardson, H. III, ‘Self-Determination, International Law and the South African Bantustan Policy’, 17 Col. J Trans. L (1978) p. 202Google Scholar.

12. Franck, T. and Carey, J., The Legal Aspects of the UN Action in the Congo (1963) p. 5Google Scholar; Hoskyns, C., The Congo Since Independence (1965) pp. 14–15Google Scholar; Post, K., ‘Is There a Case for Biafra?’, 44 International Affairs (1968) p. 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kamanu, O., ‘Secession and the Right of Self-Determination: An OAU Dilemma’, 12 Journal of Modern African Studies (1974) p. 365CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baker, R., ‘The Emergence of Biafra: Balkanization or Nation-Building?’, 12 ORBIS (1968) p. 533Google Scholar.

13. For details, see Nations, R., ‘The Economic Structure of Pakistan: Class and Colony’, 68 New Left Rev. (1971) p. 15 et seq.Google Scholar; Misra, K., ‘Intra-State Imperialism: The Case of Pakistan’, 9 Journal of Peace Research (1972) p. 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morris-Jones, W., ‘Pakistan Post-Mortem and the Roots of Bangladesh’, 43 Pol. Q. (1972) p. 199Google Scholar; Mankekar, D., Pak Colonialism in East Bengal (1971) p. 12Google Scholar; Jahan, R., Pakistan: Failure in National Integration (1972)Google Scholar.

14. For the economic interdependent of various Sri Lankan regions, see Warnapala, W., ‘Sri Lanka in 1979: New Stresses in the Economy and the Polity’, 20 Asian Survey no. 2 (1980) p. 213CrossRefGoogle Scholar; N. Balakrishnan, ‘Economic Policies and Trends in Sri Lanka’, idem vol. 20, no. 9 (1980) p. 891; W.H. Wriggins, ‘Sri Lanka in 1981: Year of Austerity, Development Councils and Communal Disorders’, idem vol. 22, no. 2 (1982) p. 171.

15. See Bassiouni, M.C., ‘Self-Determination and the Palestinians’, 65 ASILP (1971) p. 36.Google Scholar

16. There occurred five major anti-Tamil riots in 1956, 1958, 1971, 1977 and 1981 respectively. See Ponnambalam, , op.cit., n.4, pp. 5, 194Google Scholar; The Review, International Commission of Jurists, no. 31, December 1983 p. 20; Far Eastern Economic Review, 2 and 23 June 1983.

17. Ponnambalam, , op.cit., n.4, p. 34Google Scholar.

18. Ibid., pp. 35–37.

19. Ibid., p. 36.

20. In the main, these are: separate schools and curricula for Muslims, separate radio programmes for broadcasting Muslim culture, special concessions for embarking upon pilgrimages, a ministry of Muslim affairs under a Muslim minister and prominent portfolios for the Muslims in the Cabinet, exemplified by the Education Ministry in the Government of the Sri Lankan Freedom Party and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the present United National Party Government; see Ahmed, Abu, ‘The Position of Muslims in Sri Lankan Civil War’, Sachitra Swadesh, a Bengali weekly from Dhaka, vol. 4, no. 44, 10 01 1985, pp. 23–24Google Scholar.

21. Bassiouni, loc.cit., n.15.

22. For this information, see Ponnambalam, , op.cit., n.4, pp. 34–37Google Scholar.

23. Shamsuddin, A.K., ‘Social Questions in Bengali Fiction’, in Hossain, S.S. ed., Dacca University Seminar on Contemporary Writing in East Pakistan (1958) p. 60Google Scholar.

24. For an account of human rights violations in Sri Lanka, see supra n.l; a letter of protest to the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka from the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, quoted in Ponnambalam, op.cit., n.4, p. 264; a statement circulated in August 1973 to members of the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities by the International Commission of Jurists; Selbourne, D., ‘Sinhalese Lions and Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka’, The Illustrated Weekly of India, 17 08 1982Google Scholar; Amnesty International Report 1980, p. 234; Leary, V.A., Ethnic Conflict and Violence in Sri Lanka, International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) 2nd ed., updated by the ICJ staff, 08 1983Google Scholar; Fr. Balasuriya, T., Race Relations in Sri Lanka (1978) p. 115Google Scholar.

25. For a government report on the Tamil issue, see Jayasinghe, W.T., Tamils in Sri Lanka, Ministry of Defence and Foreign Affairs, Sri Lanka, 1976Google Scholar.

26. Oppenheim, L., International Law - A Treatise, 8th edn. (1955) p. 312Google Scholar.

27. ‘In general, when two countries establish a frontier between them, one of the primary objects is to achieve stability and finality’, see Temple of Preah Vihear case, ICJ Rep. (1962) p. 34Google Scholar.

28. See Plischke, E., Microstates in World Affairs: Policy Problems and Options (1977)Google Scholar; Vital, D., The Survival of Small States (1971)Google Scholar; Gunter, M., ‘Liechtenstein and the League of Nations: A Precedent for the UN Ministate Problem?’, 68 AJIL (1974) p. 496Google Scholar.

29. Sri Lanka has an area of 16.2 million acres with a population of 12.7 million. Of this population 20.5 per cent are Tamils claiming independence for the northern and eastern provices, see supra n.9; but it is worth mentioning here that 14 existing UN members have a population of only 5 million or less, see Leff, N., ‘Bengal, Biafra and the Bigness Bias’, 3 and 4 Foreign Policy (1971) p. 129Google Scholar.

30. For an analysis of this point, see Islam, M.R., ‘The Territorial Integrity of a State Versus Secessionist Self-Determination of Its People: The Bangladesh Experience’, 5 Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies Journal no. 1 (1984) pp. 28–32Google Scholar.

31. See Cassese, A., ‘Political Self-Determination, Old Concepts and New Developments’ in Cassese, A. ed., UN Law/Fundamental Rights (1979) p. 146Google Scholar; Mustafa, Z., ‘The Principle of Self-Determination in International Law’, 5 Int. Lawyer (1971) p. 479Google Scholar; Menon, K., ‘The Right to Self-Determination: A Historical Appraisal’, 53 Rev. droit Int. (1975) p. 187Google Scholar.

32. Dyke, Van, ‘Self-Determination and Minority Rights’, in Dyke, Van ed., Human Rights, the US and the World Community (1970) p. 79Google Scholar.

33. For these resolutions, see 60 AJIL (1966) pp. 921–926; Cefkin, J., ‘The Rhodesian Question at the UN’, 22 International Organizations (1968) p. 649CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Okolie, C., ‘Southern Rhodesia in International Law After the UDI’, 1 Glendale LR (1976) p. 309Google Scholar.

34. For these resolutions, see Cruz, H., Racial Discrimination (1971) pp. 202–213Google Scholar; Vorster, M. and Botha, N., ‘Security Council Resolution 418 (1977)’, SAYIL (1978) p. 130Google Scholar; M. Müller, ‘Discussions and Resolutions on South Africa in the UN’, idem p. 186.

35. Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance With the Charter of the UN, GA Res. 2625 (XXV), 25 October 1970, 9 ILM (1970) p. 1296.Google Scholar

36. Ibid., emphasis added.

37. Lauterpacht, H., Recognition in International Law (1947) pp. 172–173Google Scholar, and by the same author, International Law and Human Rights (1973) p. 178. Jefferson called this ‘the will of the nation, substantially declared’, see Fenwick, C.G., ‘Recognition of De Facto Governments: Old Guide Lines and New Obligations’, 63 AJIL (1969) p. 98Google Scholar. The obligation is also found in the Tobar doctrine; Hackworth, G.H., 1 Digest of International Law, p. 186Google Scholar; the 1923 Tinoco Arbitration, 18 AJIL (1924) p. 147. The idea of representative democracy is also incorporated in the OAS Charter, Art. 5(d), and Res. XXVI of the Second Special Conference of the 1965 Inter-American Conference may be cited to the same effect, Cochran, L.C., ‘The Develpment of an Inter-American Policy for the Recognition of De Facto Governments’, 62 AJIL (1968) p. 464Google Scholar. See also, Crawford, J., ‘The Criteria for Statehood in International Law’, 48 BYIL (1976–1977) pp. 149–164Google Scholar; Fawcett, J., The Law of Nations (1968) pp. 38–39Google Scholar; Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, 3rd edn., (1979) p. 75Google Scholar; Wright, Q., ‘The Strengthening of International Law’, 98 Hague Recueil (1959) p. 189Google Scholar.

38. Pomerance, M., ‘The UN and Self-Determination: Perspective on the Wilsonian Conception’ 70 AJIL (1976) p. 1Google Scholar; Hackworth, , loc.cit., n.37, p. 181Google Scholar.

39. Art. 21, paragraph 3.

40. For a short constitutional history of Sri Lanka, see Zafrullah, H.M., Sri Lanka's Hybrid Presidential and Parliamentary System and the Separation of the Powers Doctrine (1981) pp. 1–29Google Scholar.

41. Nanda, V., ‘Self-Determination in International Law: The Tragic Table of Two Cities, Islamabad (West Pakistan) and Dacca (East Pakistan)’, 66 AJIL (1972) p. 336Google Scholar; Nayar, M.G., ‘Self-Determination: The Bangladesh Experience’, 7 Human Rights Journal (1974) p. 260Google Scholar; also Time Magazine, 2 August 1971, p. 26.

42. de Visscher, P., Theory and Reality in Public International Law (translated by Corbett, P.) (1957) p. 99Google Scholar.

43. ‘The state has duration. It is a time-space frame of reference for individual events. Particular individuals may pass on, but if the overwhelming majority of those who occupy a certain geographical area continue to experience the subjective events of the type chosen as critical for the state, the state endures. The state is thus independent of any one individual, but it ceases to exist when enough individuals change their minds or die without procreation' — Lasswell, H., Psychopathology and Politics (1962) p. 242Google Scholar, emphasis added. See also, Johnson, H., Self-Determination Within the Community of Nations (1967) p. 21Google Scholar; Possony, T.S., ‘Nationalism and the Ethnic Factor’, 10 ORBIS (1966–1967) p. 1221Google Scholar. On the question of how political and economic discrimination develop group identity and contribute to secessionist conflict in an independent State, see Nafziger, E.W. and Richter, W.L., ‘Biafra and Bangladesh: The Political Economy of Secessionist Conflict’, 13 Journal of Peace Research (1976) p. 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nafziger, E.W., ‘The Political Economy of Disintegration in Nigeria’, 11 Journal of Modern African Studies (1973) p. 508Google Scholar.

44. Separation may be the ultimate rationale to restore security by a group confronted with an irretrievable discrepancy between itself and the dominant group: see Gurr, T., Why Men Rebel (1970) pp. 22–58Google Scholar; Hachey, T. ed., The Problem of Partition: Peril to World Peace (1973)Google Scholar.

45. A number of common features: historical tradition, racial or ethnic identity, cultural homogeneity, linguistic unity, religious or ideologocial affinity, geographical contiguity, common economic interest and demographic strength, to give an inclusive list, combine to distinguish a group of people from surrounding groups, see the Annex to GA Res. 742 (VIII), 27 November 1953, 8 GAOR Suppl. 17, UN Doc. A/2630 (1953).

46. Bassiouni, , loc.cit., n.15, p. 32Google Scholar.

47. See Carey, T.C., ‘Self-Determination in the Post-Colonial Era: The Case of Quebec”, 1 ASILP Int. LJ (1977) p. 49 et seq.Google Scholar; Thibodeau, M.A., ‘The Legality of an Independent Quebec: Canadian Constitutional Law and Self-Determination in International Law’, 3 BCICL Rev. (1979) p. 126Google Scholar; Trudeau, P., Federalism and French Canadians (1968)Google Scholar.

48. Buchheit, , op.cit., n.6, p. 189Google Scholar.

49. Ibid. pp. 141, 162.

50. For all these recent developments, see The Bangladesh Observer, 9, 16, 17, 23 July 1985; The Bangladesh Times, 11, 16, 17, 18 July 1985; The New Nation, 17 July 1985; for earlier steps, see The New Nation, 15 December 1984; and the Far Eastern Econ. Rev., 27 December 1984, p. 24.

51. See supra n.35, Principle V, paragraph 4. See also, Emerson, R., ‘Self-Determination’, 65 AJIL (1971) p. 464Google Scholar and, by the same author, ‘The Logic of Secession’, 89 Yale LJ (1980) p. 802Google Scholar; Nanda, V., ‘Self-Determination Under International Law: Validity of Claims to Secede’, 13 Case Western Reserve JIL (1981) p. 257Google Scholar.

52. In a number of resolutions, the OAU condemned secession in any member State, see Nayar, , loc.cit., n.6, p. 326Google Scholar. Secretary-General U. Thant denied any right of peoples to selfdetermination in an independent State, UN Monthly Chronicle, vol. 7, no. 2 (1970) pp. 36, 39Google Scholar.