Nation as an Imposed Community: An Assessment of Tamil Nation

in Sri Lanka.

The Paper Presented to Ceylon Study Seminar, Faculty of

Arts,

University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

Abstract

The paper argues that nation is an imposed community. It is

widely argued in the literature that nation is an imagined

community. However, minority nationalist politics in which

nation is imposed by the nationalist organization on the

community cast doubt on the continuing validity of the

concept of imagined community. Imposition of nations is

most visible in contexts where coercion and terror is used

on ethnic groups as a strategy of ‘nation-building’ but it

is also found in the hegemonic politics of most nation-

states. Tamil nationalist politics provides a good example

of an imposed nation. Nationalist leaders and the

intellectuals play a significant role in the imposition of

2

nation on the community. Members of imposed nations have

little opportunity to imagine it. The paper concludes with

the argument that ‘imposed community’ better reflect the

cotemporary nationalist politics than the widely held

concept imagined community.

“Directly and indirectly, the whole arena of public

discourse has been monopolized by the LTTE” (University

Teachers for Human Rights – Jaffna)1

3

Nation as an Imposed Community: An Assessment of Tamil Nation in

Sri Lanka.

Introduction.

Nation and nationalism have become “burning issues of

political action and debate’” as we entered the new

millennium (Missecevic 2001:5). While many socio-political

constructions and ideologies have come and gone, nation is

asserting itself evermore strongly. During the last half a

century, a rich body of literature on nation and nationalism

has accumulated (Verdery 1996; Guibernau and Hutchinson

2001) leading to the emergence of a separate

interdisciplinary field of inquiry - ‘studies of

nationalism’. The new discipline is abound with concepts

invented to capture the complex intricacies of nation and

nationalism. A few concepts such as . ‘ethnonationalism’

(Rothschild 1981; Connor 1993;), ‘internal colonialism’

(Hechter 1975), ‘imagined community’(Anderson 1983),

‘invention of nations (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983) inspired

new thinking and debates.

4

Studies of nationalism in Sri Lanka is predominantly

empirical, some of these concepts have received sporadic

attention(e.g. Hennayake 1992; Shastri 1990) which is

dominated by empirical studies. Although Benedict

Anderson’s (1992) “imagined community” has been

superficially referred to in some studies of Tamil

nationalism (e.g. Rajanayagam 1994a), it appears inadequate

to grasp the present complexities. The attempt to study

Tamil nationalism while critiquing the ‘imagined community’

forms the context for the development of the new concept of

‘imposed nation’. The central task of this paper is to

theoretically develop the concept of “imposed community”

with empirical evidence drawn from Tamil nationalism in Sri

Lanka focusing on the seminal role played by the nationalist

leaders and intellectuals.

What is Nation and Nationalism?

The attempt to explain nationalism has led to

fundamental debates based on primordial /modern dichotomy

and ethnic/civil dichotomies (Guibenau and Hutchinson 2001).

5

Notwithstanding these debates it is now generally agreed

that nation is “janus faced” - living in past and future

simultaneously. Nationalism, as a political force, is

based on practical logic of ensuring its own existence.

Nations seek legitimacy from wherever it can be obtained, in

past, present and future, in ethnicity, in religion, in

discrimination, in democracy, in liberalism, in deprivation,

in utopian promises and the list continues. Thus,

nationalism is neither primordial nor modern; it is both.

The practical politics of nations embodies both the

antiquity and modernity. Same nations and nationalisms are

highlighted by both side of the debate to prove their

respective arguments! These inconclusive intellectual

debates have had very little impact on the politics of

nations and nationalism in the real world.

Nation and nationalism has intrinsic ethnic roots

(Connor 1993; Smith 1986; Armstrong 1982). I argue that it

is only an ethnic group - a cultural collective with a

shared past, present and a future - qualifies to become a

nation. However, nation is not an inevitable or spontaneous

6

outcome of ethnicity; it has to be deliberately initiated.

The nationalist leaders and intellectuals have been the

primary movers in this task. An ethnic group (which is

fundamentally cultural) has to fulfill two basic

requirements to become a nation (which is fundamentally

political). First, it has to first claim a territory (owned

space) and second seek political autonomy. These can be

sphereheaded either by a democratic political party to or a

violent terrorist group always with the support of

intellectuals. Thus, an ethnic group demanding or having

political autonomy over a claimed territory can be defined

as a nation and the practical politics of transforming an

ethnic group into a nation can be defined as nationalism.

If carefully examined, most ‘civic’ nationalisms’

are in reality ethnic nationalisms disguised in civic

concepts. Breuilly affirms this by pointing out that

“logically the two concepts of nation- a body of citizens

and a cultural collectivity – conflict. In practice,

nationalism has been a sleight-of-hand ideology which tries

to connect the two ideas together (1996:166). It is more

7

than a mere connection as Hennayake (1992), argues hegemonic

politics of nation-states are in fact ethnonationalisms of

the majority nation, disguised. Nationalism is practiced

not only by Scottish, Quebecois, Basques and Tamils but

also by English, Anglophones, Spaniards and Sinhalese. The

difference is that the latter’s nationalism is supported by

the states under their control. In case of majority nations

then, nationalism is the practical politics maintaining the

existing nation.

Nationalism is practical politics (Breuilly 1982; Agnew

1989). Brubaker argued that to comprehend nationalism

‘we have to understand the practical uses of the category

‘nation’ to structure perception, to inform thought and

1 http://www/uthr.org/Special

Reports/sreport13.htm#_Toc8723770.

LTTE is the dominant Tamil nationalist organization today.

LTTE is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by

the USA, and is proscribed in India, Australia, and Canada.

For details see Peter Chalk (2000).

8

experience, or to organize discourse and political action

(1996:10). Hobsbawm further argues that ‘nationalism is a

meaningless term’ without its political program (1996:256).

Neither nation nor nationalism preexists each other and

nationalism does not cease to exist once a nation is

created. In fact, nation is never a finished product and

nationalism could never become a completed process.

Imagined Community and Critiques

Benedict Anderson proposed that nation is an “imagined

political community”. Nation is imagined because “the

members of even the smallest nation will never know most of

their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet

in the minds of each lives the image of their communion”

(Anderson, 1983:5). Anderson further states that nation is

imagined as ‘limited’ , ‘sovereign’ and a ‘deep’,

horizontal comradeship’ (1983:6-7).

The concept of imagined community has left a lasting

impact in the studies of nationalism (McCrone 1998;

9

Gopalakrishnan 1996) yet it is also criticized for its

failure to see historical continuities (Smith 1986, 1989)

and its limited empirical validity (Breuilly 1996; Lomnitz

200). Chartergee (1996) raises the most pertinent question

‘who is imagining for whom’ highlighting the apoliticalness

of Andersonian model. As a whole, all these critiques

highlights the inattention to ethnicity and power politics

in Andersonian model.

Another set of criticisms of imagined community were

largely based on a simplistic dichotomy - real (historical)

versus imagined. However as Breuilly argues that imagined

community should not be ‘contrasted with ‘real’

communicates; all communities are imagined’(1996:159). The

world is simultaneously real and imagined and Smith

emphasizes that “there is nothing contradictory about saying

that something is both imagined and real..” (1989:361). It

seems imagined community is simply truism. What is

intellectually and pragmatically more important is to probe

the power politics intrinsic to nation and nationalism.

10

Chatterjee (1996) missed this point as his criticism was

contextualized in wider post-colonial debate arguing that

imagination is already colonized. I think there is a subtle

form of colonization of the mind within nationalist

politics; nationalist leaders as colonizers and the

community as colonized. Nation is a hegemonic project of

nationalist leaders maintained by obtaining more than

winning spontaneous consent of the followers.

Imagined Community: An alternative critique

What do Andersonian individuals imagine the nation to

be? First they have to imagine the existence of fellow

members of the nation. Second, they have to imagine the

boundaries (de)limiting the nation. These boundaries can be

social, territorial, cultural, and very often a combination

of these. Third, they have to imagine that the nation as

sovereign2. Finally the individuals have to imagine an

attachment which is “deep, horizontal comradeship” (Anderson

1991:7).

11

The fundamental question is how or whether this kind of

consensual imagination or “spontaneous ideology”

(Gopalakirshnan 1996: 204) is possible in large human

societies without being guided and or imposed? Nation is

too consistent and cohesive to be created by independent

imagination of millions of individuals who “will never know

most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of

them” (Anderson, 1983:7). It seems that a link necessary to

connect the individual imagination and the entity nation is

missing in Andersonian conceptualization. Anderson points

out that national imagination was made possible by print

capitalism (Anderson, 1983). But for the readers to imagine

and publishers to print somebody has to write. Who are

2 A survey I carried out in early 2003 on a purposively

selected sample of rural Sinhalese and Tamils revealed that

the concept of sovereignty did not exist in the ordinary

vocabulary. Once the concept was explained, some simply

stated that living peacefully is more important than all

other considerations.

12

they? Although, Anderson remain silent here I think the

real imagination is found not at the level of readers but at

the level of writers - nationalist leaders and

intellectuals. Nations don’t just appear in the

imagination of people; nations are created.

Imagination to Invention

Brian Stocks’s (1990) ‘textual community’ and Eric

Hobsbawm’s (1983) ‘invention of nation’ provide part of

the missing link in Andersonian argument. Stock (1990)

argues that historical cultural groupings were a product of

people gathering around a ‘text’. Modern nations and their

predecessor ethnic groups can be identified as textual

communities both conceptually and analytically as they too

are built around ‘texts which could vary from a written

documentary text to an anecdote or an ideology3. The ‘text’,

thus becomes the link between the imagination and the

nation. But who creates the text? Hobsbawm’s invention of

tradition provides the answer. Invention of tradition, in

contrast to imagined community, is not a spontaneous product

13

of the individuals, although identifying authors of

inventions may be difficult on occasions. The inventors of

nationalist traditions may vary from a “single initiator” to

“private groups” to socio-political structures and

institutions such as “parliament and the legal profession”

(Hobsbawm 1983). Nationalist ideologies are invented by

nationalist leaders and intellectuals working through

political parties, movements and even terrorist groups. The

repetitive practice of the nationalist ideology reifies its

as real, factual and even sacred.

Hobsbawm argues that invention of nation is an

“exercise in social engineering which are often

deliberate and always innovative…” (1983:13).

Nationalism is precisely social engineering of making

and/or maintaining nations carried out primarily by the

3 There are a few nations built around texts in its

literary sense (e.g. Sinhala nationalism around Mahawamsa,

Jewish nationalism partly around the Old Testament and

mostly around Theodore Herzel’s The Jewish State).

14

nationalist leaders and intellectuals. Why do they

engage in this kind of national engineering? Smith

answers that;

the nation itself, the object of every

nationalism’s endeavors, is artificial, a concept

and model of social and cultural organization

which is the product of the labours of the self-

styled nationalists bent on attaining power and

reaping the rewards of political struggle.

(1996:177).

The inventors or the ‘national engineers’ use the nation to

satisfy their symbolic and material needs which might not be

fulfilled in a non-nation situation. Here, it is important

to highlight that ‘nation’ is used for ‘non-national’

purposes (e.g. securing and maintaining political power and

status quo), thus misuse(?), by many including its leaders -

a fact often overlooked in studies of nationalism and this

empirical reality challenges the sacredness and veneration.

It also questions the overly intellectualization of

15

nationalism to the dire neglect of its foundational logic of

establishing and maintaining power for the nation.

In this context, Hroch (1996) formulation of three

phases of nationalism has much utility in understanding

nations and nationalism. He identifies three distinctive

phases in nationalist politics, a) intellectual formation of

the concept of nation, b) emergence of activism to win the

ethnic group and awaken national consciousness and c)

turning nation into a mass movement( Hroch, 1996, 81).

Hroch (1996) explicitly argues that nationalism is a

deliberate activity of specific groups. These groups, be

they intellectuals who invent the nation as a concept, or

the activists who run the nationalist organizations are in

fact ‘national engineers’. Collectively, they impose the

nation on the ethnic group not for further imagination but

to seek legitimacy. As far as the community is concerned,

this is collaboration with or surrendering to nation than

imagining it.

Social Theory and Nation as Imposed Community.

16

The imposed community answers the question how nation

is constructed rather than what nation is, although the two

are not mutually exclusive. Imposition of a nation on the

community by the nationalist leaders cannot be simply

reduced to a crude power games; it is more complex. Certain

conceptual advancements in contemporary social theory can be

effectively employed to comprehend the intricacies of this

process.

The point of departure for my own contestation of

Anderson’s thesis is the nature of his individuals who are

imagining the nation. Anderson’s individuals or ‘members’

are assumed to be, although never explicitly stated ,

independent, liberal and free to imagine the community.

Authorship of imagination is ascribed to free thinking

individual. The imagined community is then the aggregate of

millions of independent imaginations.

The ‘imposed nation’ is based on the Aristotelian

individual. The actions and behavior of the political

individuals and society can best be described through the

process of structuration (Giddens 1986). Individuals with

17

varying powers act within enabling and constraining social

structures which are being created and unrecreated by the

individual actions themselves. The production of nations is

not different; nations too are created by the political acts

of individuals and institutions and structures exercising

differential powers. As stated earlier, nationalism - the

creating a new nation or sustaining an existing one - is

intrinsically a political activity.

The concept of hegemony helps link power politics with

nationalism. Hegemony is the extension of spontaneous

consent by the proletarian to the bourgeoisie whose

interests are not only different from but also contradicts

those of the former (Gramsci 1971). Hegemony is maintained

by the bourgeoisie projecting itself to represent the

interests of the proletarian. In the case of nation, the

nationalist leaders and their organizations practise similar

hegemonic politics over its membership by portraying them as

the vanguards of the nation. Specific interests of leaders

are always at variance with those of the mass membership

although both operate through the nation. The nationalist

18

leaders are supported by the intelligentsia – intellectuals

and professional elite who are mostly to gain from

nationalist politics. The nationalist leaders identifying

closely with the masses through continuous and repetitive

practice of nationalist traditions, impose their vision of

the nation on the larger community. They in turn extend

their spontaneous consent to the leadership.

In some cases of nationalism, hegemonic politics and

coercion is practiced simultaneously. The latter is

clearly evident in ethnonationalist movements which have

intensified into guerrilla/terrorist movements. The use of

coercion is perhaps the best evidence to support the thesis

that nation is imposed. Verdery (1996) explains that “for

the project of nation building, nonconforming elements must

be first rendered visible, then assimilated or eliminated.

Some of this can occur quite physically, through the

violence ……. associated with ‘ethnic cleansing’ (Verdery

1996:230). The members of the community extend their

spontaneous consent to the nation under hegemonic conditions

and submit to it under coercion. In either case there is

19

little space for the community to imagine the nation on

their own.

Foucault’s (1980) argument that power is a process and

knowledge plays a critical role in it helps understand the

power of nationalist discourse and the influential role

played by intellectuals in imposing the nation. Hall (1997)

following Foucault clearly argues that “… nation and

nationalism are seen as concrete practices of power and

knowledge” (1997:4). Nationalist politics relies heavily

upon the production of nationalist discourse thus one of

the prime tasks of the nationalist organization is to claim

ownership of nationalist discourse. Ownership of nationalist

discourse ensures the nationalist organization multiple

centers of power through societal microphysics (Foucault,

1980). Through microphysics, nationalism as a form of power

...”invests them (people), is transmitted by them and

through them; it exerts pressure upon them.. (Foucault

1977:27). The knowledge/power ensemble of nation will thus

produce as Foucault argued “the obedient subject, the

individual subjected to habits, rules, orders; an authority

20

that is exercised continually around him and upon him and

which he must allow to function automatically in him"

(1977:227). Thus the discourse allows nationalist power

flows through the nation ceaselessly without even being

noticed by the ordinary people that the nation is imposed on

them.

Nation-State and Nation as Imposed Community.

The imposition of nation occurs even at the level of

functioning nation state. Modern nation-state is, in

practice, one of the most prolific advocates of the nation -

the majority nation. Hennayake elaborates that “as the

nation state is the best accomplice of majority

ethnonationalism, the success of state hegemony may also

mean the success of majority ethnonationalism” (1992: 529).

The modern nation-state, thus, imposes the nation - the

majority nation- on its citizens both overtly and covertly

under the guise of inclusive hegemonic politics of the

state. Hall argues that

21

“nationalism in modern times is an expression of a

discursive hegemony : it represents political

action by a wider range of subtle institutional

methods (Billig, 1995) and establishes norms which

are very difficult to argue against, given the

authority , universality and apparent self-

evidence of the national state. (Hall 1997: 4).

It is clear then, whether it is the nation-state operating

subtly or nationalist organizations working explicitly, both

impose the nation on the community.

Limits to Imposed Nation

Nationalist leaders and intellectuals, however, do not

have at their disposal infinite possibilities to innovate on

the nation and thus cannot impose a nation of their choice.

As Radcliffe and Westwood pointed out the nationalist

leaders and intellectuals have to ask “.. what shape to give

the imagined nation to capture the imagination of its

multifarious subjects? – how will the diverse local codes

of reception within such nations respond to the image on

22

offer? (1996:27). As aforementioned, the unique opportunity

of becoming a nation is only available to an ethnic group

and not to any other human category (e.g. linguistic,

religious, economic, functional, social, racial groups).

Attempts to artificially impose nations either by adding

ethnicities and or dividing ethnicities are likely to fail

and lead to conflicts. Ethnicity thus forms the limits of

the ‘imposed nation’

Nation as Imposed Community Summarized

Nation is popularly conceptualized as an imagined

community in studies of nationalism today. It is based on

the assumption that independent individuals are the authors

of imagination. This view can be contested on two grounds

first it is illogical and irrational to think that millions

of independent imaginations will converge on to a single

reference point - the nation. Second, that empirical

realities around the world indicate that nations are imposed

23

on the larger community through explicit politics of

manipulation and coercion by the nationalist leaders and

hegemonic politics of the modern nation-state. The

community is left with little to imagine but to subscribe to

the nation imposed on them.

Tamil nation an imposed Community

It is the practical politics of Tamil nation that led

me to conceptualize nation as an imposed community. Tamil

nation provides one of the most convincing empirical

evidence in support of the thesis that nation is an imposed

community . The existing explanations of Tamil nationalism

simply accept Tamil nation as given monolith and its

escalation to a violent separatist struggle is reduce to an

inevitable popular reaction against Sinhalese nationalism

(TULF 1977; LTTE 1984, 1997; Manogaran 1987, 2000; Wilson,

1988,2000). These somewhat politically expedient

explanations deny any active role for Tamil nationalists

both in conceptualizing Tamil nation and imposing it on the

Tamil community. Instead, the LTTE and its version of

24

Tamil nation are presented as the collective expression or

imagination of Tamils and their aspirations. The discussion

below argues that the present Tamil nationalist ideology is

formulated by the Tamil nationalist leaders and

intellectuals and it is imposed on the Tamil community.

What was imposed as Tamil nation?

Everything that Anderson perceived as imagined by the

community was in fact imposed on Tamils. I will outline

below first the content of the imposed Tamil nations and

second the strategies of the imposition with special

reference to the role played by intellectuals.

The concept of a Tamil nation did not figure

prominently in Sri Lankan historiography until late 1970s

although the Federal Party introduced it to politics in

1949. The concept of a Tamil nation did not exist even in

the imagination of ordinary Tamils (Pfaffenberger, 1994).

Prior to 1970s, identity label ‘Tamil ethnic group’ was

accepted without much contestation although the Tamils were

hesitant to accept minority status as well expressed by

25

Tamibiah( 1986) through the concept of a ‘minority with a

parity status’4. The nationalist ideological package with

its own territory, historical past, national heroes etc.

were largely absent in Sri Lankan Tamil self identification

during this era. As a result of the conscious efforts of

Tamil nationalist organizations and intellectuals in the

intervening period, the concept of Tamil nation has become

the most accepted categorization.

The landmark definition of the Tamil nation introduced

by the Federal Party in 1951 read:

“inasmuch as the Tamil-speaking people in Ceylon

constitute a nation distinct from that of the

Sinhalese by every fundamental test of nationhood,

firstly that of a, separate historical past in the

Island at least as ancient and glorious as that of

4 See Wriggins (1960); Kerney (1967). Even the prominent

Tamil authors such as Wilson (1979); Tambiah (1955);

Arasarathnam (1964) who argued for Tamil nationalism did not

use the term Tamil nation in their early writings.

26

the Sinhalese, secondly by the fact of their being

a linguistic entity entirely different from that

of the Sinhalese, with an unsurpassed classical

heritage which makes Tamil fully adequate for all

present day needs, and finally by reason of their

territorial habitation of over one-third of this

island…”5, 

The concept of Tamil nation was later reinforced with

political, human rights and legal dimensions by the

successors to the Federal Party (FP). In 1972, Tamil United

Liberation Front (TULF), at its first convention declared

that;

the Tamils of Ceylon by virtue of their great

language, their religions, their separate culture

and heritage, their history of independent

existence as a separate state over a distinct

territory for several centuries till they were

conquered by the armed might of the European

5 Hobsbawm (1990) thinks that this is invention of a

nation far excellence.

27

invaders and above all by their will to exist as a

separate entity ruling themselves in their own

territory, are a nation distinct and apart from

Sinhalese…”6.

Tamil nation defined by TULF in its first election

manifesto in 1977 stated that “Though Ceylon is a single

state now, yet by facts of history, by the languages spoken

by its inhabitants, by culture, tradition and by psychology,

it is the common home of two nations and consists of two

countries”7. The TULF manifesto also defined Tamil nation

as sovereign by stating that “There is no doubt that the

Tamil Nation, by standards of international law, does

possess the right, on the basis of the right to self-

determination, to re-establish its sovereignty and statehood

and to draft for itself a constitution and thus to

administer its own affairs, all by itself”8 It was the TULF

that popularized the concept of Tamil Eelam – the term for

6 www.manthri.com Vaddukkodai Reolution.htm

7 TULF Election Manifesto -1977

8 ibid

28

the independent Tamil state. The Tamil nation was thus

discursively articulated primarily to challenge the

Sinhalese-Buddhist ideology which was seen as the main

obstacle for the full fruition of Tamil nation in Sri Lanka9.

By late 1990s, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

(LTTE) had assumed the sole ownership of Tamil nationalist

discourse. LTTE affirmed that Tamils constitute a nation

with” inalienable right to self determination” and that

Tamils should “determine their own political status” 10.

Challenging the territorial sovereignty of Sri Lankan state,

LTTE declared that “Sri Lanka has no legitimate or legal

9 The Sinhalese Buddhist ideology was first codified in

6th century AD in a text titled Mahawamsa written by a

Buddhist monk. It maintains that the island is consecrated

by Buddha and the protection of Buddhism is the prime duty

of the ruler. The historical context for the textualization

was the increasing South Indian threats to the Sinhala

Kingdom aimed specially to Buddhist temples, monasteries and

monuments.

10 www.eelam.com/intoduction/reversion/html

29

claim to encompass the North and East, the homeland of the

Tamils-Tamil Eelam” and “that “ unity, sovereignty and

territorial integrity of Sri Lanka' is untenable and works

against the legitimate aspirations of the Eelam Tamil

Nation11. LTTE strengthened the concept of Tamil nation by

linking it to generally accepted international convention

and law.

The Tamil people call their nation 'Tamil Eelam'.

As a nation, Tamils have the inalienable right to

self-determination, a universal principle

enshrined in the U.N. Charter that guarantees the

right of a people to political independence. Apart

from the right to self determination, the Tamil

Eelam may also be justified in terms of

international law under the concept of reversion

of sovereignty and the concept of effectiveness12.

11 Ibid

12 http://www.eelamweb.com/history/fs/intro.shtml

30

The ultimate definition of the Tamil nation is awarding

itself with the status of a state of its own. The official

cyber organ of the LTTE thus declared that

Tamil Eelam is a de facto state in Indian Ocean.

It is located below the Tamil Nadu state of India

and in the North East of Sri Lanka. The state of

Tamil Eelam has been established by the people

living there under the right of self determination

given by International Covenant of Civil and

Political Rights , Article 1, to which Sri Lanka

is a signatory13.

Wilson summarized that the creation of the Ceylon Tamil

nationalism as the “ sum effect of political indoctrination

of the Ceylon Tamils by radical and militant Ceylon Tamil

parties and groupings ….” (1994:141). His observation is

even more applicable to the post 1980 era when Tamil

nationalism became dominated by the extremist nationalist

organizations.

13 www.eelam.com/faq

31

It is too naïve to believe that these conceptions of

Tamil nation reflect the evolving national imagination of

Tamil community but they were the expedient articulations of

the nationalists political parties and organizations imposed

on the Tamil community. The overall concept of Tamil nation

thus invented by the Tamil nationalists with the help of the

Tamil intellectuals were based on four arguments, i.e.

existence of a Tamil history and a Tamil homeland,

discrimination against Tamils and the assumed threat to the

Tamil people in Sri Lanka.

History

A Tamil historiographical tradition distinctively

different from that dominated by Sinhalese history did not

exist in thepre-1970 era 14. However with the announcement of

the demand for a separate state in the late 1970s, Tamils

“… have created their own history though a conscious process

of a selection and manipulation of material” (Warnapala

32

1994: 63) and mass production of texts on ‘Tamil history

and nation began. The new Tamil nationalist history first

argues that the original tribal inhabitants of the island

were the Tamils and the present day Tamils are their direct

lineal descendents (Ponnambalam 1984; Manogaran 1999, 2000).

Second it points out that Tamils have been living in this

island continuously and permanently since prehistoric era

(Rasanayagam 1984; Manogaran 2000). Third , it argues that

Tamils kings ruled the island during most of its history and

made it a Tamil Kingdom (Ponnambalam 1984). Fourth, a

separate Tamil kingdom existed within the territory of

present day homeland in the Northern and Eastern provinces

(Manogaran, 2000). Fifth, a separate Tamil nation as

defined today, existed prior to the colonial subjugation

(Manogaran 2000; Pfaffenberger, 1994; Aarasarathnam 1994)

Although none of these can be justified with hard historical

evidence, such intellectual veracity is irrelevant in a

political project of inventing a nationalist history and

imposing it on the community15.

33

Territory

A distinctively identifiable territory usually termed a

historical habitation or traditional homeland is an

essential prerequisite for a nation (Hennayake 1992).

Connor argues that homeland psychology and nationalism

“usually reinforce one another in an impenetrable manner”

(2001:69) The Sri Lankan Tamil nationalists and

intellectuals (e.g Federal Party 1949; TULF 1977; LTTE

2000; Manogaran 1987, 1994, 2000; Ponnambalam 1984; Wilson14 Until 1980s Tamils were not given much attention in the

Sri Lankan historiography which was largely confined to a

discussion of the evolution of the Sinhalese Kingdom. See

Paranavithana(1959), Nicholas (1959), K.M.de Silva (1981).

Only a few scholars such as Indrapala K (1968),

Arasarathnam (1964), Rasanayagam (1926) studied Tamil

history but it wasn’t a history of the ‘Tamil nation’ as

such.

15 See Silva (1998) for a critique of Tamil nation based on historical evidence.

34

2000) have argued that a separate Tamil homeland exists in

the Northern and Eastern provinces in Sri Lanka to

legitimize the concept of the Tamil nation and the Tamil

demand for a separate state. These boundaries, created by

the British for administrative convenience, were not based

on socio cultural or natural boundaries as evidence by the

provincial names defined by abstract concept of directions

i.e Northern, Eastern, Western etc16. The defined

territory of Tamil homeland varies from its smallest version

confining to the northern and Eastern Provinces to the

largest covering nearly half of the island. The LTTE

defined boundary of the Tamil homeland falls on the

provincial boundaries of the Northern and Eastern provinces.

The LTTE have over the years tired to actualize the concept

of Tamil homeland through a number of activities such as

16 See Warnapala (1994), Silva K.M de (1987, 1998), G.H.

Peiris (1991), Shastri (1990) Peebles (1990), Manogaran

(1987) for arguments and counterarguments for the concept of

Tamil homeland.

35

ethnic cleansing, cultural cleansing (clearing the cultural

evidences of others), isolating the region from the rest of

the country and establishing a separate administrative and

judicial system. Although there is no credible historical

evidence to establish the existence of a separate Tamil

homeland in Sri Lanka the sheer repetition of concept of

Tamil homeland and the discursive practices by the Tamil

nationalists led by LTTE has helped it attain the status of

fact and even legality (Silva, undated)17.

Discrimination

One of the most popular arguments for the Tamil nation

is that they have been systematically discriminated against

by the ‘Sinhalese state’ of Sri Lanka throughout the post-

independence era18. . Tamil nationalists argue that the

17 K.M.de Silva (undated)

http://www.peaceinsrilanka.org/insidepages/background/backgr

ound.asp

36

Tamils have been relegated to the level of ‘second class

citizens’ and were deprived of full realization of cultural,

political and economic aspirations as well as basic human

rights19. The relative decline of Tamil participation in the

higher education and public sector employment, the lower

levels of development in some Tamil areas and the relative

lack of facilities to communicate in Tamil in the Sinhalese

areas are presented as evidence of discrimination20. This

discrimination argument has won popular acceptance among the

Tamils living in the Northern and Eastern provinces as well

as those who live among the Sinhalese in the rest of the

country21.

Threat

The threat to the existence of Tamils from the

‘Sinhalese state’ has been one of the most effective

constitutive elements of the Tamil nationalist discourse.

Dry Zone colonization was interpreted as an invasion of the

Tamil homeland an effort to make the Tamils a minority in

their own homeland22. The Sri Lankan armed forces were

37

interpreted as an ‘invading force’23. Past ethnic riots,

especially that in 1983 and the anti-terrorist war launched

by the government forces and resultant destruction were

presented as clear evidence of Sinhalese threat to Tamil

existence24. The ‘Tamil nation under threat’ argument is

18 See Ponnambalam, 1984, TULF, 1977, LTTE, 1997;

Ponnambalam, 1984; Manogaran, 1987; Wilson, 1988,2000,

Tambiah, 1986)

19 See Federal Party, 1949; TULF, 1977; Karalasingham,

1977; LTTE 1984, 1997; Rajanayagam, 1994b; Ponnambalam,

1984; Manogaran, 1987; Wilson, 1988,2000.

20 See Manogaran, 1987; Shastri, 1994; Wilson,2000;

LTTE, 1984, 1997

21 Over 60% of the Tamils live outside Northern and

Eastern Provinces today. The historical trend of out-

migration of Tamils from the Northern and Eastern Provinces

into Sinhalese areas has paradoxically intensified with the

intensification of Tamil nationalism.

38

powerfully entrenched particularly among Tamils living in

the Northern and Eastern Provinces and outside Sri Lanka but

its appeal is increasingly diminishing among the Tamils

living among Sinhalese areas. As Wilson (1994) argued the

Sinhalese threat has been used by the Tamil nationalists to

neutralize their own regional and other internal social

divisions.

Who Imposed Tamil Nation and How?

22 See Manogaran, 1987,1999, 2000, Ponnambalam, 1984;

TULF, 1977; LTTE, 2000.

23 See (Ponnambalam, 1986; Piyadasa, 1984; LTTE, 1984,

1997; Manogran 2000, Rajanayagam 1994a.

24 See (amibia, 1986; Mangogaran, 1987; Ponnambalam, 1986;

Rajanayagam, 1994b; Wilson 2000; LTTE, 1997.

39

Imposition of Tamil nation is an intentional project of

nationalist organizations and intellectuals. The Tamil

nationalist organizations have varied from the democratic

political parties (e.g. Federal Party) to terrorist

organizations (e.g. LTTE) while the intellectuals include

both local and expatriate Tamil academics and professionals

who legitimized the Tamil nation as defined by the Tamil

nationalist organizations.

Regularly held democratic elections provided a

readymade platform for the Tamil nationalist parties to take

their concept of nation to the Tamil community. The rivalry

between Tamil political parties, especially at the election

campaigns, to represent Tamil interests better and stronger

sent the Tamil nationalist discourse into extremism in

upward spiral. This process intensified at every election

with as more Tamils succumb to the Tamil nation imposed on

them by the political leaders. Thus, ironically, democratic

elections have been one of the most effective means of

imposing the concept of Tamil nation on the community until

late 1970s25. By late 1970s, Tamil political parties, TULF in

40

particular, resorted to intimidation to impose the Tamil

nation. These coercive strategies became so powerful that

any criticism of the Tamil nation and supporting non-Tamil

nationalist parties had become harmful and even fatal.

Undoubtedly, LTTE has been the most effective

organization in imposing Tamil nation on the community.

Over the years, it has built supporting network of

intellectuals, professionals, sympathizers and fund

collectors spanning across the Tamil diaspora (Fuglerud,

2001). The effectiveness of the LTTE approach of is

largely a result of simultaneous use of hegemony and

coercion. Thus, LTTE’s central propaganda point that it is

the only credible and effective force to challenge the

Sinhalese state’ and save the Tamil nation had been

effectively used not only to promote its version of Tamil

nation but also to silence internal critics and alternative

view points. LTTE attained political supremacy by

eliminating potential and real rivals and critics26. Many

Tamil political leaders and intellectuals who challenged the

LTTE version of Tamil nation were assassinated since 1975 in

41

the name of Tamil nation. It has achieved military

supremacy through brutal violence, intimidation and

assassinations anyone challenging its authority. It has

achieved ideological supremacy by controlling the Tamil

nationalist discourse through careful elimination of

challenging or opposing views. This has prevented

alternative critical views reaching the Tamil people. For

example, the LTTE has introduced “Tamil history” to the

school curricular in the LTTE dominated areas in the

Northern and Eastern Provinces and Tamil youth are being

constantly indoctrinated into the LTTE version of Tamil

nation through child soldiers program. LTTE also organizes

extravagant politico-cultural pageants to impose its version

of Tamil nation on the community27. Through all these

activities, LTTE claims to be the ‘sole representative of

the Tamil people’. Most Tamils including the democratically

elected representatives and both the local and expatriate

Tamil intellectuals seem to have unquestionably arrogated

this position to the LTTE28. University Teachers for Human

42

Rights (Jaffna) (UTHR-J) stated the current status of Tamil

nation:

By combination of internal terror and narrow

nationalist ideology the LTTE succeeded in

atomizing the community. It took away not only

the right to oppose but even the right to

evaluate, as a community, the course they were

taking29

Today, LTTE commands political and ideological supremacy

among Tamils as the only ‘authentic’ Tamil nationalist

organization to the extent that Tamil nation is often

equated with LTTE30. LTTE today receive the support and

endorsement of even the democratically elected

parliamentarians as well as the Tamil intellectuals both in

Sri Lanka and outside.

Tamil Intellectuals and Tamil Nation

Tamil nationalism provides one of the best recent

examples of active contribution of intellectuals to

nationalism. The role of Tamil intellectuals in imposing

43

the Tamil nation is clear from two developments. First, the

Tamil intellectuals have uncritically affirmed the version

of Tamil nation invented by the dominant Tamil nationalist

organization from Federal Party in 1940s, TULF in 1970s or

LTTE since 1980s with increasing intensity31. Second, Tamil

intellectuals of all disciplinary backgrounds have mass

produced texts in support of Tamil nationalism32. A careful

31 Rajan Hoole (undated) summarized this in the following

statement “Instead of questioning past assumptions, there is

now a fairly noticeable tendency for Tamil intellectuals to

take refuge in further unreality. It is as if some invisible

springs impel us to think and act in an essentially dishonest

manner”. This invisible springs are the LTTE and the ‘ethnic

duty”.

32 Over 150 books have been published between 1980-2003

supporting Tamil nationalism and over 20 websites are being

used by Tamil intellectuals and professionals to advance the

cause of Tamil nationalism.

44

deconstruction of the content and context of Tamil

nationalist writings in the post-1980 era ( Somasunderam

1999; Manogaran 1987, 2000; Wilson 2001; Tambiah 1986)

leads to the conclusion that Tamil intellectuals,

especially the expatriate Tamil intellectuals, have been

25 LTTE has not allowed democratic election to be held in

LTTE areas since late 1970s.

26 LTTE has assassinated its own deputy, the founder

leadership of TULF, and some prominent members, remembers

of rival Tamil groups (EPDP, EPRLF, TELO, ENDLF), prominent

Tamils supporting non-Tamil political parties ( Former mayor

of Jaffna,) , Tamils taking government positions in ‘Tamil

homeland’ ( former woman Mayoress of Jaffna,) intellectuals

critical of LTTE violence (Female Medical Professor at

Jaffna University who was a founder member of the UTHR-J)

community leaders who tried to find a peaceful solution to

the crisis (Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam, Parliamentarian and

internationally renowned constitutional lawyer).

45

performing an “ethnic duty “ by endorsing the Tamil nation

as proposed by the LTTE. This sense of ethnic duty has

become so powerful among the Tamil expatriate intellectuals,

that by 1990s they have began to write ‘academic

justification’ to Tamil nationalism irrespective of their

27 The ‘Mahaweera’ Day celebrated on LTTE leader’s

birthday, commemorates the lost military cadre and suicide

bombers. It resembles a national day celebration of a

sovereign state and the leader address the ‘Tamil Eelam

nation’ on this day. UTHR (J) Special Report 13 points out that

“These rallies have also pushed heavily on deifying the LTTE

leader as the collective life of the Tamil Nation. It is an

attempt to engineer a fatal identification between the Tamil

people and the leader of a movement…Tamil Eelam is no longer

the cry of the oppressed”.

28 The proposal for an nterim self governing authority

presented by the LTTE in 2003 as a base document outlining

their solution insists that they are the ‘sole

representatives” of the Tamil people. The document was

46

filed of specializations inviting a series of intellectual

criticisms33. It is ethnicist in that the entire post-

independence Sri Lankan socio political history is

reinterpreted as an exclusive anti-Tamil project34. It is

totalizing in that only mega categories of ethnic groups are

engaged and intra-ethnic differences are deliberately

overlooked as well as undermined. It is reductionist and

essentialist in that Tamil nationalism is reduced to a

defensive reaction to ‘discrimination’ by the Sinhalese. It

is fatalistic and teleological in that formation of a Tamil

state is seen an inevitable outcome.

A symbiotic relationship has developed between the

Tamil intellectuals and the LTTE. While the intellectuals

prepared in close consultation with the expatriate Tamil

intellectuals and professionals.

29 http://www/uthr.org/history.htm

30 The flag and the map of the Tamil Eelam and the

leaders photograph have been elevated to sacred status in

Tamil nationalism.

47

have been legitimizing the LTTE, the LTTE in turn depends on

the intellectuals to obtain international acceptance and

legitimacy35. The LTTE pressurize Tamil intellectuals and

professionals both overtly and covertly to collaborate with

it. For example, LTTE issued a thinly veiled warning to the

diaspora that “It is the responsibility of each Tamil world

wide to ensure that the birth rights of the Tamils in Tamil

Eelam are won to enable them to live in freedom and

dignity.36.

Responding to the pressure of LTTE on one hand and to

the self-imposed pressure of ‘ethnic duty’ on the other,

Tamil intellectuals and professional have uncritically

legitimized the Tamil nation as imposed by the LTTE37.

Mahindapala captured the role of intellectuals in his review

of "History of Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka: Recollections, Reinterpretations and

Reconciliation" edited by Michael Roberts et.al (2001),

What the intellectuals and the ideologues have

begun at the top end is completed and executed by

the political manipulators at the bottom. …Having

manufactured the ideology of hate, and seeing it

48

in action along with the brutalities that flow

from it, the intellectuals sit back and then

pontificate on the correctness of their analyses

and justifications as if they had nothing to do

with the unfolding consequences of their perverse

sociology, anthropology and now historiography”

(2001).

Majority of the writings were not the products of meticulous

research but blatant statements on behalf of Tamil nations

based on pre-conceived nationalist arguments (e.g. Manogaran

2000, Ponnambalam 1986). Yet, all these writings have

collectively awarded a degree of acceptance and legitimation

for the Tamil nation both within the Tamil community and

outside38. Some of the local as well as Western intellectuals

(non-Tamil) have further contributed to this by vilifying

Sinhalese nationalism as a project of undermining Tamils

which is one of the most popular political arguments of

Tamil nationalists (Hennayake 2000).

Conclusion

49

The concept of Tamil nation was not prevalent either in the

Tamil psyche or Tamil political discourse prior to 1977 but

today it has assumed dominance with no contestation from the

Tamil community. The small group of critics, living

inconspicuously, are both intellectually and politically

marginalized as anti-Tamil and have been ‘legitimate

targets’ of the LTTE which has assumed the role of the

‘guardian of the Tamil nation’ 39. Perhaps the best

evidence of imposition of Tamil nation is found in the

almost total silence by the Tamil nation – ordinary man to

highest intellectual in the face of numerous atrocities

carried out by the LTTE against the Tamils in the name of

Tamil nation40.

Today, the Tamil people cannot imagine the Tamil

nation on their own. Tamil nationalists led by LTTE and

sympathetic intellectuals have appropriated the right of the

Tamil community to imagine its nation. In this context,

conceptualizing Tamil nation as an imagined community

becomes a misnomer. All evidence lead to the alternative

argument that Tamil nation is imposed on the Tamil

50

community. Fuglerud confirms this in relation to Tamil

diaspora, that “structuring of collective representation”

may be taking place “not through individual social action

but through the centralized production of a community; that

it is not imagined but imposed” (2001:211). UTHR –J

33 This has led to ironic situations of climatologists

(e.g. Chelvaduarai Manogaran) suddenly becoming political

geographers, lawyers(Satchi Ponnambalam) becoming

specialists in ancient Tamil history. Some known Tamil

intellectuals have taken an explicitly nationalist turn.

For example, A..J. Wilson who did not even use the term

Tamil nation or nationalism in 1979, teleologically

interpreted the Tamil political history as a self conscious

nationalist project in 2000. S. J Tambiah wrote Sri Lanka:

Ethnic Fratricide and Dismantling of a Democracy in 1986 arguing that it

is not a distanced academic treatise but an engaged

political tract.

34 Ethnicism is defined as the intellectual fixation on

ethnicity as the only analytically relevant category in

51

(1994,2003) too concurs that nation is imposed by the LTTE

on the Tamil community. Some studies (e.g. Marly, 1993;

Tambiah, 1996; Chinn, 1996, Franke,2002; Said, 1992 )

suggest that imposed nation may have wider applicability

explaining the emergence of ethnonationalism Hennayake

(1993)

35 M.M. Kher wrote to the ‘Mediawatch - an Indian Institute

on the Net’ on the Indian ban on LTTE that “ The ban on the

LTTE hardly deters these outfits, which are essentially

rabble-rousers for the Tigers and they promptly whip up a

forum and assemble so-called Tamil intellectuals whenever an

LTTE cause is threatened”. (May 7,2000) http://www.media-

watch.org/articles/0500/272.html

36 http://www.eelamweb.com/people/ 37 Ranjith Wijesinghe, writing to Shanthi: An Online Journal

Promoting Peace in Sri Lanka observed the LTTE hold on Tamil

diaspora; ‘The pro-LTTE lobby has a monopoly over opinion

in the Tamil diaspora. Tamils who do not agree with the pro-

52

with respect to minority nationalisms. The subtle

imposition of nation by the state is of course a known fact.

The imagined community is a useful concept to

comprehend the nation. However, it philosophically

LTTE ideology are considered as traitors to the Tamil

struggle’.

http://members.fortunecity.com/shanthi/reconciliation_betwee

n_the_sinha.htm

38 K.M.de Silva (1987) provides a detailed account on how

Tamil nationalism was benefited by the efforts of the

intellectuals.

39 See Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor of

the US Department of State. 2003. Sri Lanka :The Country Report on

Human Rights Practices – 2002

40 See the UTHR-J Reports 10-19, and Special Reports for

detailed accounts of LTTE atrocities.

53

privileges the independent free-willed individual. Thus,

nationalism is a voluntary affair and nation is a voluntary

product. One of the central problems in this

conceptualization, philosophically as well as empirically,

is, whether it is possible for millions of individuals to

imagine the nation in the same way without ‘guidance’. It

is here that the concept nation as an imposed community

becomes relevant. The nation is imposed by nationalist

organizations and their collaborators on an ethnic

community. The members of the ethnic community may still

imagine the nation but it is one pre-imagined for them and

imposed upon them. As imagination in imposed, the nation

becomes an imposed community.

54

Endnotes

55