The Three Kingdoms and Their Equilibrium
Prior to European colonization, Sri Lanka was divided into three distinct kingdoms, each with its own unique cultural and political identity. In the northern region, the Jaffna Kingdom was predominantly Tamil, with its last ruler being Cankili II, who reigned until the Portuguese conquest in 1619. The southwestern part of the island was governed by the Kingdom of Kotte, a Sinhalese dominion, whose final monarch was Don Juan Dharmapala; he ceded his kingdom to the Portuguese in 1597. In the central highlands, the Kingdom of Kandy, also a Sinhalese realm, maintained its sovereignty under the rule of Sri Vikrama Rajasinha until it fell to the British in 1815. Despite occasional conflicts, these three kingdoms coexisted in a state of relative equilibrium, each contributing to the island's rich tapestry of cultural and religious diversity.
The Eastern Province, including Batticaloa and Trincomalee, stood apart as a multicultural region influenced by both the Jaffna and Kandy kingdoms. This area had significant populations of Tamils and Muslims, coexisting as distinct communities. Tamils in the Eastern Province shared strong linguistic and cultural ties with the Jaffna Kingdom, while Muslims traced their origins to Arab traders who had settled along the coast. Unlike the clear majority identities of the three main kingdoms, the Eastern Province showcased a unique blend of ethnic and cultural diversity.
Colonization and the Shift of Power
During the colonization of Sri Lanka, multiple attempts were made by Western powers to seize control over its kingdoms. Each kingdom fiercely resisted these invasions, with both Tamil and Sinhalese rulers inflicting significant losses and setbacks on the Portuguese, Dutch, and British forces. Despite their valiant efforts, the persistent strategies of the Western powers eventually led to the colonization of the island. The Dutch replaced the Portuguese, and the British later gained control, ruling Sri Lanka alongside their Indian territories.
Under British rule, significant changes reshaped the island. The colonial administration implemented a centralized political structure and laws for the united country, deeming it unnecessary to separate communities like Tamils, Sinhalese, or Muslims, as their focus was on creating a unified administrative system sufficient for their rule. They also imported Indian Tamil laborers to work on the tea and coffee plantations in the central highlands, altering the demographic and economic landscape. The united resistance against colonial oppression eventually gave rise to the freedom movement. Inspired by India's independence in 1947, Sri Lanka achieved its own independence in 1948, just a year later.
However, by the time the British withdrew, the damage was already done. They had exploited the island's resources and used their intelligence to influence governance and society indirectly, even after granting independence. By uniting all the former kingdoms into a single nation under their rule, they erased the sovereignty of local administrations and kingdoms. Centuries of colonial rule left an indelible mark on Sri Lanka’s governance, culture, and societal structures, with the remnants of their influence continuing to linger in modern times.
The Freedom Process and Its Missteps
During the freedom process, the British showed little concern for the country’s future governance as they prepared to grant independence. They posed the question of whether Sri Lanka should have separate states for Tamils and Sinhalese. The Sinhalese, strategically aware of their majority status, denied the need for separation, while the Tamils, trusting the Sinhalese government or perhaps underestimating the consequences, did not demand it. This decision may have been influenced by the British colonial rulers as a form of punishment for the Tamils, perhaps to repay the resistance and losses caused by Tamil rulers during colonial conquests, the smaller number of Tamil British loyalists, or under the influence of external racist forces.
Ultimately, the British left Sri Lanka as a single, united nation. However, this unity soon became problematic. Whether as part of a Sinhalese strategy, lingering British influence, or external racist forces, Tamils began to face systematic discrimination. Sinhalese leaders, leveraging their majority and administrative power, often blocked Tamil growth and opportunities. This imbalance stemmed from the political structure the British had designed for efficient colonial rule—a Democratic Socialist Republic. Over time, this structure, though democratic in appearance, allowed majoritarian dominance, leaving Tamils marginalized and increasingly excluded from the nation's socio-political landscape.
The Cost of Civil War
The civil war in Sri Lanka, lasting nearly three decades, resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, the displacement of countless others, and widespread economic devastation. The prolonged conflict drained the nation’s resources, forcing heavy reliance on loans, crippling industries, and pushing the economy into a downward spiral. Mass immigration followed as many fled the war, poverty, and instability, further weakening the country’s social and economic fabric. Even after the war’s end in 2009, the underlying ethnic tensions remain unresolved, leaving the country trapped in poverty, political instability, and ongoing hardship, with no sustainable solution in sight. The cost of Sri Lanka's civil war has been estimated at $200 billion. The war had a significant negative impact on the country's economy, environment, and social infrastructure.
The Flaws of Unitary Democracy
In Sri Lanka, the adoption of democracy with a unitary ruling system proved to be a disastrous decision, possibly the worst choice made by those in power. This system ignored the unique needs of the island's diverse communities and placed the majority in complete control of the political landscape. Under such a structure, the Tamil minority found themselves increasingly marginalized, with their cultural, political, and economic aspirations systematically suppressed. The unitary ruling system allowed the majority to dominate key decisions, leading to widespread inequality and dissatisfaction among minority communities. Instead of fostering unity, this approach deepened divisions, creating hostility, frustration, and a lack of peace in the country. The decision to impose a single system on such a diverse nation highlighted the rulers’ greed and desire for domination rather than a genuine intent to govern justly.
True leadership comes from following the right path to earn a position, not disrupting others who already hold it. Forcing control over those in opposition leads only to hostility, frustration, and a lack of peace. In a democracy, if minorities are unable to rule their own people and land, it is a flawed system, not a true democracy, and cooperation with such a system is unjustifiable.
Democracy's Betrayal of Minorities
Democracy betrayed
Democracy killed
Democracy cheats
Democracy crushes minorities.
And
Democracy is a cheating theory.
In Sri Lanka, the unitary democratic system has caused immense harm to minority communities. Democracy, as it has been implemented, has betrayed, crushed, cheated, and even killed the essence of equality for minorities. Under such a system, minorities like the Tamils have been denied full administrative power over their own regions, leaving them without the true experience of democracy. In a democratic nation, each minority deserves a state with full autonomy to govern its people. Without this, democracy becomes a tool of oppression, cheating minorities of their rights and crushing their aspirations. This is not democracy as it was defined or intended, but a distortion that benefits the majority while marginalizing others.
I understand that not everyone in a majority race is bad, and Dharma transcends caste, race, and color. However, when viewed collectively, the majority wields greater power in all aspects of governance and society. This imbalance allows bad actors within the majority to oppress minorities under the guise of democratic authority. The majority’s dominance leads to the systematic control and suppression of minority communities, an undeniable truth no virtuous person can dismiss.
In this context, democracy has not just failed but has actively crushed minorities. It has proven to be a theory of deceit when misapplied, perpetuating inequality rather than ensuring justice. The world deserves a better administrative structure, one created or inspired by the wisdom of rulers all over the world, ensuring fairness, inclusivity, and respect for all communities.
In Sri Lanka, democracy has failed the Tamil minority. It is not the rule of the people or even of divine justice but a system where the majority and corruption prevail. The rich cultural and spiritual heritage of Tamils, rooted in traditions like Arumugam (Murugan) and their dual influences of divine and asura forces, reflects a complex identity. When their sovereignty was lost, and their kingdoms weakened, democracy betrayed the Tamils further. Such a system is incompatible with the vibrant, multifaceted nature of the Tamil people, as it stifles their identity and self-determination, reducing them to mere participants in an oppressive majority rule.
Selective Memory and Historical Oppression
After the war, the majority in Sri Lanka celebrates their military as heroes, but for the Tamil minority, these same forces are symbols of oppression and loss. Although the military serves the whole country, Tamils cannot join in this celebration. The military, seen as protectors by the majority, represents trauma and suppression for the Tamil community. Sri Lankan minorities find themselves unprotected, unable to trust or call any military force their own, leaving them isolated and marginalized in a system that prioritizes majority narratives over shared national unity.
The majority now claims the entire nation as theirs historically, dismissing the Tamil connection to the island. They propagate the idea that Tamils are mere invaders from South India, ignoring the presence of the Jaffna Kingdom, which existed alongside other kingdoms just a few hundred years ago. This selective memory and manipulation of history are forms of deceit, erasing the Tamil identity in the narrative of the nation’s past.
While it is acceptable to recognize that historical invasions led to the blending of communities and cultures over centuries, the existence of the Jaffna Kingdom in equilibrium with Kotte and Kandy before the Western invasions cannot be denied. The story of Ravana, Kumaran, and Kuhan, as well as their alignment with figures like Ram and Karnan, reflects a history of diverse influences on the island. The bloodlines of Ravana and the Asuras are part of the island's rich heritage, yet these narratives are ignored, while the Tamil presence is falsely reduced to that of recent invaders. The refusal to acknowledge the historical balance of the three kingdoms before colonial rule reveals a deliberate blindness and oppression. It is time for a fair and inclusive approach, recognizing all communities and their contributions, instead of perpetuating narratives that marginalize the Tamil identity in the name of unity. True unity can only be achieved by acknowledging and respecting the shared history and contributions of all communities, fostering a foundation of equality and mutual understanding.
If the Sinhalese community chooses not to share administrative power, they should state it openly and frankly: acknowledging the historical realities but deciding to retain control for themselves. Hiding this intent behind false narratives, denying historical truths, or claiming that all territories were historically theirs while dismissing Tamil contributions as mere invasions is not just dishonest—it perpetuates division and injustice. Transparency about intentions and an honest dialogue about history are essential steps toward any semblance of reconciliation or mutual understanding.
