Nationalism and Eelam
Ruben Nagesparan Chandrakumar, BS
Since the emergence of Nazism and the widespread recognition of the dangers of the far-right, nationalism has been associated by many with ethnic or group supremacy. While nationalism can certainly grow toxic and fester upon the latent resentments of the collective psyche, there is a healthy nationalism that balances ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism.
There is a commonly understood principle that a nation’s borders are not merely the physical, geographical markers which delineate it from others but also the psychological and cultural borders between varying value systems. While the United States is arguably the greatest exemplar of civic nationalism, the underlying ethos of the country—which most have attributed to a combination of Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment philosophies—stemmed from a particular homogeneity in values and the ethnic background of the founders. This framework, while arguing for the freedom of religion and the “inalienable rights” of all men, still had an underlying value structure—a common culture. One of the prime indicators of this is the treatment of English as the undeclared national language. The culture that gave rise to civic nationalism and liberal nationalism may seem and define itself as open and equal to all; however, American culture did not privilege Islamic-fundamentalist culture, Aboriginal Australian culture, nor Confucian Chinese culture, to name a few.
American culture is embedded within a partially articulated philosophical framework that is the result of centuries—if not thousands of years—of development within unique environments. America initially failed to, and continues to struggle to, create genuine equality of opportunity and equality before the law for many within its populace, including blacks, Native Americans, and other minority groups. However, the cultural framework within the US expanded to incorporate anyone who was open to becoming an American—embracing American culture while bringing greater diversity. This bounded openness, this constrained vision, is what allows the US to become a culture in which individuals from all different walks of life can live in relative harmony and definite prosperity. The “Melting Pot” of the States is dependent upon the historical context and demographics which form its mixture of diversity and openness with traditionalism and a core identity.
Within Sri Lanka, the idea of a shared nationalism that integrated the significant diversity of values, beliefs, and identity between the Sinhalese-majority population and the Tamil population proved to be a fruitless endeavor. The reason behind this failure seems clear and has been evident in multiple decolonization processes outside of Eelam. With two drastically different populations that did not share either a common, core culture or a vision for the future that incorporated both perspectives, the attempt at a unitary state ceased; instead, Sinhalese nationalism and Tamil nationalism continued to grow in their power—with the Sinhalese viewing the entire island as a Sinhala-Buddhist stronghold and the Tamils perceiving an ancient homeland of Hindu, Christian, Muslim, and Buddhist traditions.
Since Ceylon’s independence from Britain, the culture of Eelam has become more formalized in a Tamil nationalism that has formed out of historical roots and grew partially in backlash to Sinhalese domination and oppression. The term “cultural genocide” has been used to describe this oppression, which is an apt expression; the Government of Sri Lanka has continually attempted to erase the core culture of Eelam. The passing of the Sinhala-Only Act, the burning of the Jaffna Library, and the building of Buddhist structures in Tamil homelands are all examples that underscore this insidious pattern of behavior.
The desire of those within Eelam is to have a homeland that privileges the culture and heritage of the Tamil people; by establishing an independent, sovereign state, Tamils would not be subject to second-class citizenship under Sinhala domination. Instead, Tamil culture, language, history, arts, philosophy, religion, literature, and identity would be prioritized. While this would form the essence of Eelam, civic nationalism within the country would still be possible and capable of being extended to integrate any immigrant—regardless of origin. Eelam would privilege Tamil culture and welcome those who wish to become encultured and assimilate within the country. However, it would also hold the right to maintain its own traditions and deny access to those who are deemed to harbor resentment toward the nation. For example, in France, the French ethnicity, culture, history, and language are privileged and held as dominant. Yet, France has been able to successfully integrate diverse populations from across the world by allowing them to retain and bring their unique perspectives while assimilating. The independence of Eelam would provide the ability for this same balancing of ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism to form a healthy nationalism—merging liberalism and conservatism.
Such a separation stands to benefit Sri Lanka in multiple ways, despite seeming the opposite. An independent Eelam would lessen the weight of minority opposition within the Sinhala-Lankan state, offering an opportunity for the Sinhala to privilege their culture, language, and heritage over Tamils. This would be done without the fear of appeasing minorities at the cost of the majority culture. This potential demonstrates the need for a border between the two nations, allowing each to celebrate and practice their own traditions—easing the overwhelming, and often incompatible, diversity through a new categorization. In fact, this ‘new categorization’ would simply be a return to the traditional and pre-colonial differentiation. This border would allow the two distinct nations to work toward the ideal of a peaceful, mutually beneficial relationship that draws upon the deeply shared history and thousands of years of cultural intermixing, while making genuine efforts to reconcile the profound pains that the conflict has created.