A comment on Dayan Jayatilleka’s “The Federalist fantasy: Tamil political tragedy, Lankan political history”

Dayan Jayatilleka rightly challenges the narrative that S. J. V. Chelvanayakam turned to federalism only after supposedly foreseeing Sinhala majoritarian discrimination against Tamils following the 1948 Citizenship Act. (See https://www.ft.lk/columns/The-federalist-fantasy-Tamil-political-tragedy-Lankan-political-history/4-792193)

I would like to add another episode from Sri Lanka’s political history, one that has received absolutely no attention in studies of the conflict. This account is drawn directly from the Hansard reports of 1947, that is, even before Ceylon became an independent nation.

On 26 November 1947, during one of the earliest sessions of the State Council under the Soulbury constitution, the newly elected member for Kankesanthurai, S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, raised the idea of secession in his remarks. He stated that the Tamils of Jaffna had the right to secede from Ceylon and suggested that, if they wished, such a move could even take place with India’s support.

Addressing the council on 26 November 1947, C. Suntheralingam revealed that Chelvanayakam had previously spoken at public rallies in Jaffna about seceding from Ceylon and even forming a federation with Tamil-speaking regions of India (Hansard 1947: 131). Chelvanayakam initially denied these claims, but when evidence was presented - specifically his speeches published in the Times of Ceylon on 17 November 1947 - he did not continue the denial.

The Hansard (1947: 227–228) records the exchanges between Chelvanayakam and other members of the Council about his suggestion. In his remarks, Chelvanayakam criticised the United National Party’s attempts to win over the voters in Jaffna and argued that the people of the North had firmly rejected such efforts. 

Chelvanayakam said “They [UNP] spent all their time trying to tell the people of Jaffna, the people of Northern Province, “Send in people who will work with us”, meaning people who will listen to their dictation. They did not reckon, for example, how the voters of Jaffna would take it. But what happened? The voters of Jaffna rejected one and all of their nominees”. 

“The Hon. Prime Minister spent all his energy in trying to suppress the spirit of the Northern people. He thought that he would be able, by giving two and a half lakhs of rupees for the Karaiyur Slum Clearance scheme and another sum for some other work at some other place, to deceive the hard headed inhabitants of the North. No, Sir, they could not be deceived like that.”

“He thought that we were merely practical men. But he forgot the fact that we are the descendants of the permanent inheritors of traditions in this country.”

More significantly, Chelvanayakam referred to historical claims about the existence of separate Tamil and Sinhalese kingdoms prior to British rule. He went on to question why, if Ceylon sought the right to secede from the British Empire, the Tamil people should not also have the right to secede from the rest of the country if they so desired. 

“The facts of history are these. Before the British came into this country there were two kingdoms, one, the kingdom of the Tamil people, and the other, the kingdom of the Sinhalese people.” 

“If Ceylon is fighting for the right to secede from the British Empire, why should not the Tamil people, if they feel like it, secede from the rest of the country?” 

The debates in the first few days of the first ever state council under the new Soulbury constitution are quite revealing. Chelvanayakam and a group of his associates within the Tamil Congress opposed participation in the new Ceylonese government, including the acceptance of ministerial positions. This stance led to internal disagreements within the party, as others were concerned about being excluded from governance. It was also disclosed by other members in the council that Chelvanayakam had expressed willingness to even give the Trincomalee habour to Nehru. 

Gate Mudaliyar Kariapper, a member of the Eastern province, joining the debate said (Hansard 1947: 316), “The hon. Member for Kankesanturai (Mr. Chelvanayakam) has taken us into the history of this Island and has in the course of his speech told us that the Eastern and Northern Provinces of this Island formed part of the Jaffna kingdom…... I may say here and now that the Batticaloa District never formed part of the Jaffna kingdom. We never had the misfortune to form part of the Jaffna kingdom. We were in the enjoyment of full autonomy under the overlordship of the Kandyan kings.” 

“Sir, the hon. Member for Kankesanturai, speaking at a meeting in celebration of the birthday of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru almost gave the Harbour of Trincomalee as a birthday present to the Pandit. Well, if they have this idea of federation or of a federal Government let it be not with South India, but let them take to heart the definition of a Jaffna school boy who said that Jaffna was a peninsula to which the rest of Ceylon was attached. I hope they will look towards the South and the East and not across the Palk Strait for federation.” 

Another member of Tamil Congress, Vanniasingham joined the debate by arguing in favor of the principle of self-determination (Hansard 1947: 324), “If hon. Members would debate the question whether Ceylon has the right of secession from England, whether this country has the right of self-determination, that will be considered all right. But when a large section, an important minority in this country, ask for the right of self-determination to decide whether it is necessary for them to remain as a separate entity or link up with somebody else, if they cannot get justice done, - and only in such a contingency – is that a crime?”  

Responding to a member of Kegalle, Keerthiratne who had claimed that Trincomalee formed part of the Kandyan territory before it went into the hands of the Europeans, Vanniasingam said “I am afraid he has studied his history all wrong. But I have no quarrel with him because of the Hon. Member for Kegalle wants to revert to the conditions as they existed prior to 1815, I have absolutely no quarrel with him, because he would perhaps then have a Tamil King, and we would also be doing our business in Tamil as the official language of the Kandyan territory.”  

When we examine both Chelvanayakam’s public speeches and his statements in the Council, it becomes clear that ideas related to secession were present in his thinking even before independence. Moreover, these views were not limited to him alone, as indicated by the statements of figures like Vanniasingham.

This mentality can also be seen in the responses to the Soulbury constitution in Jaffna. In 1945, Tamil nationalists of Jaffna, associates of Chelvanayakam, protested the proposed constitutional framework and condemned the Tamil members of the council who voted in favor of the reforms by calling them ‘traitors’. 

It is worth noting that this constitution was not a product of Sinhala majoritarianism, but was drafted by Ivor Jennings based on the recommendations of the Soulbury Commission, both of which were British in origin.  

Reminding the council how they opposed the new British made Ceylonese constitution, Chelvanayakam said (Hansard 1947: 227-228), “Sir, you will remember what happened when a constitution was put forward originally. Rightly or wrongly the Members of the North opposed it. Later they sent in representatives with a mandate to reject that Constitution. They were then enticed into the bosom of the Hon. Prime Minister, and the country has now seen the result”. 

As the Times of Ceylon news item dated to 17 Nov, 1947 said, instead of the British made Ceylonese constitution, Chelvanayakam wanted a federal form of government with the right to secede. 

Taken together, these episodes strongly suggest that ideas of secession and even federation with a Tamil region in India were present within a section of Jaffna Tamil political thought well before 1948. Chelvanayakam appears to have been part of this broader ideological current. His biography was written by his son-in-law and one of the compilers of Sri Lanka’s current constitution, A. J. Wilson, S. J. V. Chelvanayakam and the Crisis of Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism (1994), provides a deeper understanding of this ideological current.  

This challenges the commonly held view that his shift towards federalism occurred only after the 1948 Citizenship Act, or that separatist tendencies emerged only after the 1972 Republican Constitution. In fact, he had already demonstrated an inclination toward separatism—not merely federalism—well before Ceylon became an independent nation. This may also help explain why his party was named Ilangai Tamil Arasu Katchi (Ceylon Tamil Nation Party) in Tamil, while being referred to as the Federal Party in English. 

We can confidently argue that Jaffna centered Tamil nationalist politics, led by Chelvanayakam, was not a reactionary or defensive form of nationalism as commonly believed. Rather, it appears to have had a longer-term political direction even prior to independence. 

Finally, it should be noted that the history of the island’s ethnic conflict has still not been properly written. Despite the presence of many local and international think tanks discussing Sri Lanka’s war and ethnic crisis, there has been little effort to produce a well-sourced and balanced historical account. In a country that experienced such a long and complex conflict, there is a clear need for careful and rigorous historical writing. 

(The author is an independent Researcher)