Colonial Divide & Rule Part 1: Artificial Ethnic Identification leading to Separatism

 

 

Why is it important to go back in time to understand the root causes of every country unable to rise from its colonial past? Why have these nations that have self-sustained themselves for centuries during times when there were no imports or exports, dollar transactions now crippled in debt? While modern conflicts preach about accountability & acknowledgment, there is little or no such by the very entities that engineered, institutionalized, politicized selective and privileged policies that constitute the symptoms behind most of today’s global conflicts. Without understanding this background, people are made to believe the Sinhalese & Tamils have been enemies. Sri Lanka’s civilization is far beyond the 443 years western colonials occupied the island or the over 200 years of South Indian invader rule.

 

1. Portuguese Period (1505–1658) – Malabars as Foreign Settlers

 

Portuguese chroniclers consistently labeled Tamil-speaking populations as “Malabares”, migrants from South India, not indigenous.

 

Fernao de Queiroz (1687):

• “The Chingalas are the natural inhabitants and ancient possessors of the island.”
• “The Malabars are foreigners who came from the coast of India, settling principally in the northern parts.”
• “The kingdom of Jaffnapatam was formed by Malabars who crossed over from the Coromandel coast.”

 

João Ribeiro (1685):

• “The Chingalas are the true natives of the land.”
• “The Malabars came from the Coromandel coast and settled in Jaffna.”

 

Key point: No Portuguese source ever recognizes Tamils as indigenous.

 

 

2. Dutch Period (1658–1796) – Consolidating Migrant Status

 

Philippus Baldaeus (1672):

• “The Chingalese are the proper natives of the island.”
• “The Malabars crossed over from the coast of India and established settlements in the north.”

 

Francois Valentyn (1726):

• “The Sinhalese have inhabited the island from the most ancient times.”
• “The Malabars are immigrants from South India who formed colonies in Jaffna.”

 

Dutch records confirm importation of thousands of Malabars, and explicitly did not recognize them as natives.

 

3. British Period (1796–1948) – Institutionalizing Artificial Identities

 

Robert Knox (1681):

• “These people are the native inhabitants of the island.” (Sinhalese)

 

Captain Robert Percival (1803):

• “The Malabars are foreign settlers, differing in every respect from the native inhabitants.”

 

Sir James Emerson Tennent (1859):

• “The Sinhalese constitute the aboriginal population of the island.”
• “The Malabars derive their origin from Southern India.”

 

Casie Chitty (1834):

• “The Tamils of Ceylon are descendants of Malabars who migrated from Southern India.”

 

George Turnour (1837):

• “The Sinhalese monarchy and civilization existed centuries before South Indian invasions.”

 

Creation of “Ceylon Tamil” – 20th Century Administrative Rebranding

 

Sir Ponnambalam Arunachalam (1901):

“The term ‘Malabar’ gave the impression that they were foreigners.”

 

1911 Census (E.B. Denham, British Administration):

For the first time:

• Ceylon Tamils (localized identity)
• Indian Tamils (indentured laborers)

 

Before 1911, Tamils were Malabars, classified by occupation, caste, or origin, with no political or territorial identity.

 

After 1911, administrative labels → political identity → communal consciousness → territorial claims → separatist ideology.

 

British policies imported over 1 million Indian Tamils as plantation laborers, officially “Indian Tamils,” temporary and stateless.

 

Questioning the Colonial Census – The “Ceylon Tamil” Construct

 

Understanding how artificial ethnic identities were created requires examining the timeline of censuses in Ceylon and the emergence of “Ceylon Tamil”.

 

1. Pre-1911 Censuses – No “Ceylon Tamil” Category

Census Year	Classification of Tamils	Notes
1824	Malabars, Sinhalese, Moors, Europeans	Earliest British population survey; Tamils called Malabars, no political identity
1871	Low-country Sinhalese, Kandyan Sinhalese, Tamils, Moors, Malays, Europeans	First scientific census; Tamils grouped as a single category
1881	Sinhalese, Tamils, Moors, Europeans	Tamils not subdivided; identity based on language/caste, not political or territorial claim
1891	Sinhalese, Tamils, Moors, Europeans	No separate “Ceylon Tamil” or territorial identity
1901	Sinhalese, Tamils, Moors, Europeans	Classification remained consistent; census purely descriptive

 

Observation: Until 1911, there was no administrative distinction between local Tamil settlers (Malabars) and other groups.

There was no “Ceylon Tamil” identity, no political or territorial implication, only linguistic/caste-based categorization.

 

Census of 1911 – The Turning Point

Compiler: E. B. Denham, Census Superintendent

Publication: Census of Ceylon, 1911, Volume I – General Report (Government Press, Colombo, 1912)

Racial Classification Introduced for the First Time:

• Ceylon Tamils(local Tamil-speaking population)
• Indian Tamils(indentured plantation laborers from South India)

Significance: This was a completely new political-racial construct. Administrative convenience became a political identity, laying the foundation for communal consciousness, representation, and eventual territorial claims.

 

Questions Raised by the 1911 Census

 

1. Why did the British suddenly create “Ceylon Tamil” in 1911?

• Previous censuses did not distinguish between Malabars and other Tamil-speaking populations.
• The label had no historical or indigenous basis.

 

2. Was this merely administrative, or intentionally political?

• Census categories are often neutral, but here the creation of a separate racial-political identityenabled later communal representation and territorial claims.

 

3. Impact on subsequent politics and separatism:

• This administrative act directly influenced the formation of:
• Federal Party (ITAK)
• TULF political platform
• Vaddukoddai Resolution
• LTTE separatist ideology

 

4. Historical legitimacy and public perception:

• Can a 20th-century colonial administrative categoryoverride centuries of historical, social, and cultural realities?
• How did the census reframe the narrativeof Sinhalese-Tamil relations, presenting artificial divisions as natural or historical?

 

Key Observations

Before 1911: Tamils were classified as Malabars — migrants from South India, not a politically or territorially distinct population.

1911 Census: Introduced “Ceylon Tamil” for the first time — a politically engineered identity.

Consequence: Administrative convenience → political identity → communal mobilization → separatist ideology.

Takeaway: The very foundation of the “Ceylon Tamil” identity used in later political movements originates in a single colonial census, not in historical continuity or indigenous ethnicity.

From “Ceylon Tamil” to Separatist Politics: The Colonial Roots of Secessionist Demands

 

Step	Action	Outcome
1911 Census	Created “Ceylon Tamil”	Admin → Political identity
1949 ITAK	Federal Party	Territorial claims
1976 TULF	Vaddukoddai Resolution	Sovereign Tamil Eelam claim
1987 Accord	Provincial autonomy	Partial political legitimacy
LTTE	Armed secession	Northern/Eastern provinces claimed
Diaspora	Global advocacy	International lobbying citing artificial identity

 

 

1. Artificial Identity: “Ceylon Tamil” (1911 Census)

• Pre-1911: Tamils wereMalabars, migrants from South India; no political or territorial identity.
• 1911 Census:British created “Ceylon Tamil” and “Indian Tamil” as separate categories.
• Result: Administrative convenience →political identity → communal consciousness → territorial claim.

This act institutionalized division, setting the stage for ethnic mobilization.

 

2. ITAK & TULF – Political Consolidation of Identity

• Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK, 1949)– Federal Party
  • Directlybuilt upon the “Ceylon Tamil” administrative identity.
  • Political goal:federal state for Ceylon Tamils.
• Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF, 1976)
  • Adopted ITAK’s platform.
  • Vaddukoddai Resolution (1976):

Called for a sovereign Tamil Eelam, claiming the northern and eastern provinces based on Tamil majority populations.

“The Tamil-speaking people of the North and East have a right to self-determination and to establish a sovereign Tamil Eelam.” – Vaddukoddai Resolution, 1976

 

Observation: The legal/administrative recognition of Ceylon Tamils in 1911 was the first step in creating a population category that later justified claims for territorial self-determination.

 

3. Indo-Lanka Accord (1987) – State Recognition of Tamil Political Identity

• Accord wording emphasized“Tamil-speaking population of the north and east” and provincial devolution.
• Intended as a compromise: provincial autonomy for areas dominated byCeylon Tamils.
• Consequence: Even limited devolutionrecognized a politically distinct Tamil entity, echoing the 1911 census’s artificial separation.

 

“The Tamil-speaking population of the Northern and Eastern provinces shall have devolved powers, and their distinct identity shall be recognized.” – Indo-Lanka Accord, 1987

 

4. LTTE Demands – Militarization of Artificial Identity

• LTTE used theCeylon Tamil identity to claim:
  • Entirenorthern and eastern provinces as a Tamil homeland.
  • Exclusive rights based on “ethnic majority,” ignoring historical Sinhalese presence.
• Territorial claims inVaddukoddai Resolution and later LTTE manifestos directly trace back to the recognition of Ceylon Tamils as a separate group.

Without the 1911 administrative identity, the ideological foundation for such territorial demands would have lacked legitimacy.

 

5. Diaspora Advocacy – Global Amplification

• Diaspora groups (Europe, North America, Australia) continue to:
  • Claim rights forCeylon Tamils
  • Lobby UN, EU, and human rights forums using thehistorical political identity of “Ceylon Tamil”.
• Examples of demands:
  • Recognition of Tamil Eelam.
  • Autonomy or federal guarantees fornorthern and eastern provinces.
• International intervention citing“Ceylon Tamil oppression”, framing Sinhalese as the majority oppressor.

This demonstrates colonial administrative classification → local political identity → militant claims → global diaspora advocacy.

 

6. Summary – The Causal Chain

Step	Description	Effect
1911 Census	Creation of “Ceylon Tamil” identity	Administrative identity → Political identity
ITAK (1949) & TULF (1976)	Federalist political platform	Territorial claims, Vaddukoddai Resolution
Indo-Lanka Accord (1987)	Limited devolution	State-level recognition of distinct political Tamil identity
LTTE (1980s–2009)	Armed separatist demands	Northern & Eastern provinces claimed as Tamil homeland
Diaspora Groups	International advocacy	Global lobbying, human rights campaigns

 

Diaspora Statements on Self‑Determination and Tamil Eelam

From a public Tamil diaspora press release calling for recognition of Tamil self‑determination and political solutions:

 

“We Tamils have been fighting for over seventy years for self‑determination. We are a nation of people living in the merged North and East in the island of Ceylon. We have our right to determine our own destiny… successively suppressed… amounting to genocide.”
— Statement by Tamil diaspora advocacy groups, urging UN recognition, an internationally monitored referendum for people in northern/eastern provinces and their descendants, and recognition of Tamil territories not governed by Tamils.

“The State of Tamil Eelam shall consist of the people of the Northern and Eastern provinces… and ensure full and equal rights of citizenship… Tamil shall be the language of the State…”

— Translated extracts from TULF political platform.

 

The North was under South Indian invader rule but that ruler never extended to present East.

Invader rule does not constitute “ethnic homeland” and if invaders never ruled Eastern Province, how can this so-called Tamil Eelam include entire Eastern Province too.

 

The entire separatist and territorial movement, from ITAK/TULF to LTTE and diaspora activism, originates from a 20th-century colonial administrative act — the artificial categorization of “Ceylon Tamil” in 1911.

 

International Law

 

• Territorial Integrity:UN Charter Article 2(4) prohibits secession without consent.
• Right to Self-Determination:Only applies to historically oppressed or indigenous people, not administrative constructs.
• Colonial Responsibility:Shows colonial census categories led to long-term conflicts.
• Diaspora / External Recognition:International recognition cannot override historical and legal realities.

Understanding these roots is essential to seeing through modern narratives of “ancient ethnic enmity” and recognizing how colonial and neocolonial policies engineered divisions for administrative convenience and political control.

 

 

 

 

Shenali D Waduge