There are several contentious issues and misrepresentations of facts in Kumar David’s (KD) reply to Victor Ivan (VI) (Sunday Island – 07.09.2008) that need to be clarified. KD has identified four cardinal points in VI’s theses, which according to KD is "a departure from his usual positions". VI in keeping with his assumed anti-racist posture, had been a LTTE symp athizer in the past and one wonders what has made him change his stance. I hope it is not the changing horizons in relation to LTTE invincibility that has made him shift his position but that he has finally realized that Sinhalese are not racists and also the so-called ethnic problem is a product of Tamil separatism which has a long and well documented history.

Both VI and KD are of the opinion that Eelam is impossible not because it is not justifiable by any human standard - historical, political, ethical, moral etc. but because LTTE has bungled and in KD’s words "has strangled it’s own child". KD says, "in conditions like Kosovo, South Ossetia or Abkhazia, Eelam would be a certainty." In the above mentioned three instances where sovereignty and territorial integrity have been violated and countries have been divided, imperialist and hegemonic tendency on the part of the West or Russia, as the case may be, was clearly evident. There were no humanitarian issues though pretensions in that regard were made. Whether or not Marxists approve of such imperialist practices is not relevant anymore because Marxists themselves, to suit the conditions, have manipulated Marxist principles. What is relevant is that if the imperialists responsible for the above mentioned interferences have a vested interest in Sri Lanka and if in their opinion intervention would help to further that interest, they would not hesitate to intervene regardless of LTTE "bungling".

On the other hand what is the quality of independence "gained’ by such means? Independence and self-determination become meaningless concepts under such conditions don’t they? Aren’t the Marxists concerned about the plight of the people subject to that kind of "independence"? Don’t they mind the Tamils becoming pawns in the hands of imperialists? One would have thought anti-imperialism is one of the main pillars on which Marxism rests. All these pillars however are now wobbling, but that’s another matter.

KD is clutching at straws when he says LTTE agreed to a federal solution at the Oslo talks. No one knows with any certainty what is meant by internal self-determination, a concept that the LTTE is supposed to have proposed and subsequently agreed upon. What is known is that they later reneged on this agreement too. Subsequently they avoided the Tokyo conference fearing they would be trapped into an agreement on a federal solution.

KD gives a list of causes that led to the Vadukkodai resolution and the emergence of the LTTE and says separatism is rooted in this history. Tamil separatism has a much longer history. It started with the realization that the Tamils would be a minority in the legislature if elections were to be held on the basis of a general franchise instead of ethnicity which was the then practice. This the Tamils could not accept though it conformed to the democratic principles that were being introduced all over the world. These proposals put forward by the Donoughmore Constitution led to the protests mounted by the Tamil Leaders in one form or another.

Ponnambalam Ramanathan, as far back as 1916, made preemptive statements in opposition to the enfranchisement that was in the air. In 1921 Arunachalam led a breakaway group of Tamils from the Ceylon National Congress that resulted in the split of the political party that was formed to forge national unity. Prior to this there had been several publications of a dubious nature which were written for the purpose of showing that Tamils were the original settlers in this island eg.; Yalpana Vaipava Malai (1736), Yalpana Charithiram (1878), Yalpana Vaipavam (1884). S. Cassie Chitty in his publication titled Ceylon Gazeteer (1834) made the preposterous claim that all the kings who had ruled this country were Tamils and there were no Sinhalese kings. Mudaliyar C. Rasanayagam (Ancient Jaffna, 1926) had said that Vijaya was a Tamil, Naga tribe spoke a language similar to Tamil, and that Parakramabahu was of Kalinga origin and came from Jaffna. Ponnambalam Arunachalam in an article titled "Population" (1907) stated that the Dravidian race was an ancient and pure race while the Sinhalese were mixed.

Beginnings of a Federal Party was evident in 1935 with the formation of the Federal Communities Progressive Association which had also petitioned the then Governor to say that the Tamils were the original inhabitants in the Island. Father of the Eelam concept could perhaps be C.Suntheralingam who in a petition addressed to S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike in 1957 said that except for a period of 22 years (reign of Parakramabahu 1st and 6th) the Island always had regional rulers and that Jaffna Kingdom was independent of Sinhalese rulers.

KD is of the opinion that the Tamils will not be benefited if the LTTE is militarily defeated. He says the Sinhalese political parties will forget about devolution of power and Tamils will be adversely affected with regard to language, education, land distribution, employment etc. Tamils in the North and also the East till recently did not have peace for more than twenty years. To be free of war is to be free of uncertainty of life, which is a huge gain for the Tamils for they are the worst affected by the violence started by the LTTE. KD might say war is preferred to discrimination and political subjugation. Ongoing discrimination and subjugation of Tamils by the Sinhalese remain a factor that has not been proved to date. Could KD present evidence with facts and figures?