(3) Britain's disastrous legacy - An outsider's comments on the Sri Lankan conflict

The Tamil minority did well under British rule, and were considered industrious and intelligent by their colonial masters. By contrast, the Sinhalese were considered indolent – much as the Malays were considered indolent by the British, or the Hutus by the Germans and Belgians. Identifying and favouring a minority group over a majority was a common trick of colonials the world over, and often had tragic consequences decades later.

Tamils also converted to Christianity more readily than the Sinhalese, and in consequence, received good European educations in missionary schools. As a result, English-speaking Tamils made up a disproportionately large part of the professional classes under the British. Ironically, successful Hindu Tamil mobilisation against religious conversion also led to increased self-awareness, and self-confidence, in the Tamil ethnic group.

The Sinhalese received less favour, and their ancient and magisterial culture was looked upon by the British with ignorance and disdain.

So when the British left in 1948, there was going to have to be some rebalancing in favour of the Sinhalese.

Britain had real concerns about whether Ceylon was capable of managing its ethnic diversity wisely. The pre-independence constitution established by the Donoughmore Commission involved an elaborate system to prevent the dominance of any one ethnic group, and lasted from 1931-1947.

Unfortunately, the subsequent Soulbury Commission of 1944 recommended a centralised system of government, trusting the Ceylonese, under the benign and inclusive leadership of DS Senanayake, to manage their affairs wisely. They did not.

The Soulbury Constitution was, in retrospect, asinine. Indeed, some Tamils would say that even a federal constitution would not have been enough, and that as in India, independence should have been accompanied by Partition.