A Vulnerable Eelam Tamil’s Heartfelt Reply to a Sinhala Malli: Truth, History, and Humanity

This is his comment,

👇

"Kaavi Yaa"(facebook name) If Sinhala people wanted to be violent, we could also choose harmful actions, but we don’t. We continue to live peacefully in Sri Lanka, and we acknowledge the pain of Tamil families who lost their loved ones during the bloody war.

But we must ask: what would happen if an Osama Bin Laden remembrance day were held in the USA? Or if a Hamas remembrance day took place in Israel? Groups that carried out suicide attacks and killed thousands of innocent people, attacking temples, killing monks, and even using children as soldiers, cannot be compared to peaceful protesters. Can such actions be considered culture?

Today, people in both the north and south live in peace. The decades of violence came from the push for a separate state. Some still refuse to coexist with other communities in Sri Lanka and instead follow the influence of the Tamil diaspora and LTTE-aligned political agendas.

I believe that a student—or perhaps a Sinhala individual—responded on the official Jaffna University website. The original post concerned a day of remembrance, with students offering prayers, yet this individual replied inappropriately. I have responded to their comment as shown below.

Tamil History, Conflict, and International Law: Evidence-Based Analysis

Dear Brother Namal Priyakantha,

I am grateful for your considered response. I propose that we engage with this complex subject through the lenses of historical accuracy, international law, and principles of justice, integrating archaeological, cultural, and legal evidence.

1. On the Error of Equating the Tamil Struggle with Transnational Terror

Comparing figures such as Osama bin Laden or organisations such as Hamas with the Tamil national struggle is fundamentally mistaken. Eelam Tamils and Sinhalese are both indigenous ethnic communities of Sri Lanka, each possessing distinct historical, linguistic, and cultural claims. International law recognises the rights of indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities to preserve their cultural identity and political representation, as enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007).¹ Such protections are designed to uphold minority cultures within multi-ethnic states, and do not delegitimise political or social aspirations grounded in historical realities.

2. Ancient Tamil Presence Across the Island

Archaeological, literary, and anthropological evidence confirms that Tamil-speaking communities inhabited the entirety of Sri Lanka, from the northern Jaffna Peninsula to the eastern, central, and southern regions. Kantharodai (Kandarodai) in Jaffna, a major archaeological site, demonstrates continuous occupation and cultural sophistication from approximately 500 BCE to 700 CE.² Excavations reveal urn burials, black-and-red ware ceramics, settlement mounds, and other artefacts indicative of early urbanisation, trade networks, and complex social organisation.

Material evidence also attests to distinct religious practices, including nature worship, Nāga (snake) worship, and later the adoption of Mahāgnāna Buddhist traditions.²³ These practices predate the predominance of Theravāda Buddhism in modern Sri Lanka, demonstrating the syncretic evolution of spiritual and cultural life. Literary sources further reference the region as Nagadīpa, inhabited by the Nāga people, suggesting continuity of Tamil socio-cultural presence throughout the island.⁴

Taken together, these findings confirm that Tamil culture, language, and socio-religious practices were not confined to the north but integral to the entire island’s history, affirming their indigenous status under international law.

3. Civilians, Combatants, and the Norms of International Humanitarian Law

Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), particularly the Geneva Conventions (1949), civilians must never be deliberately targeted.⁵ The principle of distinction prohibits indiscriminate attacks or assaults intentionally directed at civilian populations. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Article 8, codifies such acts as war crimes.⁶

During Sri Lanka’s civil war, violent acts occurred; however, it is critical to distinguish operations targeting combatants or state representatives — such as LTTE attacks on military or political personnel — from indiscriminate attacks on civilians, the latter constituting war crimes under international law. For instance, the 24 July 2001 Katunayake–Bandaranaike Airport attack targeted military infrastructure and commercial assets, resulting in seven fatalities and twelve injuries, predominantly among security personnel.⁷ This illustrates the strategic, combatant-focused nature of certain operations, contrasting sharply with indiscriminate terrorism by groups such as ISIS or Hamas.

4. Evidence, Casualty Figures, and Ethical Representation

Accurate representation of conflict requires verified evidence and credible sources. Misrepresentation or exaggeration of casualty figures undermines both historical scholarship and the ethical principles enshrined in the UN Charter (Articles 1–2), which promote peace, justice, and human rights.⁸

Data from the South Asia Terrorism Portal indicate that the LTTE conducted at least 168 suicide attacks between 1984 and 2006, many targeting military or political objectives rather than civilians.⁹ Such distinctions are essential for legal and moral clarity.

5. Cultural, Religious, and Historical Context

Sri Lankan society exhibits centuries of religious pluralism, syncretism, and cultural interchange. While Theravāda Buddhism experienced a revival in the late 19th century under Anagarika Dharmapāla, Tamil Saivism, Vaishnavism, and other Hindu traditions have documented continuity from at least the 7th century BCE.²³ Syncretic practices, including the veneration of Hindu deities within Buddhist contexts, reflect coexistence rather than inherent conflict.

International human rights law, notably ICCPR Article 27, safeguards the cultural and religious freedoms of minority groups, obliging states to respect pluralistic traditions.⁹ Denying these historical and cultural realities risks misrepresentation and violation of normative frameworks.

6. Responsibility, Reconciliation, and the Rule of Law

All discourse concerning Sri Lanka’s conflict must be grounded in factual integrity, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law. Post-conflict reconciliation frameworks, emphasised by UN norms on accountability, require evidence-based and transparent scholarship to advance sustainable peace and justice.¹⁰

Conclusion

A measured, legally informed, and historically contextualised approach is essential. Recognising the rights of all communities under international law, distinguishing combatants from civilians, and upholding factual accuracy are indispensable for scholarly rigor and societal reconciliation in Sri Lanka.

Yours sincerely,

Small Drops Balananthini Balasubramaniam

25/11/2025

21:00

United Kingdom

References

1. United Nations. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), 2007.

2. Kantharodai Civilization, Ancient Jaffna, 500 BCE–700 CE, Archaeological Survey of Sri Lanka Reports; Excavations at Kantharodai, Jaffna Peninsula.

3. Paranavitana, S. Prehistoric and Early Historic Cultures of Sri Lanka, Colombo: Archaeological Department, 1967.

4. Indrapala, K. The Evolution of Tamil Society in Sri Lanka, New Delhi: Navrang, 2005.

5. International Committee of the Red Cross. Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols.

6. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Article 8 (War Crimes).

7. SATP / Tamil Guardian, “23 years since the LTTE assault on Katunayake Air Force Base,” 24 July 2024.

8. United Nations. Charter of the United Nations, Articles 1–2.

9. ICCPR, Article 27; South Asia Terrorism Portal; AOAV, “Suicide Terrorism in the Sri Lankan Civil War (1983–2009).”

10. FIDH / ICC analysis on war crimes, accountability, and post‑conflict justice.