Structural Violence, Historical Memory, and the Right to Resistance: A Legal–Political Analysis of Eelam Tamil Narratives in the Post-Tsunami Era*

By Small Drops Balananthini Balasubramaniam (Nila Bala)

United Kingdom

04 December 2025

“The sea broke our world apart, yet it could not drown the faint, stubborn glow of our humanity;

From the ruins heavy with sorrow, we rose—carrying the silent cries of every soul the waves stole away.”

*Abstract*

This article examines the intersection of humanitarian catastrophe, ethnopolitical inequality, and the international legal right to dissent, using the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and subsequent political reactions as a critical lens. It argues that the lived experiences of Eelam Tamils constitute a legitimate political narrative grounded in international law, freedom of expression frameworks, and the global history of decolonisation. The analysis highlights how structural violence, memory, and contested sovereignty shape the rights of subjugated communities to articulate their historical claims and resist state-driven majoritarian nationalism.

*1. Introduction*

The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami devastated Sri Lanka’s Northern and Eastern Provinces, killing more than 28,000 people and destroying an already fragile war-torn economy. The region is estimated to have suffered losses amounting to USD 1.7–2 billion, with over 90% of coastal workers losing their boats and livelihoods. Thousands of children were left orphaned, deepening the social and psychological consequences of an already traumatised population.

Against this humanitarian crisis, certain Sinhala-nationalist political actors publicly opposed the international community providing tsunami-relief funds to Tamil regions, framing such assistance as a form of “recognition” of Tamil Eelam. This reaction reflected a persistent majoritarian insecurity and demonstrated the difficulty of constructing a shared national humanitarian response in an ethnically polarised state.

*2. Historical Memory and the Legitimacy of Political Claims*

Communities around the world narrate grievances shaped by their historical experiences. Jewish claims over Jerusalem, Hindu assertions regarding Ayodhya, and Palestinian narratives of dispossession all demonstrate how collective memory informs territorial identity. Within this comparative framework, the assertion that Eelam constitutes the historical homeland of Eelam Tamils is neither exceptional nor illegitimate; it is an articulation of ethnonational memory, shaped by centuries of political, cultural, and territorial continuity.

Telling affected communities to “forget the past” or “move on” is incompatible with global human-rights norms. Memory—especially traumatic memory—is legally recognised as an integral part of transitional justice (UN Human Rights Council Resolutions 9/11, 12/11, 30/1).

*3. Freedom of Expression and the Right to Critique the State*

If Global South societies are allowed to critique colonialism, and if Western scholars are free to criticise communism, authoritarianism, or any other ideology, the same principle must extend to Eelam Tamils. Under Article 19 of the ICCPR, individuals and communities have the universal right to:

articulate political grievances,

critique majoritarian nationalism,

challenge state policies, and

express alternative constitutional visions.

The right to dissent cannot be denied on the basis that such dissent challenges dominant ethnonational ideologies.

Thus, criticism of Sinhala-majoritarian governance, including its historical structures of discrimination, is a legally protected exercise of free expression. To demand silence from Eelam Tamils is to violate international norms.

*4. Structural Violence and Genocidal Patterns*

The long-term structural conditions faced by Eelam Tamils—militarisation, land appropriation, demographic engineering, cultural erasure, and political exclusion—meet multiple indicators within the UN Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes. Scholars have argued that sustained patterns of state oppression can constitute genocide even without continuous active warfare.

Those who live within systems of oppression—those “carrying pain, living inside pain”—cannot be morally or legally compelled to remain silent about these structural harms.

*5. Comparative Religious and Civilisational Resistance*

Religious communities around the world resist perceived existential threats. Christian resistance to Islamic expansion in parts of Europe, Hindu resistance to Islamic political radicalisation in India, or Jewish resistance to antisemitism are considered normal civilisational behaviours.

In the same analytical frame, resistance by Saivite Eelam Tamils (Hindu Tamils) to perceived threats from Sinhala-Buddhist majoritarian dominance is entirely consistent with global patterns of civilisational self-preservation.

This resistance does not violate international law; instead, it reflects the rights of cultural communities to protect themselves from assimilation, erasure, and state-driven ethnonational domination.

*6. Applicable International Law*

i. Right to Self-Determination

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 1

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 1

All peoples possess the right to “freely determine their political status” and to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.

ii. Freedom of Expression

ICCPR, Article 19

Protects the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas.

iii. Protection from Genocide and Ethnic Persecution

UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948)

UN Framework for Atrocity Crimes

Both establish obligations to prevent and respond to systematic destruction of an ethnic group.

iv. Minority Rights

UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992)

Grants minorities the right to enjoy their culture, practice their religion, use their language, and participate fully in public life.

v. Transitional Justice and Memory

UNHRC Resolutions 30/1, 34/1, 46/1 on Sri Lanka

Affirm the rights of victims to truth, justice, reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence.

*7. Conclusion*

The political voice of the Eelam Tamil community is rooted not in manufactured grievance but in lived history, collective suffering, and international legal rights. Critiquing Sinhala-majoritarian state structures, documenting atrocities, asserting historical homeland claims, and demanding political justice all fall within globally accepted norms of expression, memory, and self-determination.

No society that has long endured structural oppression can be instructed to stay silent about its past. The right to narrate pain, resist injustice, and articulate alternative futures belongs to every people. Eelam Tamils are no exception.

*References*

UN Human Rights Council. 2008. Resolution 9/11.

UN Human Rights Council. 2015. Resolution 30/1.

United Nations. 1948. Genocide Convention.

United Nations. 1966. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

United Nations. 1966. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

UN Office on Genocide Prevention. Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes.