How Colonialism Fuels Civil War: Sri Lanka & A Man's Struggle for Peace | Pitasanna Shanmugathas

## Intro The Sri Lankan civil war was not an inevitable eruption of ancient hatreds; it was the product of political choices layered upon a colonial legacy. The conversation with Pitasanna Shanmugathas, prompted by his documentary on Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam, traces how administrative decisions, constitutional designs, and post-independence majoritarian politics transformed social differences into violent conflict. More than a biography, the exchange uses Neelan’s life and proposals as a prism to examine how constitutional architecture can either reinforce exclusion or create a path toward coexistence. The stakes are not merely historical: the questions about language, decentralization, and the international dimensions of reform continue to shape Sri Lanka’s politics and offer lessons for divided societies worldwide. ## Constitutional Changes The constitutional story that looms largest in the conversation begins with the Soulbury Constitution handed down during British rule and the abrupt reversal that followed independence. The British had built institutions and legal guarantees without fully integrating local cleavages into their design, creating a paradox: minority communities who had risen under colonial patronage suddenly found themselves vulnerable the moment universal franchise empowered a Sinhalese majority. The Sinhala Only Act, and later republican constitutions in 1972 and 1978, did more than change legal texts; they reshaped the rules of belonging. Sinhala was elevated as the sole official language; Buddhism was given a foremost place; and the trend toward centralization culminated in the strong executive presidency. This sequence mattered because constitutions do more than declare principles — they structure incentives. By erasing meaningful protections and concentrating power in Colombo, the post-colonial polity reduced the available peaceful channels for minority political expression. Neelan’s work, as described in the discussion, sought the opposite: legal frameworks that would acknowledge pluralism, distribute authority, and translate rights into practice. The constitutional shift from a promised check on discrimination to an instrument of majoritarian consolidation is central to the argument that colonial legacies alone did not produce war; rather, the failure of post-colonial elites to design inclusive institutions did. ## Key Differences Between Tamils and Sinhalese At the heart of the conflict lay two intertwined markers: ethnicity and language. The conversation insists on clarifying that Tamil and Sinhalese identities map onto language and cultural histories rather than immutable biological differences. Both groups have long-standing roots on the island, and the boundaries between them have been sharpened over time by politics rather than biology. Economic and educational advantages enjoyed by Tamil communities under British rule — particularly access to missionary schools and administrative posts — created social hierarchies that fed majority resentment. Those advantages were visible in the disproportionate presence of Tamils in the civil service, the military, and professions like engineering and education. What turned differentiation into deadly antagonism was the interplay of grievance and state policy. When a newly empowered Sinhalese majority sought to redress perceived historical inequalities through exclusionary language and education laws, Tamils experienced rapid disenfranchisement. The Tamil response evolved from political mobilization to demands for autonomy and, for some, secession. The conversation underscores that cultural difference became politically salient because institutional rules rewarded exclusion. This makes the problem fundamentally remediable: when institutions recognize plural identities and create incentives for cooperation, the raw basis for conflict shrinks. ## Abolishing the Concurrent List One of Neelan’s concrete legal proposals — and a centerpiece of the Union of Regions blueprint discussed in the conversation — was the abolition of the concurrent list. In many federations, a concurrent list allows both central and regional governments to legislate on the same matters, often creating overlap but offering shared responsibility. Neelan and his colleagues argued that, for Sri Lanka, such ambiguity favored central dominance and invited constant interference in devolved matters. Removing the concurrent list would have clarified competencies, giving regions genuine control over domains that affect everyday life: education, language policy, local policing, and cultural institutions. The power of this proposal lies in turning devolution from a symbolic concession into a durable redistribution of governance. Where central governments retain the capacity to overrule regional policy, devolution becomes hollow and communities remain insecure. Abolishing the concurrent list, as explained in the discussion, would have reduced friction by establishing clear boundaries of authority and preventing the center from unravelling regional arrangements when political winds changed. In short, it was an effort to institutionalize predictability and reduce the zero-sum logic of ethnic competition. ## Backlash Against Federalism Despite the logic of Neelan’s proposals, the conversation makes clear that federalist reforms provoked a fierce backlash. Federalism in Sri Lanka became politically charged, associated in many quarters with separatism and a threat to national unity. Sinhalese political elites exploited these fears to paint devolution as disintegration, while militant Tamil groups sought maximalist demands that further polarized the debate. The result was an environment in which reasonable compromises were framed as betrayals, and reformers were vulnerable to delegitimization from both sides. Neelan’s experience demonstrates the fragility of reform politics in a climate of mistrust. Proposals that sought to defuse conflict by accommodating identity claims were met not only with parliamentary resistance but with violence. The assassination of Neelan — discussed repeatedly in the film and the conversation — was itself a political act intended to eliminate a mediator whose very presence threatened hardliners. The broader lesson is that constitutional design must be accompanied by public education, cross-community coalitions, and international support to normalize power-sharing. Without those ingredients, even carefully drawn reforms can be undone by extremist narratives and short-term electoral incentives. ## International Dimension of Neelan's Activism The conversation places Neelan’s work within a broader transnational intellectual and institutional context. Educated at Harvard and steeped in international law, Neelan bridged global ideas about human rights and federalism with local realities. He founded institutions dedicated to pluralism and jurisprudence, seeking to marry scholarship with political practice. That global orientation made him both an asset and a target: international engagement offered legitimacy and comparative lessons, but it also invited charges of foreignness in an environment suspicious of outside influence. There is also a practical international dimension: diaspora politics, foreign funding for civil society, and international human rights mechanisms all shaped the conflict and the prospects for resolution. The conversation flags how movements on the ground intersected with international narratives — sometimes blunting state violence, sometimes amplifying fears of external meddling. Neelan’s activism navigated these currents by translating international norms into locally resonant constitutional proposals. His example suggests that international ideas about minority rights and federalism can be valuable, but they must be adapted to local political ecosystems to avoid backlash. ## Neelan's Relevance Today What makes Neelan’s story more than a historical curiosity is its con

How Colonialism Fuels Civil War: Sri Lanka & A Man's Struggle for Peace Today I got with me again Pitasanna Shanmungathas, a Canadian journalist and film maker who recently produced a new documentary called “Neelan: Unsilenced” in which he tells the story of a Sri Lankan constitutional lawyer and politician named Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam who sought to bring about a peaceful solution to end the decades long ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Links: You can watch the documentary on its website: http://www.neelanunsilenced.com/ Pitasanna's Twitter/X: https://x.com /pitasanna Timestamps: 00:00:00 Intro 00:07:16 Tamil or Sinhalese Identity & British Influence 00: 10:57 Legacy of the Conflict 00:16:39 Constitutional Changes 00:19:09 Removing Discriminatory Provisions 00:20:23 Key Differences Between Tamils and Sinhalese 00:23:33 Neelan's Vision for Conflict Resolution 00:30:13 Abolishing the Concurrent List 00:32:31 Understanding the Concurrent List 00:36:37 Backlash Against Federalism 00:38:04 LTTE Vilification Campaign 00:45:33 International Dimension of Neelan's Activism 00:48:42 The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) 00:50:13 Neelan's Relevance Today 00:56:52 Where to Find More of the Guest's Work #M2 Hello everybody, Pascal here from Neutrality Studies, and I just had with me Pitasanna Shanmugathas, who was on this channel before. Pitasanna is a Canadian journalist and filmmaker who recently made a new documentary called "Nilan Unsilenced." The documentary is available for free, and it recounts the story of Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam, a Sri Lankan politician and constitutional lawyer who was trying, through different kinds of activism and his political vision for a new constitution, to end the long and bloody civil war and bring peace to Sri Lanka. Pitasanna allowed me to show you the trailer, which I will do now, and after that, we will go straight into the discussion. So here's the trailer, and then the debate with Pitasanna. #M3 The scenes you just saw were from the final stages of Sri Lanka's civil war in 2009, when government forces shelled Tamil civilian areas. Could the deaths of thousands of Tamil civilians have been avoided? What happened to Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam, the Tamil constitutional scholar who helped Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga craft a set of bold and progressive constitutional reform proposals that might have peacefully resolved the ethnic conflict more than ten years earlier? This documentary tells his story. President Chandrika's landmark proposals for constitutional reform may have made the demand for a Tamil homeland, or Eelam, irrelevant. All the proposals were forthright and candid in comparison to previous proposals. Eelam was a tremendous opportunity, and I think that's why Neelan jumped into -- 1 of 17 -- the effort and took a leadership role in trying to make the Chandrika Kumaratunga initiative succeed. The LTTE never wanted a democratic solution. They didn't want devolution. People like Neelan had other ideas and actually saw solutions. When you don't attach any sanctity to your own life, you cross an important emotional threshold. This means that you become almost the most perfect, the most complete fighting machine. It is a form of extreme nationalism which is capable of commanding the kind of passion, the kind of... The LTTE's political methodology and their main strategy—eliminating and killing those they labeled as traitors—is a kind of social cancer. We don't offer a united solution. We don't agree on a common program and mobilize the people. We are at each other's throats. The LTTE's killing of Neelan was a political act, and our remembering of him was also a political act. I strongly believe that was the biggest mistake the LTTE made. I think the moment they killed Neelan, any kind of international support they had was gone. As we look back, when the armed struggle had failed, there was so much loss and destruction, primarily for the Tamil people, if you compare who has lost out more. And as we look towards a solution, the path that Neelan showed us is the only one available to us. You have to think of Neelan not simply for his role with respect to, quote, "ethnic conflict," unquote, with particular emphasis, of course, on his own country. But you have to think of him as a figure who was important to the whole course of the development of the human rights movement. This is an island society, and therefore both communities have been historically, and will be in the future, locked into that island. And so the challenge is: how can they evolve political structures? #M2 Pitasanna, you are also Sri Lankan by heritage, and you are very inspired by that person. So you made a movie about him, and you're here to tell us all about it. Welcome. #M3 Thank you for having me, Pascal. It's a pleasure to be on your program again. #M2 Well, great having you again, because you keep making documentary movies and you keep putting them out for free. They're accessible on the Internet because you're a man with a mission. And the mission is to tell people how good politics would actually work. And I think you found inspiration in this person, Neelan Tiruchelvam. #M3 -- 2 of 17 -- Yeah, Neelan Tiruchelvam. He was a very inspirational figure. Neelan was born and raised in British Ceylon, now present-day Sri Lanka. He was born into a very affluent family. His father was a politician and a minister of local government in Sri Lanka. Immediately after Sri Lanka's independence from the British, the country was faced with an ethnic crisis because the majority community of the island, the Sinhala community, which constituted 78% of the population, immediately began imposing discriminatory policies targeting the minority communities, namely the Tamil community, which constituted less than 20% of the population. And so they imposed language policies such as the Sinhala Only Act, making Sinhala the only official language and discriminating against and disenfranchising Tamil speakers from government positions and from positions within upper-class society. And there were pogroms—ethnic pogroms—for decades and decades. So Neelan's father was actively trying to bring about a federal solution. He was seeking to implement policies that would protect the rights of the minority communities under a federal system. But Neelan's father was unsuccessful in that goal due to rivalry among the majority Sinhalese political parties. So his son was exposed to that environment growing up, and he was determined to change things. #M2 And were they themselves Tamil or Sinhalese? #M3 Oh, sorry. Yes. So Neelan was part of the minority Tamil community—he was born as an ethnic Tamil. But they grew up in a very affluent environment. When the British were in power, the British had privileged the minority Tamil community, and this had fostered a great deal of resentment among the majority Sinhalese community because the minority Tamils were being disproportionately represented nationally. Within the military, for instance, close to 40% of the Ceylon military were Tamils, even though they constituted less than 20% of the population. They were in engineering and education backgrounds in overwhelming percentages, far more than their actual percentage within the island. So this had fostered a great deal of resentment among the majority Sinhalese community. And once they got independence, the majority community, in retaliation, sought to impose legislation in terms of education and language that would consolidate their majority and subjugate the Tamils. This eventually led to a civil war in 1983. And Neelan, as a minority Tamil, sought to bring about a peaceful solution—a federal solution, just like his father wanted. He helped co-author a set of constitutional reform proposals known as the Union of Regions proposals on August 3rd, 1995—30 years to this day, August 3rd, at the time of this filming. -- 3 of 17 -- And they are, to date, the boldest and most progressive proposals that seek to redress the grievances of the minority communities. That's a quote—a statement that Neelan made. And to date, they are the boldest attempt to redress the grievances of the minority communities. They devolve a significant amount of power, which has been unprecedented for 30 years. So these proposals provide a blueprint for what the current Sri Lankan government should implement in their stated goal of bringing about a new constitution for the country. #M2 Yeah, and the country was rattled by this civil war that ended with the Tamil Tigers being defeated back in the 2000s—late 2000s, if I'm not wrong. But it was a very bloody affair, and it was a bloody affair in a place that is very small but densely packed. I mean, I'm looking at it right now: 65,000 square kilometers, 21 million people. Sri Lanka is 1.5 times bigger than Switzerland, but that's still small, and it's over 20 million inhabitants. So, one of my guests on this channel before, Dr. Darini Rajasingham-Senanayake—she also talked about the British colonial legacy, and Dr. Asoka Bandarage as well. And they always pointed out, look, these communities used to live together on this island for centuries and they didn't kill each other. They were not at each other's throats. So something happened during the British colonial time that then split this island. And can you maybe speak to that a little bit? And maybe if your subject also had thoughts on the legacy of the conflict, where it's coming from? #M3 Yes. So when Ceylon, now present-day Sri Lanka, was under British rule, the British had colonized the whole of Ceylon. There were other powers, such as the Portuguese and the Dutch. They were primarily concerned with the navy, controlling the ports, but the British had administrative control over Ceylon. They used the English language, along with the help of English missionaries, who had largely situated themselves in the Tamil-dominated north and east of the country. These missionaries had a significant influence on the Tamil-speaking minority, making them more fluent in English. As a result, the British colonial power used Tamil people to serve in the Ceylon British administration in disproportionate numbers relative to the majority Sinhalese population. And they were represented in disproportionate numbers in engineering, the military, and the civil service. So, in every sector of society, the minority Tamil community was gaining significant upward mobility, and English became this hallmark of elite status—which is still present to this day. English is the hallmark of elite status; if you know English in Sri Lanka, in South Asia, it's a significant step towards advancement. And there were communities—the Tamil community, the Muslim community— that spoke about their grievances that they would have in the event that Sri Lanka gained independence. -- 4 of 17 -- So the British engineered a constitution, the Soulbury Constitution, and that was done without consideration for the Tamil community and the Muslim community. The British had already granted universal franchise to the people of Ceylon. This caused a great deal of anxiety among the minority Muslim and Tamil communities because now they were in a position where the Sinhalese would have overwhelming majority power once the British left, and they might seek to retaliate for their grievances. So the British said, "Don't worry, we're going to give you a constitution." We're going to call it the Soulbury Constitution. We're going to put in a provision in this constitution that prevents the government from implementing any discriminatory legislation on the basis of language. So we're going to put that provision in this constitution. And it was very much a European- designed constitution, which did not take into account the interests of the Tamil community, the Muslim community, or the Indian plantation community—which were Indian indentured servants brought from southern India into Sri Lanka to work