Proscription of LTTE, A Letter to UK High Commissioner

தமிழ்த் தேசியம்

"To us all towns are one, all men our kin.
Life's good comes not from others' gift, nor ill
Man's pains and pains' relief are from within.
Thus have we seen in visions of the wise !."
- Tamil Poem in Purananuru, circa 500 B.C

Proscription of LTTE
A Letter to the UK High Commissioner in Colombo, Sri Lanka

"...In 1972, Section 29 was abolished with the repeal of the Soulbury constitution and enactment of the Republican constitution. This was an unlawful act, because the Privy Council on another matter had ruled as follows: "They [Section 29(2)] represent the solemn balance of rights between the citizens of Ceylon, the fundamental condition on which inter se they accepted the constitution; and these are therefore unalterable..." (Bribery Commissioner v. Ranasinghe - l964). The United Kingdom failed to intervene to protect the rule of law when these events occurred. Recognising the reality as demonstrated by the tragic events and attempts at negotiation since 1956, the only Tamil leadership that can effectively negotiate with the Sri Lankan government, to bring about a just and unalterable solution, based on the right to self determination, is the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The United Kingdom would fail the Tamil people, once again, if it proscribes the LTTE..."

I am a Sri Lankan citizen now resident in the US. I wish to appeal to the United Kingdom not to jeopardize the Tamil's struggle in Sri Lanka to regain their lost rights. As you are aware the successive governments in Sri Lanka, dominated by the Sinhalese, have systematically usurped the rights of the Tamil people, which they had at the time of independence from the United Kingdom in 1948.

Lord Soulbury in a foreword to B.H.Farmer's Ceylon - a Divided Nation (Oxford University Press), 1963:

".... A Commission, of which I had the honour to be the Chairman, was appointed by the British Government in 1944, to examine and discuss proposals for the constitutional reform of Ceylon. It did not take long to discover that the relations of minorities to majorities, and particularly of the Tamil minority in the northern and eastern provinces to the Sinhalese majority further south, were in the words of the Commission's report 'the most difficult of the many problems involved'. The Commission had of course a cursory knowledge of the age-long antagonism between these two communities, but might have been less hopeful of a solution had Mr. Farmer's book been available to underline the deplorable effect of centuries of troubled history upon the Ceylonese of today..... Needless to say the consequences have been a bitter disappointment to myself and my fellow Commissioners. While the Commission was in Ceylon, the speeches of certain Sinhalese politicians calling for the solidarity of the Sinhalese and threatening the suppression of the Tamils emphasised the need for constitutional safeguards on behalf of that and other minorities... in the light of later happenings, I now think it is a pity that the Commission did not also recommend the entrenchment in the constitution of guarantees of fundamental rights..."

The Tamil people accepted the constitution drafted by the British (Lord Soulbury) at independence, primarily because it contained a protective clause [Section 29(2)], and also because it provided recourse to the Privy Council in the event the protections afforded by this constitution were violated. The Privy Council and the British Crown were thus the guardians of this covenant. Tamils trusted and accepted that assurance.
Prof. G.L. Peiris, the Minister of Constitutional Affairs of Sri Lanka, himself, publicly acknowledged this fact, as reported in the Ceylon Daily News [March 12, 1997]. He had said,

The successive governments in Sri Lanka systematically violated Section 29 of the Constitution. The Citizenship Laws (1948 and 1949) and the Official Language Act of 1956 (among many other Acts) were express violations of the UK drafted Constitution of Ceylon.

In 1962, S. Kodeswaran, a government employee, sued the government on the grounds that the Official Language Act of 1956 violated Section 29 of the constitution. Judge O.L. de Krester upheld Kodeswaran's plea and ruled that the Official Language Act contravened Section 29. The Government appealed to the Ceylon Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court failed to consider the constitutional issue. Kodeswaran appealed to the Privy Council. In 1969, the Privy Council set aside the Supreme Court's decision and directed the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutional question. (72 New Law Reports, p.337.) Kodeswaran's case never came before the Supreme Court again. Instead, Mrs. Bandaranaike's government, which came to power in 1970, abolished appeals to the Privy Council (by Act No.44 of 1971). In 1972, Section 29 was abolished with the repeal of the Soulbury constitution and enactment of the Republican constitution. This too was an unlawful act, because the Privy Council on another matter had ruled as follows:

The United Kingdom failed to intervene to protect the rule of law when these events occurred.

Recognising the reality as demonstrated by the tragic events and attempts at negotiation since 1956, the only Tamil leadership that can effectively negotiate with the Sri Lankan government, to bring about a just and unalterable solution, based on the right to self determination, is the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The United Kingdom would fail the Tamil people, once again, if it proscribes the LTTE.

Proscription of LTTEA Letter to the UK High Commissioner in Colombo, Sri Lanka

Proscription of LTTE
A Letter to the UK High Commissioner in Colombo, Sri Lanka