By Pitasanna Shanmugathas –

On the 25th anniversary of Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam‘s assassination, it is important to honor his profound impact as a global advocate for human rights and peace. Known for his pivotal role in international election monitoring, constitutional reform, and efforts to resolve Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict, Tiruchelvam’s legacy continues to inspire. His tragic death on July 29^th, 1999, a consequence of his dedication to democratic solutions, marked a significant loss to the pursuit of justice and inclusivity. This article celebrates his enduring contributions to peace and human rights.

Dr. Tiruchelvam as a Harvard Law School Visiting Professor

Henry J. Steiner, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School and founder of the Human Rights Program at Harvard, reflected on his enduring friendship with Neelan Tiruchelvam. Steiner, who established the Human Rights Program in 1984, recalls how Dr. Tiruchelvam was one of his first recommendations for a visiting professorship. “Neelan was very high on the list,” Steiner remembers, emphasizing Dr. Tiruchelvam’s unique combination of scholarly expertise and activism. At Harvard, Dr. Tiruchelvam taught a course focusing on ethnic conflict, pluralism, and the necessity to respect differences—themes that resonated throughout his life.

Dr. Tiruchelvam’s Role In International Election Monitoring

Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam participated in international election monitoring and expert missions in several countries, including Pakistan (1988), Chile (1988), Kazakhstan (1992), Ethiopia (1992) and South Africa (1993).

His involvement was particularly significant in Chile following the end of the Pinochet dictatorship. He joined a delegation to observe the 1988 plebiscite on Pinochet’s rule.

Larry Garber, a senior official with USAID and an expert in election monitoring, highlights Neelan’s role in bridging the gap between human rights and democracy. “Many of the human rights activists were skeptical of democracy or elections,” Garber notes, adding that Neelan’s presence demonstrated how elections could enforce respect for human rights. Neelan’s diligent work in Chile in challenging conditions, such as in Punta Arenas, underscored his commitment to fairness and transparency.

Kenneth Wollack, former president of the National Democratic Institute, emphasized Neelan’s significant contributions in Chile, stating, “Neelan’s experiences in Sri Lanka helped illuminate the challenges faced in Chile, reinforcing the need for a middle road in democratic transitions.”

Dr. Tiruchelvam’s Involvement in Formulating the Draft Constitution of Kazakhstan

Neelan Tiruchelvam enhanced his international reputation through his consultancy work as a constitutional scholar, notably contributing to the formulation of the draft constitution of Kazakhstan. Following Kazakhstan’s independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union, President Nazarbayev appointed a committee of progressive thinkers to work on the constitutional draft, recognizing the necessity for international expertise to guide the process. Neelan collaborated with Peter Grimmer, a renowned Professor of Comparative and Constitutional Law in Denmark, and Steve Kanter, the former Dean of Lewis & Clark Law School in the United States, forming a diverse team that brought together distinct constitutional traditions and perspectives.

Neelan’s extensive experience in Sri Lanka, particularly regarding inter-ethnic dynamics, played a crucial role in his contributions to the Kazakh constitution. He understood the complexities of a multiethnic society and advocated for mechanisms that would promote inclusivity and cooperation. Given Kazakhstan’s diverse population—comprising 40% ethnic Kazaks, 40% ethnic Russians, and 20% from various other ethnic backgrounds—Neelan emphasized the importance of fostering a constitutional culture that not only recognized but celebrated this diversity.

Steve Kanter, who worked closely with Neelan, emphasized the significant challenges encountered during the constitutional drafting process in Kazakhstan. Initially, there was a push for decentralization, which seemed logical given the country’s multiethnic composition. However, both Kanter and Neelan recognized that federalism might not be the most suitable solution for Kazakhstan’s unique context. They understood that creating federal entities could lead to the formation of ethnic enclaves, further exacerbating divisions among the various ethnic groups.

Kanter noted that the Kazakhs were concerned about the potential for ethnic segregation, where Uzbeks, Tajiks, Russians, and Kazaks might gravitate toward their own regions. This could lead to a fragmentation of society and potential conflict. Therefore, they advocated for a unitary system that would blend ethnic groups rather than create separate enclaves. As Kanter articulated, “They felt having a unitary system that blended all of the ethnic groups was important.” This vision aimed to promote unity while recognizing the diverse identities within the nation.

Despite the initial drafts reflecting too much centralized control, Kanter and Neelan pressed for mechanisms that would empower local decision-making. They believed local officials should be able to govern effectively within their communities, which led to significant changes in the ratified constitution. Their recommendations resulted in crucial provisions for minority language protection, individual rights, and a decentralization of powers. Kanter reflected on their accomplishments, stating, “[almost] all of the significant ones were adopted in substance,” underscoring the lasting impact of their advocacy.

Dr. Tiruchelvam’s Role as an Institution Builder

In 1982, Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam became an institution builder by creating the International Center for Ethnic Studies (ICES) and the Law and Society Trust (LST) in Colombo.

The Law and Society Trust was founded by Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam in 1982 as an institution focused on human rights research and advocacy. He believed that the law did not operate in isolation but had a significant impact on society, which in turn shaped the law. Recognizing that lawmaking was not a neutral process, he wanted to encourage greater public engagement in the development and understanding of laws. As the current Executive Director of the Law and Society Trust, Sakuntala Kadirgamar, noted, “[Neelan] wanted the [Law and Society Trust] to really involve citizens, to get citizens more involved in analyzing legislation, in formulating legislation.” Dr. Tiruchelvam envisioned a proactive role for citizens, aiming for Sri Lanka to be part of a broader South Asian community of legal scholars.

Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam founded the International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES) in 1982 to address Sri Lanka’s ethnic relations through interdisciplinary research and international perspectives. As former Executive Director of ICES, Radhika Coomaraswamy noted, he “believed in doing full research into how other societies have managed ethnic issues,” which led to the establishment of ICES with support from the Ford Foundation. The center’s unique strength lay in its integration of law and anthropology, fostering collaboration between lawyers and anthropologists to tackle both general policies and specific community practices.

Law Professor Vasuki Nesiah highlighted Tiruchelvam’s vision of creating a knowledge-exchange hub in Colombo, bridging political, cultural, and academic interests. ICES became one of the few institutions in Sri Lanka consistently promoting pluralism and diversity, as the current Executive Director of ICES, Mario Gomez, pointed out. Tiruchelvam’s commitment to non-violence and respect for life shaped the center’s ethos, while his support for feminist research and regional mobilization enriched its work, according to Coomaraswamy and Sri Lankan anthropologist Malathi de Alwis.

Inspired by India’s interconnected social sciences institutions, Coomaraswamy asserted that Tiruchelvam advocated for using the judiciary to achieve social and economic rights in Sri Lanka: “The use of the judiciary to achieve social and economic rights was something that Neelan truly believed in.” ICES remains a testament to his vision of fostering public dialogue, interdisciplinary research, and proactive engagement in solving ethnic relations and promoting diversity.

Dr. Tiruchelvam’s Role in Attempting to Resolve the Sri Lankan Ethnic Conflict

Since Sri Lanka’s independence from British colonial rule in 1948, successive governments have succumbed to the pressures of political rivalry, often outbidding each other in frustrating the political aspirations of the island’s minority communities. In the aftermath of several pogroms and successive discriminatory legislation impacting the Tamil minority community, a civil war—which would eventually last 25 years—broke out in 1983 between Tamil rebel groups such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sri Lankan state. The Tamil rebel groups were pursuing an armed struggle for a separate state in the North and East of Sri Lanka known as Tamil Eelam.

However, the landmark election of 1994 marked a significant turning point when Chandrika Kumaratunga emerged as a political leader with a genuine commitment to addressing the country’s long-standing ethnic issues. Her victory signaled a desire among the electorate for a political settlement to the ethnic conflict and an end to the 17-year rule of the United National Party (UNP).

In 1994, Dr. Tiruchelvam was appointed as a Member of Parliament to Sri Lanka on the National List under the Tamil political party, the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF). Due to his background as a Harvard-educated constitutional lawyer, Dr. Tiruchelvam was selected by President Kumaratunga to help formulate a set of constitutional reform proposals to address the ongoing ethnic tensions and bring a peaceful end to the civil war.

On August 3, 1995, President Kumaratunga publicly released the “Union of Regions” proposals—a set of proposals which, as Tiruchelvam asserted, “represented the boldest attempt to redress the imbalance in the relationship between the different ethnic groups through devolution of power to the regions.”

A pivotal aspect of the August 3 proposals was the attempt to move away from the concept of a unitary state, a term fraught with historical baggage for the Tamil community. The August 3 proposals sought to replace this with the notion of Sri Lanka as a “union of regions,” a concept that aimed to decentralize power and enhance devolution in a meaningful way. The proposals aimed to rectify the flaws inherent in the Thirteenth Amendment of the Sri Lankan constitution, which, despite its intentions, had failed to deliver substantial devolution due to the overpowering central government. Sri Lankan academic Rohan Edrisinha criticizes the Thirteenth Amendment, stating, “The Thirteenth Amendment gives the impression [of] devolution, but if you read the fine print, [many] of the powers that [appear to be] given with one hand are taken back by the other.” By proposing the abolition of the concurrent list and clearly delineating powers between the center and the provinces, the August 3 proposals aimed to ensure that devolved powers could not be easily retracted by the central government.

The LTTE refused to negotiate with the Kumaratunga government’s proposals, which consequently had a profound impact on Sri Lanka’s political landscape. Chandrika Kumaratunga criticized the LTTE’s position, stating, “The LTTE was not the Tamil people. The LTTE was a small group of the Tamil people, which was extremist; a massive majority of the Tamil people were democratic, [and] were not particularly interested in  Eelam, [and] definitely against the violence and terrorism of the LTTE.” Kumaratunga revealed that many Tamils, despite their opposition to the LTTE’s violence, were secretly supportive of devolution. They had urged her to push forward with the proposals, indicating that their support for the LTTE was coerced by fear of violence. She noted that if the LTTE had agreed to the proposals, “U.N.P. then would have also been forced to support it,” as they were only short of seven votes in Parliament.

The Assassination of Neelan Tiruchelvam

On July 29, 1999, in retaliation for Dr. Tiruchelvam’s participation in working with the government to formulate the constitutional reform proposals, the LTTE used a suicide bomber to kill Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam while he was in the passenger seat of his car headed to his office in Colombo.

Sri Lankan-Tamil journalist Ignacius Lokanathan recounts, “The Tamil media never gave any publicity to the devolution proposals,” while deliberately keeping the Tamil community uninformed. He describes how Neelan was vilified: “They took Neelan independently, defamed him, and vehemently wrote articles, editorials, and cartoons, portraying him as a traitor.”

Stanford Professor and Anthropologist Dr. Sharika Thiranagama, whose own mother was killed by the LTTE, explains, “The LTTE had a real… institutionalized propaganda machine.” She underscores that for the LTTE, “anybody who worked in any way with the Sri Lankan state who was Tamil was, therefore, fair game.” Neelan’s democratic proposals and alignment with the Sri Lankan government made him a prime target for the LTTE, which opposed any solution that did not involve their complete control.

Nirgunan Tiruchelvam, Neelan’s elder son, commented:  “To put it this way, the entire population of Sri Lanka, except for [LTTE leader] Prabhakaran’s immediate family, was on his hit list. This amounted to about 20 million people, with varying levels of priority. It was an extraordinarily long hit list. You could say my father and the politicians were near the top of it.”

The Void Created by the Death of Dr. Tiruchelvam

Neelan’s assassination profoundly impacted the London-based Minority Rights Group (MRG), where he had been actively involved throughout the 1990s and was tragically killed just months after his ascent to the Directorship.

Claire Thomas, the current Co-Executive Director of Minority Rights Group, elaborated on MRG’s origins, noting its mandate to “raise the voices of minorities and indigenous peoples” and its formation at the end of the colonial era, when new nation-states were emerging with borders that did not always reflect the realities on the ground. Thomas asserted that “Dr. Tiruchelvam reminded people that if you claimed rights, there was a risk of a backlash from other groups in society and that people might actually be worse off in the end. Whereas if you go through a process where you work very hard to bring the majority with you, they see that’s the just and right thing to do for everyone to be treated equally.”

Claire Thomas reflected on the impact of Neelan’s death on MRG, stating, “It was completely and utterly tragic. The loss of Dr. Tiruchelvam at that time… it would take a little bit of time for someone to get into that role and develop the track record to be able to fully bring the benefit of their vision to our strategic process… The manner of his death meant that we were all the more convinced that we needed to continue to argue for these peaceful solutions…”

Neelan was a strong proponent of the UN Declaration for the Rights of Minorities. Alan Phillips, who was director of Minority Rights Group International from 1989 to 2001, explained, “The UN Declaration was the first time there had ever been a global standard on minority rights…The key thing about that is minorities are so often ignored within the development debate. It is the majoritarian society that controls the government and the purse strings, whether it is aid or their own finances… and that whole economic plurality was a very important thing to Neelan.”

In 1996, Dr. Tiruchelvam contributed significantly to an MRG report on the Sri Lankan conflict, presenting recommendations for a peaceful resolution and constitutional reforms to the Sri Lankan parliament. Phillips emphasized the importance of these recommendations, particularly in addressing issues like devolution, ending impunity, and strengthening human rights institutions.

Sri Lankan Tamil Parliamentarian MA Sumanthiran underscored Neelan’s legacy of advocating for peaceful negotiation and constitutional settlement: “There has been so much loss and destruction primarily of the Tamil people when 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.”

President Chandrika Kumaratunga, when asked about Dr. Tiruchelvam’s legacy, responded, “His legacy is one of loudly proclaiming to the world that the majority of the Sri Lankan Tamil people are democratic. They are liberal and believe in human freedoms. Even if they felt deeply wronged by the Sri Lankan government since independence, his legacy was to convey to his people, to the entire country, and to the world that all problems could be resolved democratically through negotiations.”

Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam’s legacy is one of profound intellectual and humanitarian impact, rooted in a steadfast commitment to nonviolence, human rights, and inclusive dialogue. His contributions continue to inspire and guide efforts towards peace and justice in Sri Lanka and beyond.

The Sri Lankan civil war ended with a brutal and decisive government victory in May 2009, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 40,000 Tamil civilians during the final stages of the conflict. If the LTTE and the Sri Lankan political parties had formed a consensus and worked to implement the constitutional reform proposals which Dr. Tiruchelvam helped formulate, the war likely could have ended much sooner, potentially saving countless lives.

Most recently, Dr. Tiruchelvam’s life and career inspired the creation of a multi-part documentary series, the trailer for which has been released to coincide with the 25th anniversary of his death.