By Rehan Fernando –

Rehan Derrick Fernando

Resolving a Long-Standing Issue: Dispelling the Dark Clouds [redefining peace and reapplying trust-building]

This article seeks to identify a solution and present it to Sri Lankan society as a pathway to meaningful change—both internally and externally. Sri Lanka has two major issues: one is an ecological crisis, while the other is a political issue. Sri Lanka faces unnecessary flooding and landslides stemming from a severe ecological crisis, much of which can be traced to political decisions and harmful practices. That’s an external problem. There also remains another internal issue. Against this backdrop, the article examines the Sinhala–Tamil language barrier from a historical perspective to propose solutions that foster understanding and encourage a balanced, forward-looking transformation. Such a shift in mindset and in the system poses no harm to any community; rather, it offers the potential for genuine, lasting peace. Without this change, however, the challenges we face will continue to drift unresolved, leaving dark clouds lingering in our collective sky.

Historical Chaos

In the 1950s, Sri Lanka faced significant challenges in establishing a unified official language. In a nation where two major communities—Sinhala and Tamil—hold equally important linguistic identities, post-independence political decisions often deepened divisions rather than bridging them. Despite gaining independence, most official affairs continued to be conducted in English. Many Tamil leaders, and even a considerable number of ordinary Tamil citizens, had a working knowledge of English, which afforded them better access to employment and educational opportunities during that period.

The Sinhalese, however, did not share the same level of access to English, which eventually contributed to a sense of national inferiority. As the government later attempted to introduce policies that elevated the Sinhala language above others, Dr NM Perera offered a remarkable warning—one that, if heeded, might have paved the way for peaceful coexistence in the country.

On 19 October 1955, Dr NM Perera, Leader of the Sama Samasamaja Party and a Member of Parliament, presented a resolution to Parliament stating: “The amendments to the (Constitutional) Ordinance passed by this House as the Representative Assembly, recognizing Sinhala and Tamil as the national official languages of Sri Lanka, should be passed immediately.”

He concluded his speech with a striking prophecy: “If the people of the North and East are forced to accept Sinhala as the only official language and Tamil as a regional language, it could lead to riots, bloodshed, and even civil war.”
(Hansard Report, October 19, 1955.)

Similar to Dr Perera’s efforts, Sir John Kotelawala—after visiting Jaffna—attempted to place Sinhala and Tamil on equal footing and to take the steps needed to build a united nation. However, dark clouds were already gathering in the South, triggering political landslides that reshaped the country’s direction. In the South, greater emphasis was placed on preserving the Buddhist–Sinhala mindset, and it was LH Meththananda who strongly opposed Kotelawala’s more inclusive stance during the language crisis. This environment created the perfect opening for SWRD Bandaranaike to chart a new political path and rise to national leadership. Under his administration, Sinhala was declared the sole official language of the state, marking the beginning of a series of problems that followed.

Too many things on the plate

In the wake of those poorly structured political decisions, Sri Lanka endured many painful experiences. On one side, educated leaders knowingly made misguided choices, pushing ordinary citizens into confusion and disorder. On the other hand, ordinary people—once living peacefully with one another—began to cultivate unnecessary tensions and mutual distrust. Amid this turmoil, the oppressors manipulated the grievances of the oppressed, turning them against each other. As a result, the oppressed ended up fighting among themselves, while the true beneficiaries—the powerful elites—remained protected, living comfortably in their wealthy homes and enjoying lives of luxury.

It was a period in Sri Lanka when far too many issues were piled onto the national plate. As a result, many “chefs” entered the kitchen, yet their interference only spoiled the soup. People began acting in ways that suited their own interests, moving in different directions without coherence. Amid this confusion, even the presence of educated leaders could not produce effective decisions. With challenges stacking up one after another, the country simply could not digest them properly—and the consequences were inevitable.

Chinese-Korean noodles, more than Sinhala-Tamil foods

In Sri Lanka, now we find Chinese and Korean noodles more than traditional Sinhala and Tamil foods. This is a tragedy. Noodles have become a popular food in Sri Lanka, especially for breakfast and dinner, but in the process, we have forgotten the healthy traditional meals that once kept us strong. We now show a growing interest in Chinese and Korean languages, and our universities offer numerous courses in these fields. Language centres teaching Chinese, Japanese, and Korean have also become common. But what about Tamil or Sinhala? One point, however, must be noted. Today, most Tamil speakers can manage Sinhala without much difficulty, but many Sinhalese still struggle to speak Tamil, having neglected this learning process for years. Even Sinhala political leaders often know very little Tamil, while most Tamil-speaking leaders can communicate in Sinhala at all public gatherings.

Amidst dark clouds, how can there be sunshine?

I have my own perspective whenever discussions arise about changing Sri Lanka’s existing structure. People may hold many ideologies and philosophies, but I would highlight just one key idea: changing the national flag. I believe this is one of the most effective solutions. The current flag sends a misleading message that fosters division and conflict. Many Sinhalese unnecessarily adopt the lion—featured on the flag, holding a sword—as a symbol of pride and power. This imagery gives the majority community a sense of courage, while Tamils become associated with tigers, and others are labelled as donkeys or various wild animals. Below are the main interpretations associated with the symbols on the national flag.

“The lion represents the Sinhalese ethnicity and symbolises bravery and strength. 

The sword signifies the sovereignty of the nation. 

The bo leaves represent Buddhism, which is the predominant religion in Sri Lanka, and the four leaves symbolise the four virtues of Buddhism: lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. 

The green and orange vertical stripes at the hoist represent the Muslim and Tamil ethnic groups, respectively, symbolising the country’s ethnic diversity and unity. 

Overall, the flag embodies the rich cultural heritage and unity of Sri Lanka.”

My focus turns to the lion, which is meant to represent Sinhalese identity, bravery, and strength. This symbol carried meaningful historical significance up until the 1940s, but its relevance in the years that followed has become more questionable. In fact, when we look at historical events after 1948, the Sinhalese as a community have not demonstrated the heroic qualities the lion is supposed to embody. Instead, what often emerged was a sense of insecurity that affected how minorities were treated and how their freedoms were protected. The Sinhalese clearly showed an inferiority complex. This mindset—what I refer to as the “lion-mask mentality”—projected an image of superiority rather than genuine courage. It contributed to cycles of violence that unfolded during the 35-year civil war. As the Sri Lankan army rallied behind the lion symbol and superfluous lion-mask, the LTTE sought a parallel emblem of strength, which eventually took the form of the tiger with tiger-mask. Thus, symbol-driven identities on both sides played a role in shaping the conflict. So, where is that bravery, strength, loving kindness, compassion, and sympathetic joy, which gives real sunshine? Instead, we still have dark clouds of confusion.

Who is the real terrorist?

This issue forms another cloud of confusion, where nationalism and fundamentalism are interpreted in many different ways. Many Sinhalese view Velupillai Prabhakaran as the sole terrorist in the country and consider the LTTE to be the most destructive movement in our history. But what, then, do we make of leaders such as Rohana Wijeweera, JR Jayewardene, R Premadasa, Chandrika Bandaranaike, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Ranil Wickremesinghe, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, or the JVP members who, at various times, engaged in political strategies that intersected with the LTTE and benefited electorally from the surrounding circumstances?

From my perspective, these leaders also played deeply problematic roles during periods of violence and instability, including SWRD Bandaranaike. Their actions and decisions contributed significantly to the tensions and conflicts that shaped the nation. So, aren’t they too terrorists?

Some critical remarks, but not colourful marks

We live in an era of a cold war, which could turn into any violent activity that can destroy this country again and again. Absence of good philosophies is one major reason because this country does not have a vision in every sector; instead, all of us just conduct project-oriented activities. Most of the sectors in the government and non-governmental organisations are responsible for such a crisis. Their project-oriented approaches either brought us sad memories or entirely misled people. Now it is time for both parties to sit and evaluate for a new beginning. However, it must not be long hours of discussions but deep reflections to work hard to recover this situation in the country. We cannot push or pull the remaining dark clouds, but we could wait until these dark clouds disappear and then begin our work in the sunshine, which means we should have a strong and solid plan for peace for trust-building. We must decide whether to welcome colourful marks and spoil everything, or to work with critical remarks which lead us toward better results.