Dr. Murali Vallipuranathan
The Alarming Re-emergence of Ethno-Religious Politics: A Warning Bell?
The very foundation of Sri Lanka’s independence was built upon a seed of profound inequality. The 1944 Soulbury Commission explicitly recommended that the Parliament of Ceylon should not pass any law imposing “disabilities or restrictions on any community.” Yet, the newly formed parliament immediately betrayed this golden rule.
The very first legislature, under DS Senanayake of the United National Party, ruthlessly stripped the citizenship rights of Tamils of Indian origin (1949). This act of injustice even forcibly evicted elected Tamil representatives, such as KV Nadaraja—who lost his seat after the disenfranchisement of his Indian Tamil constituents—marking the venomous first chapter of Sri Lankan politics.
The “Sinhala Only Act” of 1956 solidified the marginalization of the Tamil community, relegating them to second-class citizens. Subsequent constitutions in 1972 and 1978 entrenched a religious hierarchy by elevating Buddhism to the status of “foremost” religion, “protected” by the state, thus legally sanctioning disparity for all other faiths.
This continuous ethno-religious fanaticism, fueled by Sinhala-majority leaders, was the tinder that ignited decades of devastating civil war. The peak of this hubris was reached in 1993 when President DB Wijetunga audaciously declared that minorities must consider themselves “creepers around the big tree”—the Sinhala Buddhist majority—broadcasting the doctrine of Sinhala Buddhist supremacy to the world.
Sajith Premadasa’s Duplicitous Political Ploy
The war may have concluded militarily in 2009, but the pursuit of genuine national unity remains an elusive phantom. It is against this perilous backdrop that the recent rhetoric of Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has sent shockwaves through the Tamil-speaking community.
Having secured the support of minority groups, including the Tamil National Alliance (ITAK) and various Muslim political parties in the last presidential election, Premadasa has seemingly undergone a political chameleon act. His latest policy proposal is deeply concerning: he advocates for a full Cabinet Ministry for the Buddhist Sasana (dispensation) while suggesting that all other religions could, at best, be assigned only junior State Ministries.
This move is widely seen as a blatant attempt to exploit ethno-religious sentiments among the Sinhala majority for electoral gain. It threatens to resurrect the very framework of discriminatory policies that fueled past instability in Sri Lanka. By daring to sow the toxic seeds of Buddhist majoritarianism behind his political mask of being “for the people,” Premadasa risks triggering renewed social unrest.
Hard Questions for Tamil and Muslim Leaders!
The minority political stakeholders—specifically, Mano Ganesan, leader of the Tamil Progressive Alliance, and Rauff Hakeem, leader of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress—must undergo a severe self-reckoning. Premadasa’s policy is a stark declaration that he views Tamil-speaking people and non-Buddhists as subordinate, second-tier citizens.
The direct questions the Tamil-speaking people pose to Ganesan and Hakeem are piercing:
Do you accept Tamils and Muslims as second-class citizens in an unequal Sri Lanka? If so, what is the purpose of your political existence?
If you do not accept this, why have you remained silent against Sajith Premadasa’s demand to demote non-Buddhists? Are you willing to sacrifice the equal rights of the Tamil-speaking and Muslim communities for the sake of your political future?
Aligning with politicians who deny minority rights and threaten to exacerbate historical divisions jeopardizes the collective aspiration for a truly pluralistic and egalitarian state.
The Two Sides of Exclusion: Government and Opposition
The challenge to genuine parity is not limited to the Opposition. The National People’s Power (NPP) government, currently in power, appears to be pursuing the same ideology of exclusion, effectively treating ethnic and religious minorities as secondary citizens.
A case in point is the reported composition of the new Archaeology Advisory Committee. This body is allegedly staffed exclusively with hardline Sinhala Buddhists, with zero representation from other faiths or ethnicities. This alarming move is seen as a prelude to accelerating the colonization of disputed areas with Sinhala Buddhists and potentially distorting historical and archaeological facts.
This lack of pluralistic oversight is particularly critical given that archaeological sites in the North and East are often central to contested historical narratives. The Buddhist chronicles themselves acknowledge that sections of Sri Lanka were ruled by Naga Kings who practiced Hinduism during the visits of Lord Buddha. Therefore, the control over archaeological evidence is a sensitive issue, as it relates to claims that Hinduism may predate Buddhism in certain parts of Sri Lanka. Entrenching an ethnically homogenous committee risks weaponizing history for political purposes.
Conclusion: A Call to Action
The simultaneous approaches of both the Opposition and the current Government—one through policy rhetoric and the other through institutional exclusion—risk blocking the pathway to national parity and reconciliation. Tamil-speaking and non-Buddhist populations must reject this return to polarizing politics. Only a principled and intense political awakening can avert the grave danger of new social instability. This is the historical moment for minority leaders to courageously champion their communities’ rights and demand a truly inclusive state.
*Dr. Murali Vallipuranathan is a visiting lecturer at the Universities of Jaffna, Peradeniya, and Colombo, a Senior Specialist of the Ministry of Health, and a Council Member of the Sri Lanka Medical Association. The opinions expressed in this article are claimed by the author with social responsibility, aimed at improving peace, ethnic harmony, and moving towards an egalitarian society in Sri Lanka, and do not in any way reflect his official positions.
