War and Armed Resistance in Sri Lanka
On the Tamil Eelam Right to Self-Determination and Peace in the Indian Ocean
Founding of the LTTE in 1976. Image: Tamil Guardian
Introduction
Confronting the portrayal of Frantz Fanon as the prophet of violence, Mahmood Mamdani, in Good Muslim, Bad Muslim, writes:
We find in Fanon the premonition of the native turned perpetrator, of the native who kills not just to extinguish the humanity of the other but to defend his or her own, and the moral ambivalence this provokes in other human beings like us…Native violence, Fanon insisted, was the violence of yesterday’s victims, the violence of those who had cast aside their victimhood to become masters of their own lives…For Fanon, the proof of the native’s humanity consisted not in the willingness to kill settlers but in the willingness to risk his or her own life.
What does it mean for Eelam Tamils in Sri Lanka to cast aside victimhood and defend their humanity? How does this defence relate to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a group criminalised as a “terrorist organization” by the US, UK and their allies? Humanity as such does not exist as an abstract category. It depends on political structures and social conditions that bind our lives together and, as Judith Butler writes in Frames of War, “precarity is one basis of claiming equal value of life.” For Tamils in Sri Lanka, their humanity has been determined by how the state on the island has been constructed. No state emerges in a historical vacuum. The formation of the Sri Lankan state was not only shaped by colonial logics but also geo-strategic imperative of imperial powers. The British-imposed a unitary political structure and its Sinhala supremacist ideology categorised Tamils as alien to the island-state, laying the groundwork for their dehumanization — and resistance.
“The British-imposed a unitary political structure and its Sinhala supremacist ideology categorised Tamils as alien to the island-state, laying the groundwork for their dehumanization — and resistance. ”
The Tamil Eelam liberation struggle evolved from a Gandhian-type nonviolent movement, initially demanding equal rights, into an armed resistance that asserted the humanity of Tamils through their right to self-determination, nationhood, and a homeland. The shift from nonviolent demands to violent assertion was a direct response to the continuous repression by the unitary state. The LTTE’s assertion of human dignity manifested in the creation of a de facto Tamil Eelam state in the north and east of the island, dismantling the Sinhala state’s monopoly on violence. This transformation restructured asymmetrical power relationship between the Sinhalese and Tamils, creating social conditions for the self-recognition and affirmation of Tamil humanity.
A 2006 map by the UN Department of Safety and Security showing the conflict zone in Sri Lanka. Source: Research Gate
This resistance was and is not solely aimed at securing freedom for Tamils, but also democracy for the Sinhalese and peace in the Indian Ocean region. This vision contrasts with the US’s "pivot to Asia" strategy, which has militarized the region and turned it into a potential theatre of war. The genocidal climax unleashed on Eelam Tamils by the Sri Lankan state during 2007-2009 obviously had a racial intent, but the state was enabled by US geopolitical interests in reasserting control over Indian Ocean. The US and UK pressured the European Union — previously a space for facilitating political negotiations— into banning the LTTE, tilting the balance of power in favour of the Sri Lankan state. The criminalization of armed resistance legitimized the dehumanization of the Eelam Tamils, not only justifying the genocide but also entrenching the Indian Ocean as a war zone.
British Empire and the Island as a Unitary State
The island has never existed as a single political entity in a unitary form for over 2,000 years. Instead, it consisted of multiple kingdoms. Since colonial times, its geographical position — an island in close proximity to mainland India — was highly valued by imperial powers. The island’s most strategically significant feature was the natural harbour at Trincomalee on the eastern coast. The Portuguese and Dutch colonial powers maintained two separate administrative regions: one for the Tamils in the north and east, and another for the Sinhalese along the southern coastal areas. These regions, while distinct, shared overlapping territories, identities, and histories, and even experienced periods of shared sovereignty. However, in 1833, the British colonial administration amalgamated them into a single unitary political structure to maximize the island’s strategic potential in the Indian Ocean. The primary goal was to detach the island from the rest of the Indian subcontinent, which served as the “Jewel of the Crown” during the Industrial Revolution.
The Sinhalese, though a numerical majority on the island, were a minority within the broader Indian subcontinent. In contrast, the Tamils, while a minority on the island, were culturally and geographically linked to Tamil Nadu in South India, forming a regional majority. The Tamils identified the north and east of the island as their homeland, while the Sinhalese viewed the south as their own. The British, through archaeological, anthropological, and historiographical practices, portrayed the Tamils as foreign invaders and racially inferior and the Sinhalese as the island’s natives, racially superior in ways akin to the British. This ideological foundation laid the groundwork for the unitary state structure established in 1833: a racialized political structure that incorporated the Sinhalese into the geo-strategic framework of the British Raj and alienated and dehumanized the Tamils.
The Tamil struggle to reclaim their humanity did not begin with an armed demand for a separate state. During the colonial period, in the early 20th century, the Sinhala political elite pursued dominion status, while the Tamils — led by the Jaffna Youth Congress (JYC) (1925–1933) — advocated for autonomy for the entire island, inspired by the Indian independence movement. The Sinhala leadership accepted the reforms proposed by the Donoughmore Commission (1927), which introduced universal franchise but stopped short of granting full independence. In contrast, the JYC rejected these reforms and boycotted the elections, reiterating their demand for complete autonomy. The 1931 elections, held under the new framework, legitimized a Sinhala-centric state as the will of the numerical majority, giving the unitary political structure a democratic façade. This supremacist ideology gradually permeated Sinhalese intermediary social classes, whose livelihoods were deeply tied to the colonial economy.
As India gained Independence in 1947, the island was given formal Independence in 1948. However, the colonial-era geostrategic state structure and its racialized ideology remained intact, even as the island was rebranded as an “independent” nation alongside other newly decolonized countries. One of the first actions of the new government was the passage of the Ceylon Citizenship Act of 1948, which denied citizenship to the Hill Country Tamils, the labour force behind the island’s plantation economy, whose revenue significantly contributed to the building of the country’s welfare state. The Act also drastically reduced Tamil representation in the State Assembly.
The two dominant political parties — the United National Party (UNP) and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) — competed with one another to protect racial and religious supremacy and the unitary political structure. In response, the Tamils, led by the Federal Party, campaigned for a federal constitution that would guarantee linguistic autonomy — though not full political autonomy — for Tamil-majority regions. Their vision of Tamil humanity was embedded within a federal system, as an alternative to the oppressive unitary structure.
In 1956, the SLFP government declared Sinhala the sole official language of the island, further alienating the Tamil population. Tamils organized nonviolent protests modelled on Gandhi’s satyagraha, but these peaceful efforts were met with brutal violence. Sinhala nationalist mobs, operating with total impunity, attacked Tamil demonstrators in what became the first major pogrom against the Tamils. From this point onward, a pattern emerged: each time Tamils protested non-violently against discriminatory policies or renewed their demands, they were met with gang-led pogroms that resulted in the killing of thousands, as well as severe police and military repression.
In 1958, anti-Tamil pogroms erupted when the government signaled its intention to grant limited language rights to the Tamils. The Sri Lankan Army was deployed to the north and east in 1961 to suppress satyagraha protests organized by Tamils opposing the state’s language policy. Further repression followed in 1971 when Tamils protested government policies that reduced the number of Tamil youth entering higher education. Similar violence unfolded in response to protests against the 1972 Republican Constitution, which officially declared the state unitary, giving Buddhism the “foremost place.” These educational and constitutional reforms scapegoated the Tamils, in an attempt to conceal the fallout from the 1971 Janatha Vimukti Peramuna (JVP) insurrection, which was brutally crushed by the police and military. The uprising, led by rural and urban marginalized Sinhala middle classes demanding social justice, resulted in the massacre of over 20,000 young men and women. While the state denied equal rights to the Tamils and reinforced Sinhala supremacy, it also wielded lethal repression against those within the Sinhala community who challenged the status quo.
Tamil protestors in Colombo, 1956, being attacked by a Sinhala mob led by Sri Lankan lawmakers. Image: Tamil Guardian
“It was in this crucial historical juncture of the mid-1970s to early 1980s that armed resistance evolved, not merely as a counterforce to state violence but also as a project of state-building.”
Every organized demand by Tamils for equal rights was met with violent suppression, deepening their dehumanization. This continuous oppression laid the foundation for the shift from demands for equal rights to demands for an independent state. In 1977, all Tamil political parties unanimously declared the Vaddukoddai Resolution, which asserted self-determination, nationhood, and a homeland. The response was another wave of anti-Tamil pogroms, with massacres in 1978, 1981, and most brutally in 1983, killing thousands of Tamils. In the aftermath, the UNP government amended the constitution to ban any party advocating separation, thereby closing off parliamentary avenues for Tamil political demands. It was in this crucial historical juncture of the mid-1970s to early 1980s that armed resistance evolved, not merely as a counterforce to state violence but also as a project of state-building. The LTTE emerged as the most formidable force in constructing the state of Tamil Eelam.
The US’s Pivot Towards Asia, Armed Resistance and Peace
It was evident that the LTTE’s counter-violence was not aimed at annihilating the other, but rather at regaining and asserting the humanity of the victims. The LTTE reinvested its military achievements into calls for political negotiations based on parity of esteem with the Sri Lankan government. By 2002, the LTTE had achieved a balance of military power with the Sri Lankan state, despite the latter's long-standing military superiority, bolstered by US and UK support (both of whom banned the LTTE as a terrorist organization in the early 2000s).
During most of the Cold War, US strategic influence over Sri Lanka had been contained to some extent as India, the island’s key ally, leaned towards Moscow. However, after 1977, the US intensified its rapport with Sri Lanka, raising security concerns for India. In response, India briefly backed the Tamil resistance, only to pivot towards the Washington axis by the late Cold War. In 1987, India sent troops to the Tamil regions through an accord with the Sri Lankan government.
This period also saw the second JVP insurrection, demanding the withdrawal of Indian troops and social justice. From 1987 to 1989, the Sri Lankan government unleashed a brutal crackdown, massacring over 60,000 people. The JVP, though fighting the government, continued to uphold the unitary state structure and Sinhala supremacist ideology, whereas the LTTE fought for the dismantling of the unitary state. A joint struggle might have been possible if the JVP had abandoned its allegiance to the unitary state in the face of state terrorism backed by the USA, UK, and India, which both the LTTE and JVP experienced. However, the JVP was militarily crushed, while the LTTE intensified its resistance against the Indian troops.
A fighter in the LTTE. Image: Tamilnation.org
“The LTTE utilised its political achievements in the north and east to initiate socially transformative changes within Tamil society itself, pushing for gender equality and abolishing the caste system.”
The LTTE’s confrontation with Indian forces took a radical shift as it began to mobilize the most marginalized sectors of society, particularly women, to advance socialist ideals of justice, equality, and freedom. This strategy gained immense popular support. In other words, the LTTE utilised its political achievements in the north and east to initiate socially transformative changes within Tamil society itself, pushing for gender equality and abolishing the caste system. The LTTE’s assertion of humanity was not only political but social. The 2002-2006 peace process, based on parity of esteem between both parties, emerged from these political and social conditions. It not only affirmed the humanity of the Tamils but also created democratic space within Sinhala society to question the colonially carved state structure and racially supremacist ideologies that had long scapegoated Tamils for the injustices within Sinhala society.
Although the Cold War’s bi-polar world order ended, clear divisions emerged between EU-led countries and the USA/UK over the invasion of Iraq in 2003. A similar division was visible during the Sri Lankan peace process. The EU, as a global economic powerhouse, advocated for a negotiated political settlement, while the world’s dominant military powers — the US and UK — upheld a military solution, threatening the LTTE to abandon its armed resistance and its demand for a separate state. Dismantling the unitary structure of the Sri Lankan state, which had been designed to maintain Sinhalese control over the entire island, threatened the geo-strategic military value of Sri Lanka for US-led powers in the Indian Ocean. The island’s strategic position was key to projecting military power against China and countries in the Middle East and East Asia. Above all, the EU’s liberal approach, focused on boosting economic interests through trade and investments, conflicted with the US's war-based economic strategy.
In 2006, under heavy pressure from the US and UK, the EU banned the LTTE, giving the Sri Lankan state a decisive moral, legal, and political advantage to pursue a “final solution” against the LTTE. The JVP fully backed the war against the Tamils, with its leadership even urging the US to go beyond rhetoric and purse a “War on Terror” against the LTTE! The final phase of the war resulted in the massacre of 70,000 Tamils (according to UN reports) and the military dismantling of the Tamil Eelam state. At one point, nearly half a million people were herded into a coastal strip of just 1.5 square km and attacked from the sea, air, and land, eerily resembling the ongoing siege in Gaza. Some activists have even referred to the ongoing genocide in Gaza as the “Sri Lankan solution,” noting the backing of the same global powers in both cases.
“The LTTE had, through its armed resistance and the building of the Tamil Eelam state, disrupted the historical process of genocide.”
The Peoples’ Tribunal on Sri Lanka, convened by the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT) in three sessions have delivered two key verdicts: the Sri Lankan state and its security forces are guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and the US and UK are culpable in these crimes. This culpability is assigned on the basis of the EU’s ban on the LTTE, which tipped the balance of power in favour of the Sri Lankan state. In other words, without this international criminalization, the climax of the genocide would not have occurred. The LTTE had, through its armed resistance and the building of the Tamil Eelam state, disrupted the historical process of genocide.
LTTE Women Guerrillas pose in front of an Indian Army tank that they captured during the Indo-LTTE confrontation of 1987. Image: Sangam.org
Dehumanization of a people is not abstract — it is a concrete and ongoing process, not a completed project. The Bremen Tribunal defined genocide as a sociopolitical process with distinct stages, levels, and dimensions: it begins, escalates, reaches a climax, and imposes the oppressor's identity on the oppressed people and their land. Following the final massacre, the dehumanization of Tamils has continued through land grabs, demographic changes, Sinhalization and Buddhicization of Tamil homelands, prohibitions on the memorialization of freedom fighters and civilians killed, destruction of thousands of LTTE cemeteries, and extensive militarization of the region.
With the unitary state fully consolidated, the US has expanded military cooperation with Sri Lankan security forces, conducting joint training exercises in the Trincomalee harbor and other areas of the island. With the military defeat of the LTTE, the Indian Ocean has been drawn entirely into the US’s strategic orbit, with India’s unconditional support. Sri Lanka has even deployed a naval ship to the Arabian Sea to support Western naval fleets against the Houthi resistance fighting in solidarity with the Palestinian people. The dehumanization of Tamils is part of the same geopolitical process that dehumanizes Palestinians, Yemenis, Lebanese, Kurds, Kashmiris, and other oppressed nations.
Conclusion
The war on Gaza has been described as the most reported genocide in history, whereas the genocide against the Tamils was called a “war without witnesses.” However, every major global power and the centres of international governance knew exactly what was unfolding in Tamil Eelam. Wikileaks revealed that the US ambassador to Sri Lanka had shown satellite images of the devastation in Tamil areas to the Sri Lankan president, to which the latter reportedly responded, “You know better than us.”
“The sovereignty of Sri Lanka — at the core of Tamil dehumanization — was upheld in much the same way that Israel’s right to self-defence is accepted by the majority of nations, legitimizing the criminalization of Tamil armed resistance.”
In the case of Palestine, there has been a global outcry, reflecting divergent political positions among countries. There was no such division regarding Tamil Eelam. Global powers that often disagree on other geopolitical matters unanimously backed the Sri Lankan state for different strategic reasons. The sovereignty of Sri Lanka — at the core of Tamil dehumanization — was upheld in much the same way that Israel’s right to self-defence is accepted by the majority of nations, legitimizing the criminalization of Tamil armed resistance.
Women fighters of the LTTE. Image: VOGUE
As evidence of large-scale atrocities gradually emerged following the final massacre in May 2009 and the demand for justice gained momentum, the US sponsored a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) addressing issues of accountability in Sri Lanka. This resolution has been slightly revised and adopted multiple times since. It literally recognized the sovereignty of the Sri Lankan state while framing the violations of the collective rights of Tamils as mere individual rights violations. On one hand, this gives a false promise to Tamils, and on the other, it portrays China — having expanded its sphere of influence in Asia and beyond — as the main global perpetrator of human rights as it supports countries like Sri Lanka. The China-led bloc often accuses the US of intervening in Sri Lanka through UNHRC resolutions, creating a false polarization both locally and globally. The JVP, which has won the presidential elections, adheres to this false dichotomy deeply. Yes, the UNHRC resolution constitutes an intervention, but not against the Sri Lankan state or its unitary structure but rather against the Tamil national liberation movement, particularly its armed resistance led by the LTTE.
The gestures made by the US, UK, and Canada to label human rights violations as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide only deepen the false polarization surrounding the issue. Under immense social, political, and psychological pressure, Tamil diasporic communities have turned to these powers in their search for justice. However, there is no recognition whatsoever amongst these imperialist powers that the logical outcome of the criminalization of the LTTE was genocide. The LTTE's armed resistance was crucial in containing and stopping the social processes of genocide, achieving a balance of power with the Sri Lankan state in 2002.
In 2009 more than 30,000 Tamil supporters gathered on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada to urge the Canadian government to intervene and stop the genocide. Image: Sean Kilpatrick / Canadian Press
Dozens of Tamil activists in Europe who raised funds for the LTTE during the final phase of the war have faced criminalization by European courts, particularly in Germany — a country that once ardently supported the 2002 peace process — following the EU's ban on the LTTE in 2007. Many activists, due to political pressure and duress, admitted to committing crimes. However, two activists maintained their innocence, stating in the verdict of the final session of the Peoples’ Tribunal on Sri Lanka:
We are not remorseful for supporting the LTTE nor do we confess to any guilt. We will not plead for mitigation from a court of a country which, as part of the EU, had destroyed the peace process by banning the LTTE. In fact, justice will only be done when the German and European court systems recognize that the EU’s shameful repudiation of their initial support for the peace process — under coercive pressure from the US and the UK — is the real crime: ‘the crime against peace.’
The Tamil Eelam liberation movement is not solely for the self-determination of the Tamil people on the island, but also about peace in the Indian ocean and the world. Affirming the humanity of the victims is not only a fundamental human right but also a peace project — peace with justice. For Eelam Tamils, resistance means casting aside victimhood and realizing their authorship of history.
Dr. Jude Lal Fernando is Associate Professor and Coordinator of M.Phil Programme in Contextual Theologies and Interfaith Relations at the Irish School of Ecumenics, School of Religion, Theology, and Peace Studies, Trinity College Dublin. He is the Director of Trinity Centre for Post-Conflict Justice and brings praxis-based experience to the academic context in the fields of liberation theology, interreligious studies, and international peace studies.