Sri Lanka

Obtaining true Independence for Sri Lanka as a nation from the British was a long struggle which began in 1915 due to a rivalry between the Sri Lankan Muslims and the Sinhalese Majority over commercial interests which led to a riot in Colombo, the administrative capital of what is then known to the world as Ceylon (Corporation, 2008). The British, in response to the riots among the Ceylonese and the Muslims, placed the sole blame of these riots on the Sinhalese and implemented strict punishments on the Sinhalese showing (Irāman̲ātan̲, 1916). As a result anti British feelings began to increase among the Sinhalese majority, and an intense interest was placed in needing to be an independent nation (Corporation, 2008). However, it was just a work in progress until the LSSP Sri Lanka Socialist movement founded in 1935 demanded that the nation be freed from the British and the administrative language of English be replaced with Sinhala and Tamil (Tambiah S. J., 1992).

However, the plan of Sri Lanka being an independent nation which addressed the needs of all ethnic groups of the nation, despite starting as a collectivist ideology soon began to deteriorate upon obtaining the long waited freedom in February 1948. This was due to the post colonial separatist mentality (LePoer, 2002). Additionally following the independence, vital questions as the citizenship concerns of Sri Lanka’s up country Indian Tamils and the National Language concerns were not addressed (Roberts, 1994). Furthermore when these questions were addressed during the S.L.F.P rule from 1956-1965 the methods used in addressing these imperative problems which gave the minorities of Sri Lanka their individual identity was slanted toward the Sinhala majority (Hennayake, 2006, pp. 76-91).

Considering the fact that an ethnic identity in a nation being a result of long preserved traditions followed by a set of people, when combined as a state with multiple ethnic identities will possibly result in a conflict of interests. Furthermore, as mentioned by Authors David Lake and Donald Rothchild, in most cases, the small minority will adopt to the Majority but when considering a substantial seize minority it becomes hard to adopt in such manner (Lake & Rothchild, 1998, p. 48). This being the case of the Sri Lankan Tamils who is a large minority in comparison to other groups, and having key administrative roles during the colonial era began to protest on the new Sri Lankan legislation as the “Sinhala Only Act” (Tambiah S.