Of course no two ethnic conflicts are the same.Originally Posted by FTA69
But, almost certainly, the Tamil/Sinhalese dispute is the closest we are ever likely to find to the one between Unionists and Nationalists, a far more apt analogy than the frankly silly comparisons usually made with Apartheid South Africa.
There are two types of Tamils in Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan and Indian, though of course both originally came from the sub-continent. The Sri-Lankan Tamils outnumber the Indian Tamils by 2 to 1. Indian Tamils came to work in plantations in the present century, and all have close family ties with India.Also, the Tamils in Tamil-Eelam have no affinity with India (described by some here as a "mainland") while Unionists have an attachment to Britain.
In the civil war the Sri Lankan Tamils were (unsurprisingly) supported by their fellow Tamils in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, (in much the same way that some Scots support Ulster loyalism), and training and financial support for the Tigers was provided in India.
In 1987, when Jaffna was beseiged, the Indian government airlifted supplies to the city.
Also, in the same year, India established a peace-keeping force in the Tamil areas of North-East Sri-Lanka.
There would appear to be some similarities in the role of India in Sri Lanka, and that of Britain in Ireland.
Of course it is a complex conflict. Given the number of ethnic and religious groups in Sri Lanka, it is far more complex than Ireland. That's why it strikes me as silly to characterize it in a monochrome manner as you would appear to do. (I'm not cheering on the Sinhalese, I'm neutral).It is a complex conflict and sloppy analogies with Ireland serve nobody.
And I don't believe my analogies to be at all 'sloppy'. In fact I believe my approach to have been more balanced than your one-sided sloganeering.



LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote