February 24: Cases

Ratnavale. (2009) Sri Lanka's "Ethnic" Conflict in Carter, et. al. Regional and Ethnic Conflict. Ch. 7 pg. 159-179.

This case study examined the conflict in Sri Lanka between the Tamils and Sinhalese. Although these two groups come from similar mixed ethnic backgrounds, they see each other as two separate groups and are highly segregated in society. When Sri Lanka was under rule by England, the Tamils had greater power due to their status as a minority and therefore low level of threat. When Sri Lanka gained independence, the Sinhalese took power and quickly made sure to prevent the Tamils from having any chance at overcoming that power. The author argues that the Sinhalese had the mindset of a minority even though they were the majority in their own land. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was the main representative group of the Tamils. This group was much smaller than the Sri Lankan Army and resorted to guerrilla warfare to gain an upperhand on its enemy. The group was soon viewed as a terrorist organization and needed to fight that image in order to gain respect and monetary support. Getting rid of this image also became important when peace talks and negotiations began to be considered. A cease-fire was established through the help of Norwegian interveners. Talks between the two groups continued in an effort to resolve the conflict and find a way for the groups to live peacefully together. Religious groups aided in this process by speaking out and praying together.
I found this case study very interesting because I didn't know anything about the conflict in Sri Lanka. It is upsetting to see how British colonial policies are still affecting the world so dramatically. I think this article is important when considering ethnic conflict because it shows how much depends on groups perceiving and believing that they are different rather than just being ethnically different. I also really liked the idea presented of judging history from its own perspective. People tend to look at history and judge actions that groups made based on the present situation. In this way, they can gather support against a group by showing all of the "bad" things that it has done. Lastly, I was really impressed by the efforts of religious groups to come together and try to inspire unity in the people. That is something that doesn't seem to be very common today. Religious leaders tend to have more power than any other kind of leaders when it comes to moral action; therefore it seems as though they could be more likely to incite social change than political authorities.