Illusion of recovery: Three fault lines threatening Sri Lanka’s future

Sri Lanka's political landscape since 1948 has been marred by several significant fault lines that threaten its future. While some commentators attribute the country's current impasse and ethnic conflict to the "curse of partisan politics," a more nuanced perspective focuses on the detrimental effects of Sinhala Only policies introduced by S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike after his victory in the 1956 election.

This majoritarian "Sinhala-Buddhist-dominance" politics, according to scholars such as H. L. Seneviratne, institutionalised ethnic polarisation, corruption, and set the stage for the Sri Lankan Civil War.

Tamil opinion writers often blame the "excessive" demands of the Tamil minority, which began with their rejection of the Donoughmore constitution and escalated into the Eelamist movement for a separate Tamil homeland. This sentiment culminated in the Tamil United Liberation Front's (TULF) Vaddukkodai resolution of 1976, which called for militant separatism.

The trajectory of Tamil politics was further shaped by the violent rhetoric of Tamil youth leaders like Kasi Anandan, whose calls for the elimination of perceived "traitors" led to the assassination of several moderate Tamil leaders. The ensuing bloodshed and assassinations of TULF leaders fueled a cycle of inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic violence.

Historians such as K. M. de Silva have highlighted the tendency for both Tamil and Sinhalese populations to view themselves as minorities, with Sinhalese maintaining a fear of the Tamil minority and Tamil-Nadu posing a potential threat.

However, the impact of demography and socioeconomic factors must also be considered. With Sri Lanka experiencing demographic contraction, the youth population, which is a breeding ground for social upheaval, is relatively low. Nevertheless, the significant income disparity and the presence of discontented youth populations still pose potential risks for the emergence of urban terrorist cells.

In contrast, Malaysia, which opted for Malay as the only official language, imposed strict discrimination against non-Malays in favour of Malay ethnics, and avoided a significant Marxist movement, managed to attract foreign investment and grow its economy to a level five times higher than Sri Lanka's. This stark contrast demonstrates the importance of language, politics, and economic policies in shaping a nation's trajectory.