By sheer repetition, the "Tamil homelands" have acquired a spurious legitimacy not only among foreign governments and NGOs, who will seize upon anything that fits in with their designs, but also among sections of Sri Lankans.
Academic Refutations
The homelands claim has been amply refuted by several scholars, citing historical evidence. However, the very thoroughness of the refutations demands closer study than is feasible for most foreign governments and NGOs, and citizens here and abroad who have been duped by Eelam propaganda. So the bald assertion by the Eelam lobby that there is and always has been a Tamil homeland tends to be believed. The Eelamists are masters of the big lie, repeatedly dished out in digestible form.
Even those who do have the time and inclination to analyse claims, refutations, counterclaims, and counter-refutations, may find it difficult to decide. The Eelam propaganda machine revels in this situation, where the big lie acquires the edge over the painstaking refutation. So the brainwashing continues, through the rhetoric of an army of well-heeled professionals unhampered by scruples about academic standards or truth.
Soulbury Commission
Wanted, then, is a supplementary way to expose the homelands myth, which is an important pillar in the campaign to set up Eelam. It so happens that simple evidence is available in the form of a crucial act of omission, occasionally mentioned in the debate but invariably buried in a clutter of detail. Focus on it and its significance becomes clear.
When Sri Lanka's campaign for independence was in its final stages, the British government appointed a Commission in 1944, led by Lord Soulbury, to visit Sri Lanka (then called Ceylon), in connection with the reform of the Constitution. The Soulbury Commission's terms of reference were :
"To visit Ceylon in order to examine and discuss any proposals for constitutional reform in the Island which have the object of giving effect to the Declaration of His Majesty's Government on that subject dated 26th May, 1943, and, after consultation with various interests in the Island, including minority communities, concerned with the subject of constitutional reform, to advise His Majesty's Government on all measures necessary to attain that object."
The declaration of May 1943 had referred to the British commitment to grant Ceylon "full responsible Government under the Crown in all matters of internal civil administration."
In accordance with their mandate, the Commissioners met 80 deputations of organisations and individuals covering political, ethnic, religious, professional, women's, business, administrative, regional, agricultural and workers' interests in the island. Among them were Tamil parties, politicians and eminent persons, including Mr. G. G. Ponnambalam, Mr. C. Suntheralingam, The All-Ceylon Tamil Congress, The Jaffna Association, The Ceylon Thamils Association, The Ceylon Indian Congress and The All-Ceylon Minority Tamil Maha Sabha. All the deputations were free to convey all their grievances and aspirations as forcefully as they wished.
Priceless Opportunity
Now consider the Tamil homelands claim in the context of the Soulbury Commission appointed specifically to examine proposals for constitutional reform, consult minority interests, and advise the British government. The Vadukkodai Declaration of 1976 proclaimed the existence of a Tamil nation "throughout the centuries from the dawn of history" modestly refraining from going back to the Big Bang. This Tamil nation was described as "possessing the Northern and Eastern districts." If a Tamil nation possessing the Northern and Eastern Districts had in fact been in existence from the dawn of history, the Tamil politicians and parties of 1944 would naturally have been aware of their primeval homeland. Presented with the opportunity of staking their claims before the transfer of power from Britain to Ceylon, they would surely have unveiled the alleged millennia-old Tamil nation and Tamil homelands, and sought suitable recognition for them.
No Homeland in 1944!
But surprise, surprise, the Soulbury Commission Report does not contain a single reference to a Tamil claim to a Tamil nation or a Tamil homeland! If the claim had been made, it would have overshadowed everything else in the Commission's report, involving as it would have the grave problems of separation or partition.
Instead, the Tamil representatives' main concern was about power-sharing at the centre. The All-Ceylon Tamil Congress proposed a scheme of "balanced representation" under which a) 50% of parliamentary seats would be allocated to the minorities, and 50% to all races; and b) less than half the members of the Council of Ministers (the Executive) should be appointed from any one community. There was not a word from the Tamil deputations about a Tamil nation or a Tamil homeland - issues which were more fundamental than the question of representation which they did raise.
Million- Dollar Question
So we have the big mystery. If a Tamil nation and a Tamil homeland indeed existed 'from the dawn of history' why did the Tamils refrain from even referring to them, at the best possible forum for securing their recognition?
The historians, with professional competence, have exposed the myth of Tamil homelands. ln a world of slick marketing and short attention spans, though, the persuasive lie often scores over academic excellence.
Simple Proof
But the act of omission with the Soulbury Commission is much easier for the public to grasp. And, for the Eelam lobby, hard to explain away. Why did the Tamil politicians not present the case for a Tamil nation and a Tamil homeland to the Commission?
Evidently because the creation of the myth had not yet begun, or, if it had, because they new that the bird couldn't fly.
