forms of identifications such as class identity. When sit u a t i o n a li st s explain ethnic phenomena (Vincent 1974; Glazer and Moynihan 1974, 1975; Patterson 1975) they only look at m o b ilis a tio n as the focus of their explanation not the se n se o f peo p leh o o d which makes such mobilisations
e th n ic m o b ilis a tio n . This i s where contemporary ethnic analysis has gone wrong. Voluntary expression of ethnicity in non-mobi1i s a t i o n i s t situations in relation to immigrants (Simon 1979; Gans 1979;
Buchignani 1980; Padget 1980) and in relation to non-immigrant
situations (Bovin 1974; Nagata 1974; Pillsbury 1976) shows that ethnic mobilisation i s only one aspect of ethnicity. So ethnicity can and does e xis t without interest mobilisation, but the latter cannot e xi s t without some form of sense of 'shared past'. If a population does not have such 'sense of peoplehood' when mobilising socio-economic interest as an ethnic group they create i t . The best example of this i s in the emphasis on African heritage by Afro-Americans in mobilising 'Black e th n i c it y ' .
3. By suggesting th a t the in t e r a c t io n between ideology and s tru c tu re should be the focus I am t r y in g to address only the problems
created by excessive use o f m a t e r ia lis t and p r im o r d ia lis t explanations in ethnic a n a ly s is . I am aware th a t the debate between s tru c tu ra lis m and voluntarism is a complex issue in s o c io lo g ica l theory and my th e o re tic a l p o s itio n is la r g e ly re la te d to t h a t . But as my a tte n tio n is lim ite d to e t h n ic it y prim ord ialism and s itu a tio n a l analysis I do not address the wider issues o f the s t r u c t u r a l i s t - v o l u n t a r i s t debate. Detailed c r i t i q u e o f these issues can be found in Archer's
(1982) discussion th a t emphasises the need to fin d a balance between 's o c ie ty ' and 'human component' and in Gidden's (1979) examination o f the interdependence o f action and s tru c tu re .
4. Marx himself admits th a t ideology can regulate social action when he says th a t r e lig io n is the opium o f the masses th a t b lin d s them so th a t they cannot see th a t they are e x p lo ite d . But t h is influ ence according to him is temporary in nature because such ideologies can and need to be abolished (Marx 1963:43-44).
CHAPTER I I I
ETHNIC RELATIONS IN SRI LANKAN SOCIETY
There ar e s ev er al i m p o r t a n t reasons which make a d e t a i l e d
e xa mi n at i on o f home c o u n t r y e t h n i c r e l a t i o n s an i m p o r t a n t component o f t h e s t u d y o f i m n i g r a n t e t h n i c i t y . F i r s t , such an e x am in at i on p r o v i d e s us w i t h a basis t o e x p l a i n i m m i g r a n t e t h n i c i t y c o m p a r a t i v e l y , which i s e s s e n t i a l i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g changes which have taken p l a c e i n t he process o f i m m i g r a t i o n , s p e c i f i c a l l y i m m i g r a n t s ' exposure t o soc io- economi c
c o n d i t i o n s i n the host s o c i e t y . Th i s enables us t o see whether i mm igr ant e t h n i c i t y i s a c o n t i n u i t y o f home c o u n t r y e t h n i c s en t i m en t s as i n some cases (Lewins 1978a) o r a new e t h n i c phenomenon/new e t h n i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n which has emerged i n t h e host s o c i e t y ( Lewi ns 1978a; F i s h e r 1978).
Second, as argued i n t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r , even new e t h n i c r e v i v a l s
cannot always be e x p l a i n e d s o l e l y i n terms o f host c o u n t r y soci o-e conomi c r e l a t i o n s . In most cases l i n g e r i n g e t h n i c i t y i s i n v o l v e d , w h i c h , i n the case o f i m m i g r a n t s , i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the home c o u n t r y e t h n i c i t y , i . e . e t h n i c s u b - c u l t u r e as some s c h o l a r s p r e f e r t o c a l l i t (Lewins 1978a). I t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o under stand t h e i n f l u e n c e o f l i n g e r i n g e t h n i c
s en t i m e n t s i f we do n o t have an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the home s o c i e t y e t h n i c s i t u a t i o n o f i m m i g r a n t s . L as t but n o t l e a s t , as we s h a l l see l a t e r , t h e r e i s a form o f i n t e r a c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between i m m i g r a n t s , e s p e c i a l l y the f i r s t g e n e r a t i o n , and t he home s o c i e t y t h e y l e f t behind. So i n t h i s c h a p t e r I s h a l l examine e t h n i c r e l a t i o n s i n Sr i Lanka as a background t o what we s h a l l d i s c u s s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r s .
The d i s c u s s i o n i n t h i s c h a p t e r i s d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e m aj or s e c t i o n s . In t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n I s h a l l f oc us on t h e maj or e t h n i c d i v i s i o n s i n
o f major e t h n i c c a t e g o r i e s i n terms o f r e l i g i o n , c a s t e and r e g i o n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . The second p a r t examines t h e p r o c e s s o f e t h n i c
i d e n t i t y and boundary ma inte nanc e i n i n t e r and i n t r a e t h n i c i n t e r a c t i o n s . The t h i r d s e c t i o n w i l l foc us on t h e changes o f e t h n i c r e l a t i o n s in Sri Lanka as a r e s u l t o f c o l o n i a l r u l e . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t as t h e c o l o n i a l r u l e o f t h e c o u n t r y , e s p e c i a l l y t h e B r i t i s h p e r i o d , can be seen as t h e most i m p o r t a n t p e r i o d in t h e development o f e t h n i c r e l a t i o n s in Sri Lankan s o c i e t y . ^ F u r t h e r , i n t h i s s e c t i o n I s h a l l a l s o focus on t h e p r e s e n t p o l i t i c a l c o n f l i c t i n Sr i Lanka and t h e way p o l i t i c s i s dominated by e t h n i c c o n f l i c t s .
Et hnic D i v i s i o n s in Sri Lankan S o c i e t y
Sri Lanka i s an i s l a n d r e p u b l i c c o v e r i n g some 25,000 s q u a r e m i l e s . The c o u n t r y i s occupied by a v a r i e d m i x t u r e o f p e o pl es who a r e d i f f e r e n t from each o t h e r n ot on ly in e t h n i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n but a l s o i n language u s ag e , c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s , r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n s and c a s t e d i v i s i o n s . According to t h e Census Department o f Sri Lanka, t h e r e a r e seven
d i f f e r e n t e t h n i c communities in t h e c o u n t r y . The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e (Table 3 . 1 ) g i v e s t h e number o f pe opl e be lo ngi ng t o each community a c c o r d i n g to t h e
1981 c e n s u s .
TABLE 3. 1 : ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION OF SRI LANKA Et hnic Community P o p u l a t i o n P e r c e n t o f Tot al
(•000) P o p u l a t i o n
S i n h a l e s e 10,986 74. 0
Sri Lankan Tamils 1,872 12.6
I nd ia n Tamils 825 5.5 I n d i a n / S r i Lankan Moors 1,057 7.1 Burghers 38 0.3 Malays 43 0.3 Others 29 0.2 Total 14,850 100.0
Source : 1981 Census R e po r t, Department o f Census and S t a t i s t i c s , Colombo, Sri Lanka
In a d d itio n to the above seven o f f i c i a l ethnic communities there are a few others in c lu d in g a small community o f Chinese and a small ab o rig in a l population cal led 'Veddas'.
I t was mentioned above th a t to understand eth nic d iv is io n s »f» Sri Lankan society we need to look a t language usage, c u ltu r a l p ra c tic e s , r e lig io u s a f f i l i a t i o n s and caste d iv is io n s . Of these, language and r e lig io n are p a r t i c u l a r l y important as they are s p e c ia lly s i g n if ic a n t in understanding ethnic c o n f l i c t s in the p o l i t i c a l con text. Sinhalese and Tamils, who are the two major components in the present ethnic c o n f l i c t , speak two d i f f e r e n t languages, a f a c t o r th a t is very important in
exp laining the present communal s tru g g le (Kearney 1967, 1978). Further, r e lig io u s i d e n t i t y has a close association w ith ethnic i d e n t i t y . For example, a l l Buddhists in Sri Lanka are Sinhalese w hile a l l Hindus are Tamils. The fo llo w in g tab le (Table 3.2) shows the r e lig io u s composition o f the population o f Sri Lanka according to the 1981 census.
TABLE 3.2 : RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION OF SRI LANKA
Religion Population Percent o f Total
('000) Population Buddhists 10,292 69.3 Hindus 2,295 15.5 C h ris t i ans 1,111 7.5 Musiims 1,134 7.6 Others 15 0.1 Total 14,847 100.0
Source : 1981 Census Report, Department o f Census and S t a t i s t i c s , Colombo, Sri Lanka
As the above tab le (Table 3.2) shows, the m a jo rity o f Sri Lankans are Buddhists followed by Hindus who c o n s titu te about 17 per cent o f the population. To understand the im p lic a tio n s o f t h is we need to look
a t t h is in r e la t io n to ethnic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . As noted before, v i r t u a l l y a l l Buddhists are Sinhalese while a l l Hindus are Tamils (Fernando and Kearney 1979:12). Though there are C hristia ns among both Tamils and Sinhalese they c o n s titu te only 10 per cent o f each community. This makes Sinhalese Buddhists the c le a r numerical m a jo rity in Sri Lankan society who are in c o n f l i c t w ith mainly Hindu Tamils. The im p lic a tio n s o f th is in explaining ethnic d iv is io n s and eth nic behaviour and p a r t i c u l a r l y ethnic