On the chances of having a Tamil President
I wish to make some comments relating to a letter titled “The day we can all call ourselves Sri Lankan has yet to come” (Sunday Times, June 17, 2012).
This letter, sent by Professor J. Jinadasa of Massachussetts, USA, was a response to a letter by Mr. Cecil Dharmasena, which in turn was a reply to an earlier letter by Professor JJ, titled “Yes, we can call ourselves Sri Lankans”, which appeared on June 10.
Mr. Dharmasena’s June 10 letter was a response to another letter by Professor JJ, titled “Can we call ourselves Sri Lankan?”, published the week before, on June 3, 2012. The June 3 letter was the first in a series of letters on the theme of Sri Lankan identity sent in by Professor Jinadasa and Mr. Cecil Dharmasena.
My comments apply only to Professor Jinadasa’s letter which was published on June 10. Let me say that Professor Jinadasa’s response was well-informed and moderate, not abrasive, as some replies can be.
Professor Jinadasa says that in order for all of us to consider ourselves “Sri Lankan”, we should be able to produce a Tamil or Muslim President or Prime Minister. He referred to what happened in the US, where a Black man became President. The professor said that all US citizens, whatever their colour, “are all Americans.” I would like to make a few points: 1. President Barack Obama became President purely through that country’s Electoral College system of voting. Like all American Presidents, Obama was elected NOT by popular vote, the “one man/womanone vote” system that applies here in Sri Lanka. If the latter system applied in the US, it is not likely that a Black man would be elected President for some years to come. It would certainly not have happened in 2008, the year Obama became President.
2. I suspect that President Obama’s success was due partly to his being half-white.
3. After how many years did “Black” success come to the US? Professor Jinadasa’s claim that citizens of whatever colour in the US “are all Americans” appears to imply that this perception is inherent in the American psyche. Is that really the case?
For how long did the Blacks of America have to fight (and they fought very hard) for it to sink into the American psyche that all US citizens, whatever their colour, were “all Americans”? How many thousands of these “all American” US citizens used violence on other “all American” US citizens of a certain colour? Many commentators on this year’s US Presidential election are pondering whether Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormon Christian background would go against him.
If Professor Jinadasa’s thesis that all Americans, whatever their colour, have always been ethnically unbiased and have always treated Blacks as equals, then we need some clarification regarding past discriminations. Perhaps the Professor is referring only to the present generation of Americans. If that is the case, then we have to assume that it has taken the American people some 250 years to acquire their angelic “We are all Americans” attitude.
4. Professor Jinadasa claims that “we Sri Lankan citizens are not ready to accept the American notion that all citizens of whatever colour ‘are all Americans’ ”, suggesting that Sri Lankans are still not ready to accept that all citizens born in Sri Lanka or born to Sri Lankan parents are Sri Lankan. On what evidence does he base this assumption?
On the subject of Presidential possibilities, the chances of a Tamil becoming PM are certainly not unlikely. There was the possibility of the late Mr. Lakshman Kadirgamar being appointed PM. The idea was shelved because of opposition, some of it on ethnic grounds, some for political reasons. But it is not beyond the possible in the future. Tamils and Muslims have held very high posts, including those of Chief Justice, Governor General, Attorney-General, and so on.
“PROLANKA”