How should one understand post-war Tamil politics in the North? To observers outside the Northern political arena, Tamil politicians often appear committed to defending Tamil rights and advancing the aspirations of their community. Yet, the reality is far more complex. In the 17 years since the defeat of the separatist armed struggle, Tamil politics has frequently been marked by fragmentation, inconsistencies, competing agendas, and demands that often appear detached from political realities. If post-war Tamil politics could be summarised in a single phrase, it might be: too many cooks spoil the broth.
A single issue is enough to reveal the deeper inconsistencies
There is a Tamil proverb, “Oru paanai sotrukku oru soru padham” - a single grain of rice is enough to determine whether an entire pot has been properly cooked. The proverb provides a useful lens through which to examine the contradictions and paradoxes that continue to shape post-war Tamil politics. Sometimes, a single issue is enough to reveal the deeper inconsistencies within a broader political movement.
The Government has announced plans to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, No. 48 of 1979 (as amended) (PTA) and replace it with new counter-Terrorism Legislation titled the "Protection of the State from Terrorism" Act (PSTA). The proposal has been opposed by almost every political party that identifies itself with Tamil nationalism. In a democracy, opposing legislation and advocating amendments are entirely legitimate political activities.
However, a more fundamental question arises when certain Tamil parties, particularly the Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK), simultaneously call for the repeal of the PTA while also demanding the lifting of the ban on the LTTE, an organisation that remains designated as a terrorist group in more than 30 countries. Is it politically consistent to oppose anti-Terrorism Legislation while simultaneously advocating the removal of the ban on the LTTE?
As the only Tamil party with a significant electoral base in both the Northern and Eastern Provinces, the ITAK's position warrants closer scrutiny. This contradiction is apparent.
Recently, the ITAK and the Democratic Tamil National Alliance (DTNA), a coalition of five parties, met in Jaffna to formulate their demands regarding Provincial Council (PC) Elections and to express opposition to the proposed counter-Terrorism Legislation. The ITAK's Acting General Secretary, President’s Counsel (PC) Mathiaparanan Abraham Sumanthiran has emerged as a prominent critic of the proposed Law.
The logic behind repealing anti-Terrorism legislation
At the same time, on 6 October, ITAK Parliamentarian and senior Party Leader Sivagnanam Shritharan urged the Government in Parliament to lift the ban on the LTTE. "If you are a fair Government, lift the ban on the LTTE," he declared.
This raises an important question: What is the logic behind simultaneously calling for the repeal of anti-Terrorism legislation, demanding the lifting of the LTTE ban, and advocating democratic Elections through the PC system?
Shritharan has also repeated this call in Canada. During a recent visit, he urged Canada to take the “first step” in lifting its ban on the LTTE and to encourage other countries to follow suit. The request was reportedly made on 27 October in Ottawa during a meeting with representatives of Canada's Conservative Opposition, including MPs Shuvaloy Majumdar and Costas Menegakis.
The LTTE was initially banned in Sri Lanka in 1998 following the bombing of the Temple of the Tooth in Kandy. The ban was lifted in 2002 during the ceasefire period and peace negotiations before being reimposed in January 2009.
Today, the LTTE remains proscribed as a terrorist organisation in more than 30 countries. India's ban followed the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Ratna Gandhi in 1991. In much of the Western world however, the LTTE was not immediately proscribed following Gandhi's assassination. The Government, leveraging its diplomatic capacity as a sovereign State, subsequently campaigned to have the LTTE designated as a terrorist organisation internationally.
The United States (US) designated the LTTE as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation in 1997. A major factor behind the international campaign against the LTTE was the diplomatic effort led by the late Foreign Affairs Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar PC. Even late TNA Leader Rajavarothiam Sampanthan once acknowledged that Kadirgamar played a significant role in paralysing the LTTE's international operations and networks.
Removing the proscription
For several years, despite the US designation, the LTTE continued to operate extensive fundraising and lobbying networks within Western countries. Following the 11 September attacks in 2001, the European Union (EU) strengthened its counter-terrorism mechanisms and established a list of proscribed organisations and individuals. Hamas was added to the list in 2003.
However, the collapse of the peace process and the resumption of hostilities changed international perceptions. In 2006, both Canada and the EU formally banned the LTTE. These decisions reflected a growing international conclusion that the LTTE had rejected democratic engagement in favour of armed confrontation.
Against this backdrop, sections of the Tamil diaspora have continued to campaign for the removal of these bans. Calls to lift the LTTE ban have periodically surfaced at diaspora conferences and political gatherings. One of the earliest organised efforts emerged in Tamil Nadu (TN), India, where a two-day conference commemorating those who died during the final phase of the war at Mullivaikkal in 2009 called on India to lift its ban on the LTTE and urged the EU to reconsider its designation of the organisation.
What tangible benefit would lifting the ban bring to Tamils
The conference was organised by the World Tamil Confederation and chaired by Pazha Nedumaran Krishnan Pillai Pazhaniyappan, one of the most prominent advocates of Tamil nationalism in TN. Participants also argued that a plebiscite should be conducted on the question of Tamil Eelam.
The arguments advanced at the conference reflected a broader strategy pursued by sections of the diaspora: if one country is persuaded to remove the LTTE from its list of banned organisations, similar campaigns could then be launched elsewhere. In many respects, this appears to be the same logic underlying Shritharan's recent appeal to Canada.
The Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam, which describes itself as a "Government-in-exile" body, has been actively pursuing the de-proscription of the LTTE in the United Kingdom. While legal proceedings generated procedural developments, these efforts ultimately did not result in the LTTE being removed from the UK's list of banned organisations.
This brings us back to a fundamental question: What tangible benefit would lifting the LTTE ban bring to Tamils in the Northern and Eastern Provinces? Would it improve governance, attract investment, create jobs, or strengthen political representation? As the principal Tamil political Party in the North and the East, ITAK has an obligation to answer these questions.
The issue is not whether political parties have the right to challenge legislation. They do. The real question is whether such demands advance a credible democratic agenda. The LTTE was not a movement built on democratic pluralism; it was founded on an armed struggle, centralised authority, and one-Party dominance. Calls to lift its ban therefore inevitably raise questions about political priorities. The ITAK's call to lift the ban on the LTTE also raises serious questions about its commitment to democratic politics and democratic norms.
Democracy is measured not only by participation in elections, but also by the willingness to uphold democratic principles in both word and deed.
The writer is a political analyst and the founding Director of the think tank based in Trincomalee, the Trinco Centre for Strategic Studies
------------------------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication